incorrect, and not quite complete. Hence serious students were naturally led into many more and much greater liberties of conjectural emendation than they would have dreamed of taking had the texts been fairly accurate—the certainty of numerous errors made the text seem uncertain throughout. Thus it is safe to say that old students' copies of Shelley show far more textual notes and queries than those of any of his contemporaries—even, for instance, than those of Byron, though Byron was a much laxer writer than Shelley. On the other hand, such serious students have naturally, by long usage and cherished association, come to love those readings in which they divined or suspected no error, and are thus very unwilling to discard them for others, even when these are more authoritative, and would have been recognised as distinctly superior had the opportunity offered at first of comparing or contrasting them with those in possession; and the conservative prejudice is exceedingly stubborn where revolutions of rhythm or cadence are in question. But such prejudices, however powerful now, will not affect the ever-new generations of readers.
The case being thus, we may well congratulate ourselves that, while it is yet time, two such painstaking and excellent critical editions of the poetical works have been published as those of Mr. W. M. Rossetti and Mr. H. B. Forman, both embodying the results of Mr. Garnett's researches, as revealed in "The Relics of Shelley" and elsewhere, and both profiting by the discussions and suggestions of such adepts as Miss Blind, Mr. Swinburne, Professor J. T. Baynes. I repeat, while it is yet time, because time is a very important factor in such work; so important, that it can scarcely be rash to assert that, other conditions equal, the force of textual criticism
