In 1798 the poet of the evening was Lamb's 'G. D.,' who, however, hardly played the game, for by employing blank verse he deprived the diners of that hitherto punctual realisation of expectation which alone makes post-prandial poetry tolerable. In 1799, a glee for four voices was prepared by Mr Busby. In 1801 Isaac Disraeli, whose illustrious son was to take the chair on three separate occasions at the Fund's dinners, brought his address to a close with the couplet:

'Long, long endure, by generous spirits graced,
This Festival of Charity and Taste!'

The financial report at the end of the volume showed that by Oct. 15, 1801, the Fund had expended 22401. 5s. 4d. in relief and expenses; that it owned 14397. 15s. Od. in three per cent. consolidated bank annuities, and had a balance in hand of 2181. 14s. 2d. The growth of its usefulness had been steady. In 1790, its first year, as we have seen, it relieved one case; in 1791, it dealt with five cases and disbursed in charity 637.; in 1792 there were twelve cases, costing 1067. 1s. Od. During its first twelve years it gave away 1680l. 8s. Od. among one hundred and five persons, including a son of William Julius Mickle (1735-1788), author of 'Cumnor Hall' and translator of the Lusiad,' and the widow and children of Robert Burns.

And here it should be said that the secret of the recipients of the Fund's bounty is a very carefully guarded one, and, since the publication in 1802 of the names already mentioned, has always been so. There was, however, one exception, and we believe one only. The Rev. Dr Russell, Treasurer of the Fund, speaking at the annual dinner in 1846, said:

'I cannot forget the first time I met this Society in this room. In the place where I now stand was Mr Canning, and opposite to me was Viscount Chateaubriand, who was then the Ambassador from France to this country. In the course of the evening, Chateaubriand got up and said that he himself had received benefit from this Society; that when he first came over to this country he came as a poor exile, and in his utmost need the Society helped him and gave him most acceptable relief. If Chateaubriand; with a magnanimity

which is above all praise, had not told it, this circumstance would have been still a secret; but, when he sat there, as the Ambassador from the King of France, he mentioned the benefit he had derived from this Society, and in the presence of him who died Prime Minister of England, publicly declared his thanks to the Literary Fund. I said that our Society was a bond that held the nations of the world together.'

The concluding pages of Claims of Literature' are given to a list of donations and subscriptions. Among the subscribers is printed the name of R. B. Sheridan, Esq., but with no figure to it. These words have been added by a subsequent Treasurer in the Fund's own copy of the work: No entry in cash book of any payment.'

The Fund to-day has no other habitation than two rooms in a large building consisting of offices; but for some time, beginning with 1805, it possessed a houseNo. 36, Gerrard Street, Soho, next door to that formerly occupied by Burke. With this house began the very intimate interest in the Fund which was displayed by the then Prince of Wales, who not only made over 2321. a year from the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall for the maintenance of the headquarters, but cared for the Fund to such purpose that when, as George IV, he died, he had enriched it to the extent of 5455l. Os. Od. Let this not be forgotten!

It was at 36, Gerrard Street, that Williams, by a charming symmetrical dispensation, spent, as an honoured guest of his own Fund, the declining years of his life. His health was now seriously impaired; and, as he had never laid up any worldly gear, he was badly in need of such support. But, as the reader will feel assured, he was not willing to be merely an inmate, but had the felicity of watching his dream come more and more true, as he sat daily in the drawing-room with a marble bust of Mr Newton, an eminent benefactor of the Society, on one side of him, and one of himself in the opposite corner.' Here he received visits from the needy and inquired into the merits of each case. We can imagine him, in spite of bodily infirmities, happy at last. Mr Newton, by the way, who claimed to be a direct descendant of Sir Isaac, was so much the friend of the Fund that he bequeathed to it in 1806 an estate in Whitechapel,

which brings in about 300l. a year, and also the sum of 81677. 15s. Od. Both busts are preserved in the Council room of the Fund; that of Williams is by Westmacott, a testimony of respect to the Fund.'

The house, it may be said here, was given up in 1818, and thereafter the Fund was administered only in offices; but when, about 1857, Dickens, Dilke of 'The Athenæum,' and John Forster entered upon a campaign against what they held to be certain breaches of trust on the part of the administrators of the Fund (the principal result of their efforts being the extension of benefits to include contributors to periodical literature, who had previously been debarred), they laid great emphasis on the importance of reviving the idea of headquarters, where a welcome would be given to the young necessitous author from the country, arriving in London, friendless, with his book in his hand.

