_I know that these who have devanced us in this imployment, will as our oldest brothers in time, have a double portion of fame bestowed upon them, and no wonder, seing they had store both of expression and invention to make choice of, and if any of us use their expressions, albeit we were only debtor to our own invention for them, yet we should be thought to plagiarize: wherefore he who writes now, should read what hath been written formerly; not to the intent that he may borrow, but least he should borrow any thing that is theirs. I perceive there have been two errours committed by the first writers of Romances: the first was, that they stuffed their Books with things impracticable, which because they were above the reach of mans power, they should never have fallen within the circle of his observation: and such was =Amadis de Gaule=, =Palmeron de Oliva= =&c.= The other errour was in the style, which because of its soaring pitch was inimitable: and as the first hath been the fault of the first writers, So the last hath been the fault of the last writers, wherefore the famous =Scuderie= hath written so, as that his invention may suit well with our practice, and his style with our discourse, and especially in his =Clelia=, wherein he professes that he hath adapted all to the present converse of the French Nation and that is really the mould wherein all tru Romances should be casten. There are some who embroider their discourse with Latin and Greek termes, thinking, like these who are charmers, that the charme loses its energie, if the words be not used in Latine. But this is as ridiculous, as if one who desires to make his face seem pleasant, should enamble it with red, blew, green, and other colours; which though they are in themselves pleasant, yet are rediculous when placed there. And this is an university style, which favours too much its pedant, and is at best but bastard oratory, seing the scope of all Orators is to perswade, and there can be no perswasion where the term is not understood; examples of this are =Brown=, =Charletoun=, =&c.= The second style, is that of moral Philosophers, where the periods are short, and the sense strong, and our experience teacheth us, that the shorter any thing be, it is the stronger: this style suits best with Preachers, whose it is to debit the grand misteries of Faith and Religion; for, seing sentences there should be weighty, if they were either many, or long, they would burden too much the hearers. The third style, is that of =Barrasters=, which is flourished with similees, and where are used long winded periods; and of all others, this is the most preferable, for seing similitude is but a harmony, this style shews that excellent harmony; and rapport, which God intended in the first Creation; and which the Philosophers of all ages have ever since admired. This Lawyers have learned from the paucitie of all humane Lawes, which makes them oft recurr to that topick, which teaches them to argument from the paritie of reason. And in this they resemble Mechanicks, who, by applying a cord, whose length they know, to any body whose length they ignore, do thereby learn its measures also. And by this way =Nathan= in the old Testament, and our Saviour in the new, repremands the errors of =David= and the self conceated Jewes. The fourth style is where the cadence is sweet, and the epithets well adapted, without any other varnish whatsoever: and this is that style which is used at Court, and is paterned to us by eloquent =Scuderie=. I hear there is now a ridiculous caball of Ladies at =Paris=, who terme themselves the precious, and who paraphrase every thing they speak of, terming a mirrour, the conselour of beauty, and a chair, the commoditie of conversation, &c. And thus they have progressed from painting of faces to paint expressions._