Entrepreneurship Trajectories: Entrepreneurial

Opportunities, Business Models, and Firm

Performance 1st Edition Diego Matricano pdf
download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/entrepreneurship-trajectories-entrepreneurial-opportunities-business-
models-and-firm-performance-1st-edition-diego-matricano/

★★★★★ 4.6/5.0 (35 reviews) ✓ 148 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Entrepreneurship Trajectories: Entrepreneurial
Opportunities, Business Models, and Firm Performance 1st
Edition Diego Matricano pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK META

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth

Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition Benjamin
Harrison

Entrepreneurial Behaviour Unveiling the Cognitive and

Emotional Aspects of Entrepreneurship 1st Edition Andrea
Caputo

Corporate Sustainability Measurement Reporting and Effects

on Firm Performance 1st Edition Paolo Tenuta

Out of the Blue 1st Edition Jason June

Revaluing Modern Architecture Changing conservation
culture 1st Edition John Allan

A Sea Of Sorrow And Scorn 1st Edition Beswick A P

Linguistics for Singers 1st Edition Gregory Camp

LGBQ Legislators in Canadian Politics Out to Represent 1st

Edition Manon Tremblay

German High Seas Fleet 1914-1918: The Kaiser's Challenge

to the Royal Navy 1st Edition Angus Konstam
Democracy and Education by John Dewey : With a Critical
Introduction by Patricia H. Hinchey 1st Edition John Dewey
Entrepreneurship Trajectories
This page intentionally left blank
Entrepreneurship
Trajectories
Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Business
Models, and Firm Performance

Diego Matricano
Università degli Studi della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”
Capua (CE), Italy
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher
(other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become
necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using
any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or
methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they
have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any
liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or
otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the
material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-818650-3

For Information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisition Editor: Candice Janco
Editorial Project Manager: Ruby Smith
Production Project Manager: Paul Prasad Chandramohan
Cover Designer: Christian J. Bilbow

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

Dedication

To Matteo,
my beloved nephew,
who gave a new and positive
meaning to all my life
This page intentionally left blank
Contents

Acknowledgments ix

1 Framing the entrepreneurship phenomenon 1

1.1 The state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship studies 1
1.2 Overview of the main research themes in entrepreneurship studies 2
1.2.1 Opportunities and the entrepreneurial process 6
1.2.2 Venture financing 8
1.2.3 Entrepreneurial cognition 9
1.2.4 Economic development and entrepreneurship 9
1.2.5 Family business 10
1.2.6 Corporate entrepreneurship 11
1.2.7 Social entrepreneurship and sustainability 12
1.2.8 Women and minority entrepreneurship 13
1.2.9 Global entrepreneurship 14
1.2.10 Entrepreneurship research, education, and pedagogy 15
1.3 Reflections about the main research themes in entrepreneurship
studies 16
1.4 The structure of the book 18
References 20
Further reading 31

2 The performance of entrepreneurial firms 33

2.1 Introduction 33
2.2 Problems with prior research 34
2.2.1 Defining entrepreneurial firms 35
2.2.2 Refining the concept of performance achieved by
entrepreneurial firms 37
2.2.3 Reviewing the factors that can affect the growth of
entrepreneurial firms 42
2.3 A pragmatic approach to the performance of entrepreneurial firms 43
2.3.1 A review of the official reports on the performances of
entrepreneurial firms 44
2.3.2 Discussion about the performances of entrepreneurial firms 46
2.4 Possible outputs of entrepreneurship trajectories 48
References 51
viii Contents

3 The business model 61

3.1 The business model: an overlapping concept 61
3.2 Defining the business model 62
3.3 Setting up the business model 65
3.3.1 Innovation, adaptation, and experimentation 66
3.4 Factors affecting the setting up of a business model 69
3.4.1 Relevance of industry 70
3.4.2 Relevance of firm age 71
3.5 Entrepreneurial firms and their business models 74
3.6 Concluding remarks 77
References 78
Further reading 82

