PREFACE.

A CERTAIN amount of novelty in the method of editing this essay, calls for explanation.

In presenting a classical treatise to pupils, it is always necessary to combine with the text more or less annotation. Strangely enough, however, we find that, numerous as are the annotated editions of acknowledged classics, they almost invariably turn aside to discuss obscure expressions and archaic words, or conjoin with the narrowest textual criticism a large amount of information clearing up allusions to persons and places of which the reader is supposed to be ignorant. They may even question the accuracy of the facts, and the soundness of the reasoning. Now, all this proceeds on the supposition that the only thing, or at least the chief thing, for which the classic is valuable, is its information. But surely the chief value of a classic is one of style. If so, why does this aspect not receive

more attention from the annotator? Why should he be content to confine himself to a work so unedifying as the mere deriving of old words, and the clearing up of unusual phrases ? Might not something be done to display the author's characteristics, to disclose useful qualities for imitation or to point out weak mannerisms that should be avoided?

This has seldom been attempted. The main purpose of editions of Macaulay's Essays, and of the Clarendon Press editions of Shakespeare has been to elucidate the text, to make the pupil understand the author's meaning; while to discriminate the good from the bad, what may be imitated from what should be avoided, is never even hinted at as desirable. Now, if we consider that the Teacher's aim in an English class is first of all to teach his pupils how to use their own language most effectually, we must see that the prevailing system is on a wrong basis.

However, is not the information contained in Macaulay's essays valuable? Probably. But another consideration is of importance. Some books are valuable as information, some as models of style, but it is rare to find a book striking in both aspects. Of Macaulay's essays, most are useful as illustrative of mere form; of none can

we say that the chief merit is the information; while of only two or three can we affirm that from both points of view they may be utilised as very good school-books. It is in his speeches that Macaulay shows the two qualities in most happy and perfect combination.*

In regard to the present essay on Milton we must say that neither its information nor its criticism is particularly noteworthy. If we wish to introduce our pupils to a knowledge of Milton's life, political and literary, or to a criticism of his poetry, there are many other books that we should find more exhaustive, more accurate, more interesting, and more intelligible. Moreover, if we wish to show Macaulay at his best, we should certainly not choose this, the most juvenile of his essays. Yet the peculiarity here is, that, along with much that is brilliant and characteristic, we find many occasions where it is just as instructive to show what not to do. As much may

* 'It is impossible to read Macaulay's speeches without feeling that in delivering them he was wielding an instrument of which he was absolutely the master. The luminous order and logical sequence of the parts are only surpassed by the lofty unity and coherence of the whole. High statesmanlike views are unfolded in language that is at once terse, chaste, and familiar, never fine drawn or over-subtle, but plain, direct and forcible, exactly suited to an audience of practical men.'-(F. Cotter Morison, p. 131).

be learned from a great author's failures as from his successes; and it is because Macaulay's style in this essay is so emphatically marked, that we have chosen it, tainted though it is with vicious elements, as the most suitable for instruction from our point of view.

Granting however that it is worth while for pupils to get up the matter or substance of this essay, and granting also that the style as here displayed with all its faults will equally reward study, we must still pronounce that the two things are distinct enquiries and should not conflict. This is in accordance with the first principles of division of labour. We might use the essay on Milton as a Reading Book, and make the reading lesson the occasion for discursive remarks on Derivation, for examples in Parsing and Analysis, for introducing incidents in History, and for exemplifying Sentence and Paragraph Structure. But this would be a curious and distracting mixture. Much better and more profitable to confine ourselves to Reading as mere Reading, to Derivation by itself, to the History apart, and to the Rhetoric apart, at separate sittings. "If the information is of any consequence it needs the attention to be kept well upon itself; if the language lesson is in earnest it equally wants concentration of mind,