Williams lived on in the Gerrard Street house, attended by his niece, until June 29, 1816, when he died peacefully and was buried in the churchyard of St Anne's close by. Inscribed either on his tombstone or on a tablet were these words:

'DAVID WILLIAMS, Esq.,
Aged 78 years.

Founder of the Literary Fund.'*

He could not have a much better epitaph. But, should amplification be needed, the following summary, by a personal friend, might be adopted :—

'The distinguishing traits of Mr Williams' character were a boundless philanthropy and disinterestedness; studious of every acquisition that forms the taste, but applying the strength of his genius to the arts of government and education, as objects of highest importance to the welfare of nations and the happiness of individuals. In his dress, elegantly plain; in domestic life, attentive to the niceties of decorum; in public, politely ceremonious; in all his manners, dignified and distinguished; in conversation, animated; in his person, tall and agreeable, having a commanding look softened with affability.'

At the present time no trace of the tomb or the tablet remains; hence the decision of the Committee of the Fund to set up a new record.

Such was the founder of the Royal Literary Fund, which, however, did not take on regality until 1845, when, through the interest shown in its activities by the Prince Consort, Queen Victoria conferred that distinction upon it. We have seen how modest were its first benefactions; down to the close of 1918, at the end of one hundred and twenty-eight years of usefulness, it had distributed a total sum of 184,402l., in the assistance of 5359 cases. That alone, apart from the commendation which the Fund has won from a long series of distinguished chairmen of the annual dinners at which its revenue is mainly provided, should convince even the most sceptical that David Williams' beneficent obstinacy had for its goal a most admirable institution. In his day the unfortunate man of letters who lacked a private patron was utterly destitute. To-day, when patrons have gone out of fashion, the Royal Literary Fund has become his first friend. It is true that the Civil List and the Royal Bounty often take note of literary claims, and the Authors' Society recently set apart some of its revenue for short-period allowances to writers whom the War impoverished. But the Royal Literary Fund is the established foster-mother of literature in distress; and its efforts in that capacity should be more widely recognised than they are. The study of the list of subscriptions and donations to this tactful, vigilant and highly organised distributor of help when most needed gives, too, much food for thought. It is well enough that the Committee should erect a memorial to their founder as a visible record of his sagacious altruism; but the finest form of commemoration of his centenary and his zeal would be contributions from all classes (successful authors and publishers not excluded) to the Royal Literary Fund's

resources.

E. V. LUCAS

Art. 2.-ANCESTOR WORSHIP AND THE CHINESE

DRAMA.

1. The Sacred Books of China: The Texts of Confucianism. Translated by James Legge. Part 1. The Shu King, the Religious Portions of the Shih King, the Hsiao King. (Sacred Books of the East, vol. III.) Clarendon Press, 1879.

2. The I-Li, or Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial. Translated from the Chinese with an Introduction, notes and plans, by John Steele. Probsthain, 1917.

3. The Sacred Books of China. Parts III and IV. The Li-Ki. Translated by James Legge. (Sacred Books of the East, vols. XXVII and XXVIII.) Clarendon Press, 1885. It has elsewhere* been indicated as probable that the Chinese serious drama-historical and tragic-like those of Hindustan, Burma, Japan and Greece, originated in the worship of the dead, a doctrine propounded in this Review over ten years ago. But, as no competent Chinese scholar has fully investigated this question, or produced a complete proof of what has been until now but a high probability, the present writer determined to investigate the question in the only way possible for one ignorant of Chinese-by searching through the great Chinese Classics made available for the English reader by the labours of Dr Legge and, in the case of the I-Li, by those of Dr John Steele.

The Shu King,' the Book of Historical Documents,' and the 'Shih King,' the Book of Poetry,' must be the starting-point for any such inquiry. The forty-eight documents contained in the former range over the period between the accession of Yao, the traditional date of which is placed at B.C. 2247 (a date not without some support from astronomical criteria) and B.C. 627. The work, as we have it, was edited by Confucius himself (B.C. 551-477). Although there are undoubtedly certain legendary elements in the earliest statements, and although the first three documents in the collection

* Ridgeway, 'The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races' (1915), pp. 266-281.

rt Q. R., Oct. 1908; expanded in 'The Origin of Tragedy,' 1910.