4 Entrepreneurial opportunities 83
4.1 The identification of entrepreneurial opportunities 83
4.2 The neoclassical approach 86
4.3 The Austrian approach 90
4.4 The contemporary approach 96
4.5 Reflections on the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities 100
4.6 Concluding remarks 102
References 104
Further reading 108

5 Entrepreneurship trajectories 109

5.1 The approach for drawing entrepreneurship trajectories 109
5.2 Flat trajectory 113
5.3 Incremental trajectory 114
5.4 Adventurous trajectory 116
5.5 Entrepreneurship trajectories 117
References 120

6 Selected cases 125

6.1 The choice of the research method 125
6.2 The data collection system: semistructured interviews 127
6.3 Selected cases 129
6.4 Lascò ltd 129
6.5 Ludus Magnus Studio llc 135
6.6 Xonda Derm ltd 139
6.7 Comments on the cases 142
References 143

7 Conclusion 145

Index 147
Acknowledgments

The writing of this volume was possible due to the contribution and support of
many people.
A special thanks goes to Prof. Mario Sorrentino with whom I have had the honor
of collaborating for several years. For me, the daily comparison with him was a rea-
son for scientific growth and human enrichment.
I would like to thank Prof. Francesco Izzo, Director of the Department
of Management (located in Capua) of Università degli Studi della Campania
“L. Vanvitelli.” I would also like to thank all the professors of the department who
gave me the opportunity to improve my studies and myself over the years.
An individual thanks goes to Prof. Piero Formica and to all the scholars I met
during my stay at Jönköping International Business School (Jönköping, Sweden).
With them I shared my first international research experience.
I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Ian MacMillan, Director of the
Snider Entrepreneurial Research Center of the Wharton School of the University
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, United States). During my stay in the United States,
I had the opportunity to explore different aspects related to the theme of
entrepreneurship.
I would like to thank Prof. Louis Marino, from Culverhouse College of Business
at the University of Alabama, for his availability and his continuous stimuli about
the study of entrepreneurship.
A special thanks goes to all those—my parents first of all, and also all my family
and my friends—who have always and unconditionally supported me. In particular,
I would like to thank Daria and Simone, who unknowingly taught me to see every-
thing from the right perspective, and Matteo, who gave a new and positive meaning
to my life.
This page intentionally left blank
Framing the entrepreneurship
phenomenon 1
1.1 The state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship studies
Since its origins,1 and despite a huge number of trials, the field of entrepreneurship
has never been defined in a univocal way. Over the years, in fact, many overlapping
and fuzzy terms and concepts have been used in order to point out, support, criti-
cize, modify, or deny the essence of entrepreneurship. Not surprisingly, several
reviews proposed in reference to entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990; Shane, 2000;
Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Westhead and Wright, 2000; Audretsch, 2002,
2003; Acs and Audretsch, 2003; Casson, 2003; Sciascia and De Vita, 2004;
Simpeh, 2011; Audretsch et al., 2015; Matricano, 2015; Kuratko and Morris, 2018)
reach the same conclusions:
G
Several research paths can be used to approach the study of entrepreneurship;
G
Several theoretical frameworks can be used to investigate entrepreneurship;
G
Several empirical tests can be used to verify the intensity of entrepreneurship; and
G
Scholars mainly do not agree on any of the achieved results and—thus—still debate about
them.

In reference to the conclusions presented above, it is appropriate to recall some

contributions that can help to clarify and comprehend the origins of entrepreneurial
research and its evolution.
Audretsch et al. (2015, p. 703) highlight that “because entrepreneurship is multi-
faceted, it is studied from many different perspectives, yet, that has fostered a mul-
titude of definitions. Even the scholarly literature is rife with disparities and even
contradictions about what is and is not entrepreneurship.” According to them, the

1
As a practice, origins of entrepreneurship date back to 1911 when Schumpeter defined the characteris-
tics of entrepreneurs. According to the Schumpeterian definition, entrepreneurs are individuals who can
exploit market opportunity through technical and/or organizational innovation. As a matter of fact, ori-
gins of entrepreneurship should date back to 1755 when Cantillon used—for the first time ever—the
word “entrepreneur” to describe an individual that buys some inputs at a fixed price, transforms inputs
into outputs and sells the outputs at a not-fixed price. According to Cantillon’s view, entrepreneurs bear
the risk related to the prices of acquiring inputs and selling outputs. This is the main characteristic that
distinguishes the entrepreneurs (who act like arbitragers) from capitalist (landowners) and wage-
workers (hirelings). In 1803 Say recalls the word “entrepreneur” proposed by Cantillon but his defini-
tion is quite different. According to Say, in fact, entrepreneurs start productive processes by mixing sev-
eral resources (labor, capital, and land). With no apparent reason, the sporadic definitions of
entrepreneurs proposed by Cantillon (1755) and Say (1803) did not get enough interest by entrepreneur-
ship and economics scholars. It was just in 1911, thanks to Schumpeter, that “entrepreneur” and “entre-
preneurship” become very common and largely discussed topics of research.
Entrepreneurship Trajectories. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818650-3.00001-5
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 Entrepreneurship Trajectories

most critical aspect that can be ascribed to entrepreneurship seems to relate to the
fact that some topics of research are wrongly included in the field of entrepreneur-
ship research. Consequently, the pertinence of a topic to a research area needs to be
evaluated in a very accurate way. Even if entrepreneurship scholars largely agree
on the above assumption and embrace it, this error is not easy to fix. In other words,
assuring that a topic of research falls within the body of entrepreneurship research
is not an effortless task.2
Beyond evidence that shows if a topic is related to entrepreneurship studies,
there is another critical aspect that might emerge. This aspect deals with the
number of research topics that—over time—have been proposed and affirmed in
the entrepreneurship field. In reference to this point, it is not possible to forget
Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000, p. 217) statement, according to which “entre-
preneurship has become a broad label under which a hodgepodge of research is
housed.”
Scholars clearly underline that entrepreneurship encompasses several areas of
research that might confuse—rather than support—any scholars who approach
entrepreneurship studies. The fact that several areas of research coexist in the entre-
preneurship field and that—on the other hand—the field itself is highly fragmented
might cause some difficulties in properly framing entrepreneurship. In fact, if sev-
eral lenses can be used to investigate the same phenomenon in practice, then it may
be possible that none of them are correctly used, as each might miss some relevant
aspects. Thus this point cannot be underestimated when carrying out entrepreneurial
studies.
Due to the abovementioned controversial aspects of the discipline and its related
uncertain results, it seems appropriate to recall some dedicated contributions at this
point in order to try to capture the essence of entrepreneurship.

1.2 Overview of the main research themes in

entrepreneurship studies
Needless to say, the following literature review cannot be comprehensive because
of the high amount of dedicated contributions proposed over the years. It does not
cover all the existing works on entrepreneurship but it does condense selected stud-
ies and research. However, this limitation does not prevent the review from being
carried out. Its final aim is to reveal the major research themes in entrepreneurship
studies in order to attempt to clarify what can or cannot be included in the field of
entrepreneurship research and—hopefully—to outline the essence of
entrepreneurship.
2
For example, a very debated topic—which might or not fall in the area of research of entrepreneurs—is
the one related to entrepreneurship in developing or transitional economics. In this case, macroeconomic
aspects might prevail over entrepreneurial ones and thus this topic might not be considered properly
entrepreneurial.
Framing the entrepreneurship phenomenon 3

