elt; sometimes they untwist; and there be some words so
willing to be parted, that they divide themselves, to the great ease and
rejoicing of the Minister. But if they will not easily come in pieces,
then he falls to hacking and hewing, as if he would make all fly into
shivers. The truth of it is, I have known, now and then, some knotty
texts, that have been divided seven or eight times over, before they
could make them split handsomely, according to their mind."

An apology to those critics who have complained of my not dividing my
book into Chapters, is found in the foregoing passage. I tried to do it,
but found it a "knotty" subject, and, like the texts Eachard speaks of,
"would not easily come in pieces." With all my efforts, it could not be
made to "split handsomely."

This, and all other suggestions of criticism, are gratefully received
and respectfully considered. But, after all, it will not be well to
establish any canons, to be, in all cases, implicitly obeyed, by all
writers. Much must be left to individual judgment. Regard must be had to
the nature of subjects. Instead of servile uniformity, variety and
diversity must be encouraged. In this way, only, can we have a free,
natural, living literature.

In passing, I would say, that in meeting the demand made upon me by the
Reviewer, to rewrite the history of Salem witchcraft, I shall avail
myself of the opportunity to correct the single error he has mentioned.
In a re-issue of the work, I shall endeavor to make it as accurate as
possible. Anything that is found to be wrong shall be rectified. The
work, in the different forms in which it was published, is nearly out of
print. When issued again, it will be in a less costly style and more
within the reach of all. From the result of my own continued researches
and the suggestions of others, I feel inclined to the opinion that no
very considerable alterations will be made; and that subsequent
editions, will not impair the authority or value of the work, as
originally published in 1867.

In preparing the statement, now brought to a close, the only object has
been to get at, and present, the real facts of history. Nothing, merely
personal, affecting the writer in the _North American Review_ or myself,
can be considered as of comparative moment. Many of the expressions used
by that writer, as to what I have "seen" or "read" and the like, are, it
must be confessed, rather peculiar; but of very little interest to the