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. The chief differences which appear in the several "counterfeit presentments" of the historic ship are in the number of her masts and the height of her poop and her forecastle. A few make her a brig or "snow" of the oldest pattern, while others depict her as a full-rigged ship, sometimes having the auxiliary rig of a small "jigger" or "dandy- mast," with square or lateen sail, on peak of stern, or on the bow sprit, or both, though usually her mizzenmast is set well aft upon the poop. There is no reason for thinking that the former of these auxiliaries existed upon the MAY-FLOWER, though quite possible. Her 180 tons measurement indicates, by the general rule of the nautical construction of that period, a length of from 90 to 100 feet, "from taffrail to knighthead," with about 24 feet beam, and with such a hull as this, three masts would be far more likely than two. The fact that she is always called a "ship"--to which name, as indicating a class, three masts technically attach--is also somewhat significant, though the term is often generically used. Mrs. Jane G. Austin calls the MAY-FLOWER a "brig," but there does not appear anywhere any warrant for so doing.