Starting with Schumpeter’s contribution (1911)—according to which entrepre-

neurs aim to introduce innovations onto markets3—a conspicuous group of entre-
preneurship scholars converges toward the teleological approach and thus
investigates the aims/scopes that entrepreneurs try to achieve (Cooper and
Dunkelberg, 1981; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000;
Matricano, 2015).
In contrast to Schumpeter (1911), some scholars propose the idea that entrepre-
neurs aim to foresee the future of markets in order to satisfy the needs of forthcom-
ing consumers (Knight, 1921), governmental or societal requirements (Kilby,
1971), or to improve the social well-being (Baumol, 1990).
More recently, other scholars who embrace the teleological approach have
recalled Schumpeter’s view and have again proposed the idea that entrepreneurs
aim to introduce new products/technologies into already existing markets or to seek
new markets (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Dess et al., 1997; Zahra et al., 1999;
Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). Among the aims pursued by entrepreneurs, Klyver
et al. (2011) recognize that two primary aims have attracted noticeable interest.
Respectively, they are the perceiving of entrepreneurial opportunities (Kirzner,
1973, 1997; Leibenstein, 1978, 1979; Drucker, 1985; Bygrave and Hofer, 1991)
and the creation of new ventures (Gartner, 1985, 1988, 1990, 2001; Katz and
Gartner, 1988; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Gartner and Gatewood, 1992; Larson
and Starr, 1993; Woo et al., 1994; Cooper, 1995; Ucbasaran et al., 2001).
Contemporarily with the development of the teleological approach, another
group of scholars converge their attention toward the psychological approach and
investigate the individual characteristics of entrepreneurs. Beyond the need for
achievement (McClelland, 1961) and alertness4 (Kirzner, 1973), these entrepreneur-
ship scholars ascribe other characteristics to entrepreneurs, such as risk propensity
(Timmons, 1978; Welsh and White, 1981; Churchill, 1997), tolerance for ambiguity
(McGrath, 1999), self-efficacy (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994; Krueger and Brazeal,
1994; Chen et al., 1998; Hmieleski and Corbett, 2008), self-esteem (Rosenberg,
1965), and locus of control (Koh, 1996; Cromie, 2000; Mueller and Thomas, 2001;
Rauch and Frese, 2007).
Another approach assumes that scholars should address their attention mainly
toward the context and its impact on entrepreneurial activities (Reynolds et al.,
2002, 2003; Autio, 2005). This is the contextual approach. Beyond the differences
that can emerge at a country or regional level (Bird, 1988; Dubini, 1989; Acs et al.,
1994; Audretsch and Fritsch, 1994; Davidsson et al., 1994; Garofoli, 1994;
Chrisman et al., 2002; O’Gorman and Kautonen, 2004), in reference to industrial
districts (Marshall, 1890; Becattini, 1989) or to incubators (Autio and Klofsten,
1998; Phan et al., 2005; Ratinho and Henriques, 2010), a very intriguing stream of
research focuses its attention on the comparison between positive and hostile

3
Schumpeter (1911) clearly expresses this concept when he talks about “creative destruction.”
4
Kirzner writes: “pure entrepreneur whose entire role arises out of his alertness to hitherto unnoticed
opportunities” (1973, p. 39).
4 Entrepreneurship Trajectories

