historical legends, historical romances, historical poems and
dramas, and biographical sketches. And we do not hesitate to assert
that from Shakspeare's historical plays the reading public have
acquired (together with much other valuable information) a
hundred-fold more knowledge of certain portions of English history
than from all the ponderous tomes of formal history that have ever
been written. It may be said that people ought to read Hume, and
Lingard, and Mackintosh, and Hallam, and Froude, and Freeman,
instead of Shakspeare's "King John," and "Richard II.," and "Henry
IV.," and "Henry VIII.," etc. It is a sufficient reply to say they
do not.

Historical works, therefore, to be read by the masses, must be
adapted to the popular taste. It was an acknowledgment of this
truth that led Macaulay, the most brilliant of historians, to
remark, "We are not certain that the best histories are not those
in which a little of the exaggeration of fictitious narrative
is judiciously employed. Something is lost in accuracy, but much
is gained in effect. The fainter lines are neglected, but the
great characteristic features are imprinted on the mind forever."
If the result to which Macaulay refers be once attained by an
introductory work so interesting that it shall come into general
use, it will, we believe, naturally lead to the reading of some
of the best standard works in the same historical field. In our
attempt to make this a work of such a preparatory character, we
have borne in mind the demand that has arisen for poetic illustration
in the reading and teaching of history, and have given this
delightful aid to historical study a prominent place--ofttimes
making it the sole means of imparting information. And yet we
have introduced nothing that is not strictly consistent with our