Beginning with No. XL, the selections are given in their original form without modernization. While Part Second, no less than Part First, looks to literary rather than linguistic study, it seemed to me very desirable that the selections from writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries should represent the literary language of that time. By modernizing I could have dispensed with many a footnote and have made the texts somewhat easier to read; but that gain would have entailed a very unfortunate loss of savor, and have deprived the selections of all incidental value as _Sprachproben_. On the other hand, I could see no advantage in a scrupulous reproduction of careless punctuation, mere mistakes, or meaningless peculiarities of spelling. As there is no logical stopping-place when an editor once begins to retouch a text, I finally decided to follow, in each selection, either a trustworthy reprint or else a good critical edition, without attempting to harmonize the different editors or to apply any general rules of my own. The reader is thus assured of a fairly authentic text, though he will find inconsistencies of spelling due to the idiosyncrasy of editors. Thus one editor may preserve _vnd_ or _vnnd_, while another prints _und_; one may have _itzt_, another _jtzt_, and so on. Finally, I desire to call attention here to the fact that, while a few selections from Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller are given, by way of illustrating their early work in its relation to the literary renascence, no attempt is made to deal adequately with the classical literature of the eighteenth century. The book extends _to_ the classics. I must admit that the limit thus set is a little vague, and from a theoretical point of view not quite satisfactory; but practical considerations decided in favor of it. To have done justice to the classics, on the scale adopted for the rest of the book, would have required an additional hundred pages, devoted to long extracts from works which, for the most part, have been carefully edited for American students, are commonly read in schools and colleges, and could be presumed to be familiar to most users of the Anthology. As the additional matter would thus have been largely useless, it seemed to me that the ideal gain in symmetry would be more than offset by the increased bulk and cost of the book, which was already large enough. I hold of course that anthologies have their use in the study of literary history; but it would be a mistake, in my judgment, for any student to take up a volume of selections without having first read the more important works of Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller. CALVIN THOMAS. Columbia University.