The manuscript is in small quarto, and exclusive of the title (which, indeed, is the nub of the achievement) contains only nine pages, breaking off abruptly in the middle of a sentence. He criticises the editors of Hariot’s Algebra, the executors Aylesbury and Protheroe, aided by Warner, who were all eminent mathematicians. He speaks of the administrators or editors as if more than one, and does not mention Warner, or lead us to believe that he was sole editor. Only a small portion of this projected criticism seems ever to have been written. It appears to have been begun in senile peevishness, containing only a few prefatory remarks and discussing some algebraical questions with the fancied errors of the editors. No mention is made of the’Atomic Theory,’as promised on the title-page, which is here done into English, and is as follows:— THE ANALYTICAL CORRECTOR of the posthumous scientific writings of THOMAS HARRIOT. As an excellent Mathematician one who very seldom erred As a bold Philosopher one who occasionally erred, As a frail Man one who notably erred For the more trustworthy refutation of the pseudo-philosophic atomic theory, revived by him and, outside his other strange notions, deserving of reprehension and anathema. A Compendious Warning with specimens by the aged and retired-from-active-life Na: Torporley. So that The critic may know The buyer may beware. It is not safe to trust to the bank, The bell-wether himself is drying his fleece. The ‘Corrector Analyticus’ may be found printed in full (but without the quaint titles) in ‘The Historical Society of Science. A Collection of Letters illustrative of Science, edited by J. O. Halliwell,’ London, 1841, 8°, Appendix, pages 109-116. ForTorporley’s curious paper entitled ‘A Synopsis of the Controversie of Atoms,’ see Brit. Mus. Mss, Birch 4458, 2. Mr Torporley informs us, and the papers appear to bear him out in the statement, that Hariot wrote memoranda, problems, etc. on loose pieces of paper, and then arranged them in sets fastened together according to the subjects treated of. He adds, ‘First then let me speak of Hariot’s method, of which frequent mention will have to be made in the following pages; so that the reader may understand why some things are stated and some passed over: here I cannot but complain, that I find it a serious defect that his Commentators have so completely transformed it [the Praxis] that they not only do not retain his orderbut not evenhis language.’ Again he writes, ‘But not even those well-thought-out and necessary to be known matters, which have been delivered to us, have been handed down to posterity by his administrators with the fidelity and accuracy promised.’ The suspicion is raised that Torporley’s age and dilatoriness compelled the accomplished executors to take the editorial matter in hand themselves and hinc iliae lacrymæ.