ng to the
royal family, which were committed chiefly to his care, and
sold and dispersed over Europe: which was soon brought to a
conclusion by the obstinacy or ignorance of their criminal,
who either would not, or was not able to, give the desired
satisfaction."]

LIS. This is extraordinary enough. But, if I well remember, you
mentioned, a short time ago, the name of BRAITHWAIT as connected with
that of Peacham. Now, as I persume [Transcriber's Note: presume]
Lorenzo has not tied down his guests to any rigid chronological rules,
in their literary chit-chat, so I presume you might revert to
Braithwait, without being taxed with any great violation of colloquial
order.

LYSAND. Nay, I am not aware of any _bookish_ anecdote concerning
Braithwait. He was mentioned with Peacham as being a like accomplished
character.[354] Some of his pieces are written upon the same subjects
as were Peacham's, and with great point and elegance. He seems,
indeed, to have had the literary credit and moral welfare of his
countrymen so much at stake that, I confess, I have a vast fondness
for his lucubrations. His "_English Gentlewoman_" might be reprinted
with advantage.

[Footnote 354: The talents of RICHARD BRAITHWAIT do not
appear to me to be so generally known and highly commended
as they merit to be. His _Nursery for Gentry_, 1651, 4to.
(with his portrait in an engraved frontispiece by Marshall),
is written with the author's usual point and spirit; but, as
I humbly conceive, is a less interesting performance than
his _English Gentleman_, 1633, 4to. (with a frontispiece by
Marshall), or _English Gentlewoman_, 1631, 4to. (also with a
frontispiece by the same artist). There is a terseness and
vigour in Braithwait's style which is superior to that of
his contemporary, Peacham; who seems to excel in a calm,
easy, and graceful manner of composition. Both these eminent
writers are distinguished for their scholastic and
gentlemanly attainments; but in the "divine art of poesy"
(in which light I mean here more particularly to display the
powers of Braithwait) Peacham has no chance of being
considered even as a respectable competitor with his
contemporary. Mr. George Ellis, in his pleasing _Specimens
of the early English Poets_, vol. iii., p. 103, has selected
two songs of Braithwait "from a work not enumerated by