I read both prefaces as well and found the first one interesting though wordy, and the second one just plain awful. I can understand wanting to publish something annonymously until it is known how it will be received, that seems somewhat humble. But then the rest of the second preface is terribly arrogant. Oh he says he can't compare to Shakespere, but then goes on to explain how the book resembles Shakespere. And then lots of quoting in other languages to show how educated he was. I'm afraid it put me in a mood to see the story a very silly indeed.