over the same ground as Dodsley had already traversed with inferior
ability and less ample resources at his command, and there were
repetitions, as might be expected, of the same particulars. There seemed
to be two forms of weakness--redundancy on the one hand and meagreness on
the other. Again, all the information collected by Dodsley and Reed was
to be found elsewhere, with innumerable improvements and corrections of
mistakes, the subject itself more methodically handled, and the early
annals of the English drama and theatre almost presented to the public
view under a new aspect, by Mr Collier, in his well-known work printed in
1831, a publication heartily welcomed and appreciated at the time of its
appearance and long after, and even now a literary monument, of which it
may be said that, with whatever defects it may possess, it reflects as
much credit on its author as a far more perfect performance brought to
completion at the present day under more favourable auspices could
reflect on any one else. It was a long advance on anything which had been
attempted so far in the same direction; and to reproduce, in the face of
Mr Collier's volumes, the obsolete and superseded labours of Dodsley and
even Reed, seemed to be a waste of space which might be far more
beneficially occupied by additional texts.

As regards the orthography, it has to be pointed out that, in consonance
with the system adopted by Dyce and others, it has been reduced to our
modern standard; but at the same time it should be understood that the
_language_ of the writers has in every case been held sacred. Than the
spelling which occurs in early plays and tracts, more especially perhaps
those of a popular character, nothing can well be more capricious and
uncouth; but the phraseology and terms are on all accounts of value. Not
a word, therefore, nor even part of a word, has suffered alteration; and
wherever there was a doubt, as there might be in preparing for the press
once more such an extensive collection of pieces, it was thought better