decent, and less extravagant than _Parismus_, is nothing like so interesting to read. It is indeed quite possible that there is, if not in it, in its popularity, a set-back to the _Arcadia_ itself, which had been directly followed in Lady Mary Wroth's _Urania_ (1621), and to which (by the time of the edition noted) Charles I.'s admiration--so indecently and ignobly referred to by Milton--had given a fresh attraction for all good anti-Puritans. That an anti-Puritan should be a romance-lover was almost a necessity. When the French "heroics" began to appear it was only natural that they should be translated, and scarcely less so that they should be imitated in England. For they were not far off the _Arcadia_ pattern: and they were a distinct and considerable effort to supply the appetite for fiction which has been dwelt upon. But except for this, and for fashion's sake, they did not contain much that would appeal to an English taste: and it is a little significant that one great reader of them who is known to us--Mrs. Pepys--was a Frenchwoman. Indeed, save for the very considerable "pastime" of a kind that they gave to a time, much of which required passing, it is difficult to understand their attraction for English readers. Their interminable talk never (till perhaps very recently) was a thing to suit our nation: and the "key" interest strikes us at any rate as of the most languid kind. But they _were_ imitated as well as translated: and the three most famous of the imitations are the work of men of mark in their different ways. These are the _Parthenissa_ (1654) of Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill and Earl of Orrery; the _Aretina_ (1661) of Sir George Mackenzie; and the _Pandion and Amphigeneia_ (1665) of "starch Johnny" Crowne.