judiciously exercised. But it is an open question whether a distinction should not, for instance, be made between the cases of J. S. Mill and Macaulay. Mill had no doubt uttered, with characteristic courage, some opinion which might to his less advanced readers have appeared unpatriotic. The case is different with Macaulay. It is here the omission of some of the most pointed and ornamental sentences in a review full of rhetoric. Macaulay's artistic instinct may be supposed, in such a matter, to have been truer than that of any of his contemporaries.

If there are any contributors present, it may console them to be reminded in what excellent company they suffer. Mr. Delane has the reputation of having been one of the greatest butchers in his way. A regular leader writer to The Times used to say that he sent up one article in manuscript, saw a second one in proof, and read a third the next morning at breakfast; and he would not have known the connection between the first and the third had he not seen the middle one. Yet, although my sympathies are rather with the lacerated contributor than with the pitiless editor, I hold the system to be favourable to the public as well as indispensable to the journal, by which the most brilliant writer submits to the censorship of a man who has at heart all the jealousy of the literary calling, while his judgment is unclouded by personal considerations.

ENGLISH ALMANACS AND THEIR

AUTHORS.

PART II.-ALMANACS IN THE SECOND STUART AND THE REVOLUTIONARY

PERIODS.*

BY ABEL HEYWOOD, JUN.

[Read December 22, 1879.]

N continuing our view of English almanacs it is necessary to bear in mind that the monopoly, begun in 1605, was still existing in the hands of the Stationers' Company and the University of Cambridge, and that consequently we are able to form a much better estimate of the whole of the publications of this class than we could possibly do of any other department of literature, if indeed we may admit almanacs, in defiance of Elia, to be literature at all. We shall have to return for a few years from the date of the death of the notorious astrologer, William Lilly, with which event the last paper closed, while we briefly glance at the more important annuals, and simply catalogue the greater number of the various almanacs which from 1671, ten years before Lilly's death, to 1700 have been examined.

Vincent Wing, an astrologer, who died 1668 or 9, issued an important series of almanacs bearing his name. The almanac certainly appeared for 1671, that is two years after the prophet's death, and probably later, without any reference to that event. But the circumstance is perhaps explained by an announcement in the Life of Wing that his son was continuing the almanac, and also by the fact that an almanac was seldom discontinued by the Company on the death of its author. We may presume that the

* The first part, which treated of the Earlier Almanacs and their Makers, appeared in the third volume of the Club Papers, 1877.

judiciously exercised. But it is an open question wh distinction should not, for instance, be made between t of J. S. Mill and Macaulay. Mill had no doubt utter characteristic courage, some opinion which might to advanced readers have appeared unpatriotic. The case rent with Macaulay. It is here the omission of some of t pointed and ornamental sentences in a review full of 1. Macaulay's artistic instinct may be supposed, in such a mɑ have been truer than that of any of his contemporaries.

If there are any contributors present, it may console tl be reminded in what excellent company they suffer. Mr. I has the reputation of having been one of the greatest butch his way. A regular leader writer to The Times used to say he sent up one article in manuscript, saw a second one in and read a third the next morning at breakfast; and he not have known the connection between the first and the had he not seen the middle one. Yet, although my symp are rather with the lacerated contributor than with the pi editor, I hold the system to be favourable to the public as we indispensable to the journal, by which the most brilliant w submits to the censorship of a man who has at heart all jealousy of the literary calling, while his judgment is unclou by personal considerations.

son continued the publication for a few years, and then started a book in his own name, for John Wing's Almanac was published for a considerable time after this by the University of Cambridge. Vincent Wing's was begun in 1640.

A life of Wing, from which the information as to his son is taken, was written by his friend John Gadbury in 1670, and a copy of the pamphlet is in the British Museum. Though it records scarcely more than two important events in Wing's career— namely, his birth and his death, there are some passages which it will not be uninteresting for us to quote. We are informed that Wing did not receive an "academical education," but was so prone to letters that he acquired "a perfect acquaintance of the Latine tongue, and a moderate understanding in Greek." "If he were of anything covetous, it was of knowledge: being indeed scarcely ever satisfied therewith; making it his business to frequent the company of the most learned and excellent men, when he came to London at any time." There is a marginal note to this remark as follows: "And of this I have had the pleasure of being more than once or twice a witness." And we therefore understand that J. G. was a "most learned and excellent man." This is his modest way of asserting his own exalted position, and at the same time serving the memory of his friend: Concerning Wing's Almanac we are told: "He first appeared upon the Theatre of the World in the two and twentieth year current of his age, beginning then to write and print his annual Books or Almanacks." After a horoscope to show how auspicious the event of the publication was, he goes on

Mr. Wing's writings found a most excellent welcome into the world among all sorts of ingenious persons; even so great and happy an one, that (at length) in the year, wherein fifty thousand of his almanacks have not sold or gone off, the Company of Stationers (as I have been credibly informed) have esteemed it but a year of indifferent sale. . . . These his annual books or almanacks continued twenty-eight years together.

Another horoscope is given to show that Wing must of necessity have died when he did; and it is argued that Wing must have known this, but unfortunately the stars showed that the almanacmaker ought to have died by his own hand, which he did not. This is how such a difficulty is made nought of by the astrologer J. G.: