ented me from saying during his life what there is no reason that I
should not say now--that in my opinion he was one of the most
unsuccessful of Shakespeare's editors. His edition is one of the worst
that has been published in the last century, both for its text and,
except as to their learning, for its notes. With all my deferential
respect for him,[10] I was prepared for this result before the
appearance of the first of his three editions. Being in correspondence
with him, and on such terms that I could make such a request, I asked
him to send me some sheets of his edition while it was passing through
the press. He replied that he could not do this; but the reason that he
gave was, not any unwillingness to confide them to me, but that it was
then impossible, because after his edition was half struck off he had
cancelled the greater part of it on account of changes in his opinions
as to the reading of so many passages! And this after he was well in
years; after having passed his life in the study of Elizabethan
literature; and after having edited Beaumont and Fletcher! I was never
more amazed. Such a man could have no principles of criticism. How could
he guide others who after such study was not sure of his own way? With
all his knowledge of the literature and the literary history of the
Elizabethan period, he seemed to lack the power of putting himself in
sympathy with Shakespeare as he wrote. Hence the crudity and incongruity
of his text, his vacillating opinions, and the weakness and poverty of
his annotation.

Of criticism of what has been called the higher kind, I recommend the
reading of very little, or better, none at all. Read Shakespeare; seek
aid to understand his language, if that be in any way obscure to you;
but that once comprehended, apprehension of his purpose and meaning will
come untold to those who can attain it in any way. In my own edition I
avoided as much as possible the introduction of aesthetic criticism, not
because I felt incapable of writing it; for it is easy work; on the
contrary, I freely essayed it when it was necessary as an aid to the
settlement of the text, or of like questions; and by its use I think
that I succeeded in establishing some points of importance. But in my
judgment the duty of an editor is performed when he puts the reader, as
nearly as possible, in the same position, for the apprehension of his
author's meaning, that he would have occupied if he had been
contemporary