the new and now reigning faith came in. A statement not essentially dissimilar may be made in regard to the history of the text. In respect to its treatment there is a marked contrast between the general critical attitude of the two centuries. The general critical attitude, I say; for in both there are particular exceptions. But with this limitation it is correct to state that with the eighteenth century disappeared the violent treatment to which the language and versification of Shakespeare had been subjected; the calm assumption of editors that the transmitted text was a sort of dead substance, upon which they could operate at will, adding to it or rejecting from it or cutting it up in any way that suited their own pleasure. Such practices, to be sure, continue still; but they no longer continue to be looked upon with respect, still less with approval.

A specific statement I may be permitted to make in regard to my own treatment of certain phases of the subject. I have studiously refrained from resorting to comparisons between Shakespeare and the great dramatists of other nations, whether of ancient or modern times, so far as the degree of their achievement is concerned. In the history of opinion there is naturally frequent occasion to recount utterances of such a nature made by others. But comparisons of this sort, even when coming from men of highest genius, seem to me, as a general rule, to belong to criticism of a peculiarly valueless type. The cases are extraordinarily few in which they can be considered at all adequate; for the knowledge possessed by any one man of two contrasted authors is rarely equal as regards both, nor are

the conditions the same which give him the means and capacity to appreciate each fully. Furthermore, such comparisons almost always reflect national prejudices when they do not personal tastes. Something of the same reticence I have observed in the discussion of the different methods employed by different dramatists, though this is a matter which falls legitimately within the province of the work, and is indeed essential to its completeness. No one, in fact, can write a treatise of this kind without having very definite opinions of his own upon the questions in dispute. It is right to give them, for they indicate to the reader the author's point of view. Still the expression of them here is incidental, not specifically designed. This is to say that the work is primarily a history of critical controversy, and not itself a critical estimate.

One further remark. The separate volumes of this series are intended to form complete works in themselves, so far as the particular subject is concerned. To all of them belongs the unity of a common interest; but each of them will constitute a treatise entirely independent of the others. The next volume to appear will have for its title "Shakespeare and Voltaire."