[Footnote 2: The description of _Cleaveland Revived_ in the third paragraph is perfectly just, and 'anvil-beater' is an obvious echo-gibe at Williamson's own phraseology. It is less certain what 'grand Sophys' are specially referred to further on--but Dryden _might_ be one.]
[Footnote 3: A Clevelandish word; _v. infra_, p. 65 (_Rupertismus_, l. 120).]
[Footnote 4: In orig., as often, 'touring', but to print this nowadays would invite misconception.]
[Footnote 5: 'Scantling' is used in various senses. Either that of 'rough draft' or, as in Taylor, 'small piece' would do; but it is at least possible that it is not a noun at all, but a direct participle from the verb to 'scantle', found in Drayton, and meaning 'to be deficient', 'come short'. Some, however, prefer the sense 'dimension' or 'measurement', which would make it a sort of varied repetition of 'commensurate'.]
[Footnote 6: 'Deifie' is of course wrong. 'Defy' is likeliest, and in a certain sense (frequent in Elizabethan writers) would do; but 'decry' seems wanted.]
[Footnote 7: A common phrase for an earlier 'Banting' regime derived from the _Hygiasticon_ (Antwerp, 1623) of Leonard Lessius (1554-1624). I owe this information to the kindness of Dr. Comrie, Lecturer on the History of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh. The next sentence may, or rather must, be a reference to (in fact, a fling at) Dryden, _Essay of Dramatic Poesy_ (vol. i, p. 52, ed. Ker, Oxford, 1900), who censures Cleveland for not giving 'a _great_ thought' in 'words ... commonly received'. I owe the reminder of this to Mr. Thorn-Drury.]
[Footnote 8: The use of bran for shampooing is not perhaps so well known as that for poultices, foot-baths, &c. It is always a _softener_ as well as a detergent.]
[Footnote 10: Perhaps I should add a very few words explaining why I have not made this 'authenticated' edition the base of mine. I have not done so because the editors, excellent as was evidently their intention, have after all given us no reasons for their exclusions and inclusions; because, though they have corrected some obvious errors, their readings by no means always intrinsically commend themselves to me; and especially because the distance between 1647 and 1677 reflects itself, to no small degree, in a certain definite _modernisation_ of form, grammatical and prosodic. 1653 has much more _contemporariness_.]