lector. See Stow, ed. 1720, ii.
lib. iii. p. 121.

<2.10> How different was the conduct, under similar circumstances,
of the lady whom Charles Gerbier commemorates in his ELOGIUM
HEROINUM, 1651, p. 127. "Democion, the Athenian virgin," he tells
us, "hearing that Leosthenes, to whom she was contracted, was slain
in the wars, she killed herself; but before her death she thus
reasoned with herself: 'Although my body is untoucht, yet should I
fall into the imbraces of another, I should but deceive the second,
since I am still married to the former in my heart.'"

<2.11> Wood's story about LUCASTA having been a Lucy Sacheverell,
"a lady of great beauty and fortune," may reasonably be doubted.
Lucasta, whoever she was, seems to have belonged to Kent;
the SACHEVERELLS were not a Kentish family. Besides, the
corruption of Lucy Sacheverell into Lucasta is not very obvious,
and rather violent; and the probability is that the author of
the ATHENAE was misled by his informant on this occasion.
The plate etched by Lely and engraved by Faithorne, which
is found in the second part of LUCASTA, 1659, can scarcely
be regarded as a portrait; it was, in all likelihood, a mere
fancy sketch, and we are not perhaps far from the truth in our
surmise that the artist was nearly, if not quite, as much
in the dark as to who Lucasta was, as we are ourselves
at the present day.

<2.12> This is a mistake on the part of Wood, which (with many
others) ought to be corrected in a new edition of the ATHENAE.
Lawes did not set to music AMARANTHA, A PASTORAL, nor any portion
of it; but he harmonized two stanzas of a little poem to be found
at p. 29 of the present volume, and called "To Amarantha; that she
would dishevel her Hair."

<2.13> Hasted states that soon after the death of Charles I. the
manor of Lovelace-Bethersden passed by purchase to Richard Hulse,
Esq.

<2.14> On the title-page of this portion of LUCASTA, as well as
on that which had appeared in 1649, the author is expressly styled
RICHARD LOVELACE, ESQ.: yet in Berry's KENT GENEALOGIES, p. 474,
he is, curiously enough, called SIR Richard Lovelace, KNT. It is
scarcely necessary to observe that the error is on Berry's side.

<2.15> The most pleasing likeness of Lovelace, the only one,
indeed, which conveys any just idea to us of the "handsomest man of
his time," is the picture at Dulwich, which has been twice copied,
in both instances with very indifferent success. One of these
co