[1] The lecture, as printed in 1901, was preceded by the following
note: "This Lecture is printed almost as it was delivered. I am aware
that, especially in the earlier pages, difficult subjects are treated
in a manner far too summary, but they require an exposition so full
that it would destroy the original form of the Lecture, while a
slight expansion would do little to provide against
misunderstandings." A few verbal changes have now been made, some
notes have been added, and some of the introductory remarks omitted.
[2] Note A.
[3] Note B.
[4] What is here called 'substance' is what people generally mean
when they use the word 'subject' and insist on the value of the
subject. I am not arguing against this usage, or in favour of the
usage which I have adopted for the sake of clearness. It does not
matter which we employ, so long as we and others know what we mean.
(I use 'substance' and 'content' indifferently.)
[5] These remarks will hold good, _mutatis mutandis_, if by
'substance' is understood the 'moral' or the 'idea' of a poem,
although perhaps in one instance out of five thousand this may be
found in so many words in the poem.
[6] On the other hand, the absence, or worse than absence, of style,
in this sense, is a serious matter.
[7] Note C.
[8] This paragraph is criticized in Note D.
[9]: Note E.
[10] Not that to Schiller 'form' meant mere style and versification.
[11] Note F.
[12] Note G.
[13] In Schiller's phrase, they have extirpated the mere 'matter.' We
often say that they do this by dint of style. This is roughly true,
but in strictness it means, as we have seen, not that they decorate
the mere 'matter' with a mere 'form,' but that they produce a new
content-form.