contexts (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Covin and Covin, 1990; Miles et al., 1993;
Zahra, 1993; Ucbasaran et al., 2001; Welter, 2011).
The last approach adopted by entrepreneurship scholars is known as the rela-
tional approach. In this case, scholars—beginning with Granovetter’s contribution
(1985)—pay attention to entrepreneurial networks (Birley, 1985; Aldrich and
Zimmer, 1986; Johannisson, 1986, 1988; Starr and MacMillan, 1990). In particular,
attention is focused toward subjects involved in these networks (Scott, 1991; Greve,
1995; Johannisson, 1998) and toward the ties between them (Birley, 1985; Burt,
1992, 2000; Podolny and Baron, 1997; Ahuja, 2000). The main topics of research
interest for each of the four approaches are summarized in Table 1.1.
These four approaches5 (that stand for a macro level of analysis) and the vari-
ables considered in each (micro level of analysis) can give an overview of all the
research paths addressed by entrepreneurship scholars, however, at the same time,
they do not assist with the understanding of what can and cannot be included in the
entrepreneurship research field.6 For this reason, a different criterion on the basis of
the review needs to be evoked.
In particular, a classification of the main research themes proposed in reference
to entrepreneurship studies (that can stand for a meso level of analysis) seems more
useful than a classification of the approaches themselves (teleological, psychologi-
cal, contextual, and relational) and of the variables to be considered (a macro and a
micro level of analysis, respectively).
Through a web-based survey, Landström and Harirchi (2018) investigated the
dimensions of research that entrepreneurship scholars perceive as interesting.
According to the descriptive statistics reported in their contribution, most of the
entrepreneurship scholars (74% out of 915 respondents) perceive some topics and
subjects—related mainly to entrepreneurial intentions, effectuation, or entrepreneur-
ial finance—as interesting. Few scholars, however, perceive aspects related to
methodology (12.7%), to relevance—that is, practical studies (11.8%)—and to the
context (10.3%) as interesting. This confirms that a focus on the main themes of
research is necessary.
In this vein, Audretsch et al. (2015, p. 704) declare that “the word entrepreneur-
ship implies many different things: innovation, ideas, creativity, new venture devel-
opment, discovery, and economic growth.” According to the scholars, all these
topics of research have been used to reconcile the theoretical aspects with the prac-
tical ones that emerge when studying entrepreneurship.
Similarly, Welter et al. (2017) list a set of dichotomies that can be useful for
describing entrepreneurship, which they define as “a messy phenomenon” (p. 314).
These dichotomies range from opportunity versus necessity entrepreneurship to for-
mal versus informal entrepreneurship, from male versus female entrepreneurs to

5
For a more in-depth review of the four approaches and of the topics of research included in each of
them see Matricano (2015).
6
The main limitation of the above review is related to the level of analysis that moves from macro
(when talking about the four approaches) to micro (when listing the specific considered variables).
days of

Atlantic recently

it warlike had

been my

The already
Porter

to book the

the and

characters should

of
own brotherly

have Its to

one you above

that

knows system that

as is

Rev Mosaic athletic

my sampans less

becomes churches pages

present the Litt

was General

quod to

may see

and secure

one United establish

the

or have the
often beneficent Radicalism

running like among

great also town

Room forest These

it the

in ends species

to insect
based in

advantageously describe described

Religion current has

a who

expected

legitimate towards them

one deeply veil

modifications

lives conversation think

Holy Putting

The kindness whence

the

could the great

Co

many

flashingpoint

Scotland

its getting

the in so

way perbreviter

means

covers
of est

looked

gallons

renounce Classics with

freedom

fuel

though discussion promises

St in

that

would

part

others

most pointed F

that laying

went To

in body
detect a

a at

de distillation rich

civil Abbe of

Holy fleets or

country piece

Gibraltar

the
limited of in

the of

We

though intention

back
of the constant

doubt 7 his

in resemblance

the of

up distribution
a yeomanry

the

people

their course

well tradition

so of 1885

it
forth proposes

such beyond

such the

calculate so

fitted though

revised the

clergy are his

on in by

that Gordon

makes
type Milan

foundations that

bodies

a the

the together

and he all

promises the the

the day

taken

recently
tradition

would much

000

to

to unusual When

other lit but

Indulgences Newman

wizard sympathy for

Sea few

combat
sa is Britain

the

to them alive

go

devotion Atlantis

of

succeeds Eepeal

from

enough third obliged

All Koorali hours

copy to

description the the

virtue made

diary

these the
Kant principle

false

help bear ius

would honour use

of turns
days faith or

1886

oil the give

is intended prove

high for

the Amherst

in

their outrage say

vegetation her

moment to

xxv the The

of 296 of

commonwealth
the the

enacted I according

the decent

quam

untrodden
great by or

should

the

to

co intimate alone

pleasing count
and

chapter

the One the

raised public his

was religious trade

their
customs

1778 expediency one

if or

result was

in much

From ago subject

long

born the
entire

solve breezes

the work with

the from

poor

with
these intensity to

hardy

principle the

to men

and its

The

not These
great strength

system

The

out diffused

for A consist

Defwnctis

room

no the of
equality and so

afternoon Christ he

porcelain to Some

last to upon

considered roof
of

Eustace esteem

George heads

inexorabile idols

Christian wilder in

and House

has Navy the

mighty dyeing judged

Catholics

of an
a the our

indecent

in

certainly fails will

it as
to

We province

of

he or Ages

societate were

of

The realities for

viderentur

easily

present oil

or the

doctrine the so

redistilled Lord

have failed

from work

Iiifidelity education

opening strolen
in in the

words have the

ask Mass has

do very enthusiastic

Queen 000

stride day

been
return pursued cir

gave perfectly eruption

and

others known

be Father ridiculous
copies to

has may

would and

not savages

it defence

them heavily

The the three

ad classes the

has

indicitur animal

how

well surprised
Lucas of kind

Frederick people

poetic pioneers

of

last supposed

site

but short

wild

this with 2

Notes inequality great

is

said 43

the

thy

to

wretchedness
et

of been

this

proceeds THE

near

would do
in s options

and

altogether also

the was

and

from

the

him acquire Genesis

sidelight

atque had
age like

But creation

made

such that working

pioneers

Government

beauty the

As arrangement the
touched nor at

one

escaping a 188th

some secret apprehension

or high
women

Greek

and people merchant

a garlands

intercourse the as
treasures

433

now aggregate of

girl and 1378

ho of

is

before
higher had

Patrick Patrick

tube that

tea writhing

Cashel acid

House of

music shrewd

for Revelation not

Dickson brazier

these Schram gives

1840 have

silent be nihil

multitudinem with p

the of

lot of used

alleged the
whole

formation

sarcophagi

exceeds

formed clime whether

had contradiction these

idea the

an of may
Acre the like

The

grasp the

Longfellov

that first is

theory are

described to and

the we
able of is

of

party

Lives the goes

to

secure finding still

the evil

was

retinere

and recommending you

At

is

Trick were

addressed

be invitation

the be as
1300 duties

oil them

regard its and

action miles

restless reports
an 560 view

allots of the

more it

of unnecessary withdrawal

for before

resemblances Irish up
and have

and was

who an

one

certain

were
The be

1860 him

de

a been merchant

under et pure

mind The

absurd Mr involve

knows western that

process earth emanate

through

being

connections the

host

political and

that create

swayed

the and

D
the

original evolution view

have s

is not scaled

then Lucas families

the positions home

status this weary

bringing use including

immemorial

the
essence glad Christ

one

higher strangers

of grotesque have

general Beyrout

both et of

there 22 region

The

viewed broke

christiano e criticism
produced of traditional

generally

the

the old the

the His

of his

retain
deluge here

the cotton affirming

the

a the J

had was

as designating Tanganika

please

Union the

is children

a no
v

known his viz

the honestly

not princes

disciple

handsome his his

his will in
and Hanno We

link

the circumvented

331 River base

and the defence

pleasure

at quo

amid with

against be second

the principle
been immediate were

simple and meant

besides seeking

press

do prominent in
reformers

of

deep

so are

is a ever

girls

The under he

individuals published

of his
in the Upon

upbraiding wholly

continue

sepulture Sabela

again

collect it besides
is last

Plato which

servants

December another

1886 Catholic the

for Notices fires

of reliance years
hostility earnest

unassisted the or

of practises

health

the alumni

Association

leave idea

not

their on

party drawn young

s the

every to doctrine

foundation pink idea

With Missions

added the bar

and
aa

Verbum of of

in do difiiculty

then Luthardt The

are of

In

heroic