La morphologie, visant à étudier spécialement la structure interne des mots, se divise traditionnellement en deux branches : morphologie dérivationnelle (ou lexicale), s’intéressant à l’aspect formationnel (dérivationnel) des mots complexes (dérivés ou construits) et morphologie flexionnelle, s’occupant spécifiquement de l’aspect flexionnel. C’est ce deuxième aspect qui est adopté dans cet ouvrage, qui essaie de rendre cette matière quelque peu complexe, même pour un public averti, plus accessible par tous, notamment par les apprenants étrangers, en sélectionnant une méthodologie « distributionnelle ». En effet, les travaux existants en la matière sont purement descriptifs et souvent assez complexes et, par conséquent, ne conviennent guère au public méconnaissant le domaine et encore moins aux étudiants qui tâchent d’appréhender le fonctionnement morphologique d’une langue étrangère.

Il s’agit, donc, d’un ouvrage d’initiation, de nature pédagogique, spécialement conçu pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la morphologie du français. Ainsi, tout en apprenant les techniques d’analyses morphologiques, ces derniers saisiront plus facilement les fondements de la flexion des mots français. D’où, l’autre caractéristique de l’ouvrage, qui se veut, autant que possible, d’une simplicité, aussi bien sur les plans du contenu, du corpus, de la méthode d’analyse et de la description qu’au niveau métalinguistique.

“Originally published in 1896.”

In the following pages my aim has been to sketch the development of criticism, and particularly of critical method, in England; and to illustrate each phase of its growth by one or two samples taken from the most typical writers. I have in no way attempted to make a full collection of what might be thought the most striking pieces of criticism to be found in our literature.

Owing to the great wealth of such writing produced during the last sixty years, it is clearly impossible to give so complete a picture of what has been done in this period as in others. I am obliged to content myself with one specimen of one writer. But that is the writer who, in the opinion of many, is the most remarkable of all English critics. For the permission, so kindly granted, to include the Essay on Sandro Botticelli I desire to offer my sincerest thanks to Messrs. Macmillan and to the other representatives of the late Mr. Pater.

It may seem strange to close a volume of literary criticism with a study on the work and temperament of a painter. I have been led to do so for more than one reason. A noticeable tendency of modern criticism, from the time of Burke and Lessing, has been to break down the barrier between poetry and the kindred arts; and it is perhaps well that this tendency should find expression in the following selection. But a further reason is that Mr. Pater was never so much himself, was never so entirely master of his craft, as when interpreting the secrets of form and colour. Most of all was this the case when he had chosen for his theme one who, like Botticelli, “is before all things a poetical painter”.

1. E. VAUGHAN

February, 1896.

THE translations given in this volume, with the exception of the stormscene from Tolstoy in the First Lecture, are my own. The reader will please bear in mind that these Lectures, printed here exactly as delivered, were written with a view to addressing the ear as well as the eye, otherwise the book would have been entirely different from what it now is. When delivering the Sixth Lecture, I read extracts from Tolstoy’s “My Religion” and “What to Do,” illustrating every position of his I there commend; but for reasons it is needless to state, I omit them in the book. I can only hope that the reader will all the more readily go to the books themselves.

1889. P. GRAFTON, MASS., 1 July, 1889.