Let us turn to Shakspere. My counting here has not been as abundant as I could wish, but I think the results are practically correct for the plays. The selections are Richard III., first and second scenes, and “Love’s Labor Lost,” first and second acts. The proportion is one relative to each ninety-three words; and of these relatives _that_ appears a little more frequently than three times in seven. Shakspere is, therefore, in this use of _that_ almost exactly like the New Testament; while, like the Psalms, he is modern in his parsimonious use of relatives. Readers with more leisure than myself may find interesting employment in examining Addison and Samuel Johnson. In an idle hour I fell upon a copy of Burton’s “Anatomy of Melancholy,” and found more relatives and a larger proportion of _thats_ than in the New Testament. In Samuel Johnson there are probably fewer relatives; his stately Latinity avoided these mean little hinges of clauses. Since writing the last sentences I have examined the first act of Shakspere’s “Hamlet,” and I find a smaller proportion of relatives than I have found in any work except modern poetry. I find but forty-eight relatives in the whole act, and just half are _thats_. Another thing to note is that this act contains a large proportion of flat constructions. A further examination shows that the Plays differ much in the management of connective apparatus for clauses. The elevated tone and strong emotion of “Hamlet” account for infrequent use of the lifeless relative forms.