Coppée opens his preface by distinguishing his work from a mere chronological list of authors, insisting that literature and history are reciprocal and combine to make eras. He proposes to place great authors in immediate relations with great events, a principle he applies throughout. The excerpts reveal a method that interleaves political narrative with literary biography: the reign of Queen Anne is sketched through the conflict of Whigs and Tories, Jacobites and Hanoverians, before turning to Joseph Addison as the principal literary figure of the period. This structure—historical context first, then author—is consistent with Coppée's stated aim to show how literature interprets history.

A Manual, Not a Dictionary

Coppée explicitly rejects the format of a chronological list with brief comments, calling such works valuable only as an abridged dictionary of names and dates. Instead, he aims to give a connected view of English literature that might show students how and what to read for themselves. The excerpts demonstrate this approach: rather than cataloging authors by reign, Coppée embeds literary figures within detailed political narratives. For instance, his account of Queen Anne's reign includes the succession crisis, the rivalry of Whigs and Tories, and the Jacobite threat before he introduces Addison. This method prioritizes historical causation over simple chronology, making the manual a tool for understanding literature as a product of its time.

The Reciprocal Bond of Literature and History

Coppée's central thesis is that literature and history are reciprocal: they combine to make eras. He illustrates this by showing how political turmoil shaped the leading men of England, with statesmen on the fence and authors switching parties—Swift moved from Whig to Tory, while Marlborough left the Tories for the Whigs. The literature of Queen Anne's age, he argues, bore her image and carried it into succeeding reigns. This reciprocal bond is not merely asserted but demonstrated through the structure of the text, where historical events and literary careers are interwoven. Coppée treats Addison's early support for the new monarchs as a natural outcome of the revolution of 1688, which Addison was old enough to appreciate.

Diction and the Partisan Lens

Coppée's own diction reveals a partisan lens. He describes George I as coming cautiously and selfishly to the throne, bringing not a spice of honest English sentiment but the filth of the electoral court. Such language is evaluative, not neutral. Similarly, he characterizes the Jacobite pretender as standing ready to re-affirm his claim, and notes that a price had been put upon his head. The Whigs are defined as those who declared that kingly power was solely for the good of the subject, while Tories asserted monarchs ruled by divine right. These definitions are presented as fact, but they carry the weight of a particular historical interpretation. Coppée's word choices—filth, selfishly, feeble queen—shape the reader's perception of events, making the manual itself an artifact of its own era's political assumptions.

The Addison Example

Coppée's treatment of Joseph Addison exemplifies his method. He begins with Addison's birth in 1672, notes that he was old enough in 1688 to appreciate the revolution, and states that as early as he could wield his pen, he used it in the cause of the new monarchs. This biographical detail is immediately tied to political history. Coppée then traces Addison's education at Charter-House and Oxford, his Latin verses rewarded by a scholarship, and his poetical address to Dryden at age twenty-two. The narrative is concise, but it consistently links literary activity to political allegiance. The excerpts do not include analysis of Addison's works themselves; instead, they position him as a figure whose career was shaped by the revolutionary settlement. This selective focus reinforces Coppée's principle that literature is best understood as an interpreter of history.

Readers should approach Coppée's manual as a document of its own time—a post-Civil War American educator's attempt to forge a usable past from English letters. His emphases on political context and authorial allegiance reflect a belief that literature gains meaning through historical struggle. The excerpts offer a concentrated example of his method in the reign of Queen Anne, but the same pattern likely governs his treatment of earlier and later periods. Those seeking a neutral survey of authors will not find it; instead, they will encounter a deliberate argument about how to read literature historically.