state.

The internal division of a work by its author is not, however, merely for purposes of reference. It may likewise be a logical division; it may follow the distribution of the subject, and assist the reader by visibly separating its several parts. This process, however, may be carried so far as to defeat its purpose (viz. perspicuity of arrangement) by the intricacy of its divisions. Here again we must recur for an example to the Germans, who sometimes make the compartments of their writings as numerous as a series of Chinese boxes all fitted into each other. First, there is the part, then the book, then the chapter, then the section, then the article, and then the paragraph, which is itself subdivided into paragraphs with Roman numerals and Arabic numerals; and these again are further subdivided into paragraphs with Roman letters, and Greek letters, and sometimes Hebrew letters. To refer to a work divided in this manner by any other means than the volume and page, is a labour of as hopeless intricacy as it is to follow the logical cascade down its successive platforms.

It is a considerable convenience where the book or chapter is marked at the head or margin of the page; and in histories, or historical memoirs, chronological notation is very convenient.

In general no book (not being a book arranged in alphabetical order, as a dictionary, encyclopedia, &c.) ought to be printed without a table of contents. The trouble to the author of making a table of contents is very small, and the expense to the publisher in printing it is in general imperceptible. Modern English books rarely sin in this respect; foreign books, however, both French and German, are frequently wanting in a table of contents. The invaluable collection of the fragments of Greek historians lately published in Didot's Series—a work indispensable to every critical student of ancient history—has no table of contents, referring to the pages, prefixed to each volume. The Poetæ Scenici Græci of Dindorf is without a table of contents; and a similar want is a serious drawback to the use of the cheap and portable edition of the Greek and Latin classics published by Tauchnitz at Leipsic.

Lastly, an index adds materially to the value of every work which contains numerous and miscellaneous facts. The preparation of a good index is a laborious and sometimes costly task; the printing of it, moreover, adds to the price of the book. Many of the indexes to the English law-books are models of this species of labour; the indexes in the Parliamentary Reports are likewise prepared with great care and intelligence. Even a meagre index, however, is better than no index at all; and where the publisher's means, and the demand for the book, do not admit of the preparation of a copious index of subjects, an alphabetical list of names of persons and places would often be an acceptable present to the reader of an historical or scientific work.

L.

CAXTON MEMORIAL.

The inquiries addressed to me by Mr. BOLTON CORNEY in your paper of the 15th of November appear to amount to this:—Whether the whole or part of the expense of his proposed volume will be defrayed out of the fund appropriated to the Caxton Memorial? To this question, so far as my own information extends, I can only give a negative reply. The Society of Arts, in compliance with a request preferred to them by the subscribers at their last meeting, have accepted the charge of the Caxton Fund; and it is sufficient, for my present purpose, to state that negociations are now in progress between the Council and the Dean and Chapter, for liberty to erect a suitable memorial within the precincts of Westminster to the memory of William Caxton. This is as it should be; the memorial, be it what it may, statue, obelisk or fountain, or even a niche in a wall, should be substantial and enduring, calculated to remind the passing stranger that within the precincts of Westminster, William Caxton first exercised in England the art of printing. This circumstance forms one of those epochs in the history of civilisation which deserve public commemoration; and any memorial of Caxton should be placed as near as possible to the scene of his literary labours.

Mr. BOLTON CORNEY says, that I seem to regard his project with somewhat less of disfavour. Now I do not wish to be misunderstood. As a substitute for the Caxton Memorial, originally proposed at the great meeting over which the Earl of Carlisle presided, I am disposed to reject it altogether, for reasons which I have already stated in your columns. But as a literary undertaking I am willing to give it a fair consideration upon its own merits. The apothegm that a man's best monument consists in his own works, is capable of considerable modification from the nature of the works themselves. In the case before us, I believe the interest felt by the public in the works of Caxton to be too limited to justify the republication of his collected works. The proposal which Mr. CORNEY makes for a selection from those works, with a new life of the author, and a glossary, the latter proving how much they are out of date, is much more feasible than his original plan. There is a Caxton Society which has already issued several publications, and whose usefulness would be materially increased by such a publication as that suggested by Mr. CORNEY, if the Society to which he alludes (the Camden, I presume) should not be disposed to undertake it. The true object of these and similar societies is the production of books of interest and value, which are not sufficiently popular to justify a bookseller, or an individual, in incurring the pecuniary risk of their separate publication. Mr. CORNEY's literary memorial of Caxton appears to me to come under this head, and as such might be properly undertaken by any of the clubs or societies formed for the cultivation of early English literature. He might perhaps more easily attain the object of his wishes in this manner than by that which he has hitherto pursued. When a selection is to be made from the works of any author, much will depend upon the taste and discretion of the editor. Now I gather from Mr. CORNEY's letter, that he is fully prepared to undertake that office himself; and I may be permitted to add that his scrupulous accuracy and unwearied diligence afford the best guarantee that the work will be executed in such a manner as to fully satisfy the public interest in Caxton, and to form a graceful and appropriate tribute to the illustrious father of the English press.

BERIAH BOTFIELD.

Norton Hall, Jan. 3. 1852.

SETTLE'S FEMALE PRELATE, OR POPE JOAN; A TRAGEDY.

I have not seen it anywhere noticed that this play, printed under Elkanah Settle's name, with a long dedication by him to the Earl of Shaftsbury, in 1680, 4to., was certainly a mere alteration of an old play on the same subject. It is impossible for any one to read many pages of it, without seeing everywhere traces of a much more powerful hand than "poor Elkanah's," although he needed no assistance in managing the ceremony of pope-burning. Take at random the following quotation, which is much more like Middleton's or Decker's than the debased style after the Restoration: