of her type and class were.  A model of a ship [3 masts] of the may-Flower type, and called in the Society’s catalogue “A Model of the may Flower, after De Bry,” but itself labelled “Model of one of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Ships,” is (mistakenly) exhibited by the Pilgrim Society at Plymouth.  It is by no means to be taken as a correct representation of the Pilgrim bark.  Few of the putative pictures of the may-Flower herself are at all satisfactory,—­apart from the environment or relation in which she is usually depicted,—­whether considered from an historical, a nautical, or an artistic point of view.  The only one of these found by the author which has commanded (general, if qualified) approval is that entitled “The may-Flower at Sea,” a reproduction of which, by permission, is the frontispiece of this volume.  It is from an engraving by the master hand of W. J. Linton, from a drawing by Granville Perkins, and appeared in the “New England Magazine” for April, 1898, as it has elsewhere.  Its comparative fidelity to fact, and its spirited treatment, alike commend it to those familiar with the subject, as par excellence the modern artistic picture of the may-Flower, although somewhat fanciful, and its rig, as Captain Collies observes, “is that of a ship a century later than the may-Flower; a square topsail on the mizzen,” he notes, “being unknown in the early part of the seventeenth century, and a jib on a ship equally rare.”  Halsall’s picture of “The Arrival of the may-Flower in Plymouth Harbor,” owned by the Pilgrim Society, of Plymouth, and hung in the Society’s Hall, while presenting several historical inaccuracies, undoubtedly more correctly portrays the ship herself, in model, rig, etc., than do most of the well-known paintings which represent her.  It is much to be regretted that the artist, in woeful ignorance, or disregard, of the recorded fact that the ship was not troubled with either ice or snow on her entrance (at her successful second attempt) to Plymouth harbor, should have covered and environed her with both.

Answering, as the may-Flower doubtless did, to her type, she was certainly of rather “blocky,” though not unshapely, build, with high poop and forecastle, broad of beam, short in the waist, low “between decks,” and modelled far more upon the lines of the great nautical prototype, the water-fowl, than the requirements of speed have permitted in the carrying trade of more recent years.  That she was of the “square rig” of her time—­when apparently no use was made of the “fore-and-aft” sails which have so wholly banished the former from all vessels of her size—­goes without saying.  She was too large for the lateen rig, so prevalent in the Mediterranean, except upon her mizzenmast, where it was no doubt employed.