What has just been said is not entirely applicable to the treatise on education which passed under the title of _Euphues and his Ephoebus_. Although simply an adaptation of the _De Educatione_ of Plutarch, it was not entirely devoid of originality. Here we find the famous attack upon Oxford, which was, we fear, prompted by a desire to spite the University authorities rather than by any earnest feeling of moral condemnation. But in addition to this there are contributions of Lyly's own invention to the theory of teaching which are not without merit. He was, as we have seen, interested in education. It seems even possible that he had actually practised as a master before the _Euphues_ saw light[89]; and, therefore, we have every reason to suppose that this little treatise was a labour of love. Possibly Ascham's _Schoolmaster_ inspired him with the idea of writing it. Certainly, when we have allowed everything for Plutarch's work, enough remains over to justify Mr Quick's inclusion of John Lyly, side by side with Roger Ascham, in his _Educational Reformers_. [89] Bond, I. p. 10. But such excellent work has but little to do with the business of novel-writing, and, when we turn to this aspect of the _Anatomy of Wit_, there is little to be said for it from the aesthetic point of view. Indeed, it cannot strictly be called a novel at all. It is the bridge between the moral Court treatise and the novel, and, as such, all its aesthetic defects matter little in comparison with its dynamical value. It was a great step to hang the chestnuts of discourse upon a string of incident. The story is feeble, the plot puerile, but it was something to have a story and a plot which dealt with contemporary life. And lastly, though characterization is not even attempted, yet now and again these euphuistic puppets, distinguishable only by their labels, are inspired with something that is almost life by a phrase or a chance word.