trifling alterations before moulds were taken, but since the summer of 1872, as new editions were from time to time wanted, they have been printed from stereos then made.

Having now, I fear, at too great length done what I was asked to do, I should like to add a few words on my own account. I am still fairly well satisfied with those parts of ‘Erewhon’ that were repeatedly rewritten, but from those that had only a single writing I would gladly cut out some forty or fifty pages if I could.

This, however, may not be, for the copyright will probably expire in a little over twelve years. It was necessary, therefore, to revise the book throughout for literary inelegancies—of which I found many more than I had expected—and also to make such substantial additions as should secure a new lease of life—at any rate for the copyright. If, then, instead of cutting out, say, fifty pages, I have been compelled to add about sixty invita Minerva—the blame rests neither with my publisher nor with me, but with the copyright laws. Nevertheless, I can assure the reader that, though I have found it an irksome task to take up work which I thought I had got rid of thirty years ago, and much of which I am ashamed of, I have done my best to make the new matter savour so much of the better portions of the old, that none but the best critics shall perceive at what places the gaps of between thirty and forty years occur.

Lastly, if my readers note a considerable difference between the literary technique of ‘Erewhon’ and that of ‘Erewhon Revisited,’ I would remind them that, as I have just shown, ‘Erewhon’ took something like ten years in writing, and even so was written with great difficulty, while ‘Erewhon Revisited’ was written easily between November 1900 and the end of April 1901. There is no central idea underlying ‘Erewhon,’ whereas the attempt to realize the effect of a single supposed great miracle dominates the whole of its successor. In ‘Erewhon’ there was hardly any story, and little attempt to give life and individuality to the characters; I hope that in ‘Erewhon Revisited’ both these defects have been in great measure avoided. ‘Erewhon’ was not an organic whole; ‘Erewhon Revisited’ may fairly claim to be. Nevertheless, though in literary workmanship I do not doubt that this last-named book is an improvement on the first, I shall be agreeably surprised if I am not told that ‘Erewhon,’ with all its faults, is the better reading of the two.

August 7, 1901.

Samuel Butler