P. 191. “_Topmost_ Verulam” should, of course, be “_large-browed_ Verulam”—a curious instance of the tricks played by memory. I know _The Palace of Art_ so well as to see it all printed before me; but the treacherous mind’s eye must have slipped from the epithet of the first line, “topmost _oriels_,” to the name of the third. P. 248. In the line beginning _O, débile raison!_ “lors” has been misprinted for “ores,” thereby spoiling the metre. P. 263, l. 12, _for_ “Beni—Pacius” _read_ “Beni and Pazzi (Pacius) as well as of Heinsius.” P. 301, note, “Grands Écrivains _Français_” should be “G. E. _de la France_.” P. 319, note. Gibert is, it seems, appended to some edd. of Baillet. P. 322, bk. IV. chap. i. I ought, perhaps, to have noticed in this context a book rather widely spread—Sorel’s _De La Connaissance des Bons Livres_, Paris, 1671. It contains some not uninteresting things on literature in general, on novels, poetry, comedy, &c., on the laws of good speaking and writing, on the “new language of French.” But it is, on the whole, as anybody acquainted with any part of the voluminous work of the author of _Francion_ would expect, mainly not disagreeable nor ignorant _chat_—newspaper work before the newspaper. P. 350. The opposition of the two “doctors” is perhaps too sharply put. P. 376, note, _for_ “Schenck” _read_ “Strunk.” P. 436. I should like to add as a special “place” for Dennis’s criticism, his comparatively early _Remarks on_ Prince Arthur _and Virgil_ (title abbreviated), London, 1696. It is, as it stands, of some elaboration; but its author tells us that he “meant” to do things which would have made it an almost complete Poetic from his point of view. It is pervaded with that refrain of “this _ought_ to be” and “that _must_ have been” to which I have referred in the text; and bristles with purely arbitrary preceptist statements, such as that Criticism cannot be ill-natured because Good Nature in man cannot be contrary to Justice and Reason; that a man must not like what he ought not to like—a doctrine underlying, of course, the whole Neo-classic teaching, and not that only; almost literally cropping up in Wordsworth; and the very formulation, in categorical-imperative, of La Harpe’s “monstrous beauty.” The book (in which poet and critic are very comfortably and equally yoked together) is full of agreeable things; and may possibly have suggested one of Swift’s most exquisite pieces of irony in its contention that Mr Blackmore’s Celestial Machines are directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England. P. 449, l. 1, _for_ “is more curious” _read_ “gives rather more.” P. 478, l. 12 from bottom, _for_ “and in some cases” _read_ “in the lady’s case.”