is well acquainted with the attempts of Cinthio and Pigna in the previous century to make good at least the Italian form of the kind. ----- Footnote 344: See, for instance, in the otherwise trivial _Chevræana_, a rather amusing string (p. 157) of criticisms passed on the great authors of antiquity; in the _Fureteriana_ (p. 13), an acute and most just remark on the folly of versifying scientific treatises and other things not in the least suitable for the process; and not a few in Vigneul-Marville—the absence of notes and justificatory citations in ancient historians (ii. 116); the praise of Amyot (ib. 132); the question of fully or partially formed verse in prose (ib. 188 sq.); remarks on Sforza Pallavicini’s _Trattato dello stilo_ (ib. 260); on “rhyme and reason” (ib. 330). (The references in this note and in the above paragraphs of the text, except where otherwise indicated, are to the collection of _Ana_ in ten vols. Amsterdam and Paris, An vii.) Footnote 345: _Ed. cit._, ii. 87. Footnote 346: P. 234, “_Ce travail m’a toujours paru bas, et peu digne de l’estime qu’il s’est attirée, et de l’application d’un esprit noble et élevé._” Footnote 347: P. 20 and _passim_. Footnote 348: P. 33. Footnote 349: P. 31. ----- [Sidenote: Valesiana,] In the _Valesiana_—amid much that is merely antiquarian or linguistic, and a fair though not excessive portion of the mere gossip and gabble which first made these things read and afterwards brought them into disrepute—there will be found a curious passage on the Latin hymns and their prosody, showing how dead the ear falls at certain times to the music of others, and the more curious selection of Palingenius and his _Zodiacus Vitæ_ as a poem and a poet worth the pains of reading. Nor will the reputation for robustness of seventeenth-century erudition suffer from the patronising commendation of Baillet’s _Jugements des Savants_ as a book which would be useful light reading for the giddy youth of the day who declined serious study. [Sidenote: Scaligerana,] Yet Scaliger himself (J. J., not J. C.), according to the collection[350] standing in his name (a quaint mosaic or macaronic of French and Latin), thought that nobody save Casaubon (and “another that shall be nameless,” no doubt) was really learned as men had been a hundred years earlier. He is himself nearly as untrustworthy on really critical points as his father, and had, I think, less true critical spirit. But he makes some amends for Julius Cæsar’s truculent assault on the _Ciceronianus_ by confessing that Longolius (the main object of the Erasmian satire) could not really be said to write in Ciceronian style when he simply fitted Ciceronian phrases together. ----- Footnote 350: