of the existence of modern historical criticism; he may make a 'serious reader,' such as Mr. Matthew Arnold, impatient by tickling his ears with fine rhetoric'; and, worse than all perhaps, his once so admired style may be voted vicious and detestable-but, at all events with younger and less serious readers, he hits the nascent taste for the things of the mind, possesses himself of it, stimulates it, draws it powerfully forth and confirms it.'1 It is for this that Macaulay's Essays are so valuable to the educator of others, or of himself. And of all these Essays none is more valuable than the Essay on Milton. Its main subject is, from every point of view, important. Its allusions range over a great extent of history and literature. Its 'redundancy of youthful enthusiasm and its 'fine rhetoric' awaken interest and curiosity in numberless subjects; and the annotator should seize the opportunity thus offered, and place before the reader, while his appetite is thus sharpened, so much information, and in such a form, that it may prove digestible and nutritive-may be assimilated, and form an organic part of the learner's intellectual constitution. For this object curt and meagre notes are of little use. They are indeed often worse than useless. They cumber the memory with some fact or date, which lies there and rots 'in disconnection dead and spiritless,'-the most 'trivial' of all details, the most worthless of all encumbrances. Let us take as an illustration the following passage of 1A French Critic on Milton: in Matthew Arnold's Mixed Essays. Johnson's Life of Dryden, and Mr. Matthew Arnold's annotation of the passage. Dryden, says Dr. Johnson, 'undertook a translation of Virgil, for which he had shown how well he was qualified by his version of the Pollio and two episodes, one of Nisus and Euryalus, the other of Mezentius and Lausus.' Now, any reader who is acquainted with these two episodes would certainly also know what was meant by 'the Pollio.' For such readers, therefore, no note at all was needed. Those, again, who may not have had the advantages enjoyed by Macaulay's schoolboy, and who therefore are unacquainted with the Pollio, would surely also be ignorant of these two episodes. But of Nisus and Euryalus, or of Mezentius and Lausus, Mr. Matthew Arnold says nothing. His sole remark on the passage is that 'The Pollio is Virgil's 4th Eclogue.' The Pollio Virgil's 4th Eclogue! Who, if he knows Virgil's Eclogues, cares to be reminded that the Pollio is the 4th? Who, if he does not know the Eclogues, is any wiser by being able to repeat, like an equation of two unknown terms, that the Pollio, of which he knows nothing, is the 4th of the Eclogues, of which he also knows nothing? Surely, to say nothing of the two episodes from the Eneid, a few words about the Pollio, with its mysterious Sybilline or Oriental presage of a Messiah, might have aroused interest, and perhaps have opened up a new vista to the reader. Wherefore, then, merely burden his memory with this most useless and trivial detail, that 'The Pollio is Virgil's 4th Eclogue'? For such reasons I have supplied in my notes to this Essay not merely just so much information as might enable the reader to skim over or scrape round the innumerable allusions which block his passage, but information copious enough to float him, if he will, for a little distance up divers affluents springing from far mightier waters than the brawling stream down which he is travelling. The distant glimpses that he may now and then catch of these other scenes may perchance excite a desire of future exploration. The comparison of Milton with Dante which Macaulay makes, although the points of contrast chosen are merely accidental and superficial, serves the purpose of the educator better than it would be served by any attempt to describe the essential differences of the Paradise Lost and the Divina Commedia differences which can only be learnt by a study of the poems themselves. These superficial points of contrast, so graphically depicted by Macaulay's brilliant rhetoric, attract attention. The reader, it may be, feels a desire to know a little more about Farinata, or about the interview of Dante and Beatrice.' If, instead of telling him to 'see Inferno x.,' or to 'consult Purgatory xxx.,' we supply enough annotation to thoroughly interest him in the subject, it may possibly induce him on some future occasion to turn to Dante's great poem. He may possibly, like that 'poor Robert Hall,' at whom Mr. Matthew Arnold mocks, by aid of dictionary and grammar endeavour to make out Dante's own words, and, even if he should discover that Macaulay's parallel between Milton and Dante is as 'unverifiable' as Mr. Matthew Arnold (wrongly, I think) deems it to be, it may end in the revelation of a Vision of which no commentary or criticism could ever have given him more than a blurred and distorted conception. Instead of attempting to give any biographical sketch, I have interwoven here and there in the notes a considerable amount of information about Milton, and have added a chronological Summary, in which the main facts of his life can be viewed in relation to co-temporary events. Introductions and biographical sketches are for the most part left unread. Any one who desires a consecutive account of Milton's life and writings will gain from Mr. Stopford Brooke's admirable little volume, or from Mr. Pattison's Milton, a far clearer conception than that which would be given him by a few pages of an Introduction. Still less necessary was it to give a detailed account of a period which is fully described in every English History. Also in the case of Macaulay I have limited myself to a brief biographical Summary, and to a few facts immediately bearing on the composition of the Essay. If any should wish for a fuller acquaintance with the life of one who, though perhaps not 'great' from the literary critic's point of view, was in many ways a truly good and great man, they will do well to procure the most delightful Life and Letters of Macaulay, by his nephew, Sir George Trevelyan, a popular edition of which can be obtained for a very modest sum. Mr. Morison's Macaulay is also written in an attractive style, and contains many just criticisms. Any account of the historical and literary events which were co-temporary with the life of Macaulay, a life which extended from the death of Cowper to the appearance of the Idylls of the King, would have been superfluous. This period, involving the reigns of four English monarchs and some thirteen Whig or Tory administrations, the passing of the great Reform Bill, the Abolition of Slavery, the rise and fall of the Napoleonic Empire, and many other important worldevents- —a period in which Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Scott, and Goethe lived—is one which, if studied, can hardly be studied as a mere adjunct to Macaulay's Essay. He lived for some thirty-five years after writing this Essay on Milton. He lived moreover, as Mr. Morison says, 'in almost complete isolation amid the active intellectual life of his day'; and it is, as Mr. Lowell justly remarks in his amusing criticism on Professor Masson's encyclopædic labours, 'only such co-temporary events, opinions, or persons as are really operative on the character of the man we are studying that are of consequence.' Subjoined is a list of books which I think may prove useful to those who intend to study the Essay thoroughly. I have not added Professor Masson's voluminous publications to the list, for they are not easily accessible, and they contain a vast amount of matter which, however useful it may be for some purposes, would only distract the student from the more important aspects of the subject. MILTON. Milton: by Stopford A. Brooke (Classical Writers: Macmillan). Milton: an address by M. Arnold (Essays in Criticism: Macmillan). Hallam's Literary History (Murray). Milton: by J. R. Lowell (Essays: Walter Scott). |