PR EFA C E

IT is hoped that i n most respect s thi s volume o n Tbc Englis b

Es s ay a n d Es s ay is t s will su ffi cie n tly explai n its e l f without th e
aid o f a pre f ace But there is o n e point with regard to whi ch
.

a word o f explanatio n may perha ps be n ecessary There is .

i n English a great ma s s o f literary criticism o f whi ch mu ch ,

the greater part is i n the form o f essays I f thes e critical .

essays ha d been here treated in accorda nce with their in

t r i n s ic importance they would have filled much more S pace
,

tha n has been given to them But i n . Cba rm el: of Euglis b

Li ter a tur e there is a separate volume a ssigned to criticism .

I n the pr ese n t volume therefore my purpose has bee n to

, ,

touch upon the subj ect as lightly a s the nature o f my o wn task

p e rmitted I co ul d not entirely ignore it ; for sometim e s
.

criticism has aided i n the developme n t o f the essay a n d ,

sometimes reference to an essayist s critical work has bee n’

necessary to round o ff a gener al estimate o f him I t is clear .

,

fo r exa mple that Matthew Arnold could not be ignored i n a

,

book professing to discuss the English Essayists ; a n d it is

equ ally clear that t o S peak o f him as a n essayist without t e
fer ence to hi s criticism would be absurd NO attempt how .
,

ever has been made to di scuss hi s critical principles in full

, .

Thi s then is the explanation i f I seem to ha ve said t o o little

, ,

about the critics I f I have said t o o much it is from failure

.
,

to strike the just mean between f ull discussion and total

silence .

HU GH WALKER .

D ece m be r 18. 1 9 1 4.