that he should find more in Swift to censure than to praise, and more in Burns to praise than to censure; and that he should trace the secret of the "Art of Conversation" to certain qualities of the heart rather than of the head. For one who was himself endowed by nature with so much wit, this insistence upon the deeper humanity of the moral nature loses what might else have been reckoned its professional bias, and becomes impressive.

There are two things sometimes looked for in critical essays, which the reader of these pages must be warned at the outset that he will not find. The first is work of research. I do not think Ainger would have claimed to possess any special zeal or skill for the discovery of new facts about the great writers whom he loved and honoured. The confessions in the essay about "Charles Lamb in Hertfordshire" speak for themselves as to his manner of working. He was uninterested in points of minute historical accuracy for their own sake, though when some question touching character was involved, he would take a great deal of pains in an investigation; and I would indicate specially the paper on Coleridge's Dejection Ode as forming an original and important contribution to the study of that poet. The

other element, which the readers of modern critical essays may be disappointed not to find in these volumes, is paradox. It was Ainger's idea that the function of criticism was not to coruscate, but to analyse; to get down to the truth about any matter, not to say brilliant things for the amusement of his audience. And if this older fashion in criticism is allowed, the reader will find many examples of his author's happy skill in appreciating and discriminating what comes up for judgment. The sort of question he liked to put to himself was, What is true humour, and how does it differ from what is false? What is true poetry, and how does it differ from what is second-rate? Why can I read a play of Shakspeare again and again with renewed delight, and never wish to return to the undoubtedly clever scenes of this other playwright? As examples of his skill in analysis, it will suffice to refer to the three lectures upon Shakspeare which open the book; in the first of which I would point to the criticism of Love's Labour's Lost, with its careful investigation of what it is that makes the play unpopular, and its vigorous defence of the play's dramatic interest; in the second, to the study of Sensationalism; and in the third, to the searching discussion of Hallam's theory as to what con

stitutes the common element in the last group of dramas.

I have ventured to append a note here and there; these editorial notes are distinguished from those of the author by being enclosed in square brackets. H. C. BEECHING.

LITTLE CLOISTERS,

WESTMINSTER ABBEY,

June 1905.