Part 15

The result of this revolution is naturally most remarkable in the _belles-lettres_ and the kindred department of history. Poetry, not dramatic, has been revived; prose romance and literary criticism have been brought to a perfection previously unknown; and history has produced works more various, if not more remarkable, than at any previous stage of the language. Of all these branches we shall therefore endeavour to give some detailed account. But the services done to the language were not limited to the strictly literary branches of literature. Modern French, if it lacks, as it probably does lack, the statuesque precision and elegance of prose style to which between 1650 and 1800 all else was sacrificed, has become a much more suitable instrument for the accurate and copious treatment of positive and concrete subjects. These subjects have accordingly been treated in an abundance corresponding to that manifested in other countries, though the literary importance of the treatment has perhaps proportionately declined. We cannot even attempt to indicate the innumerable directions of scientific study which this copious industry has taken, and must confine ourselves to those which come more immediately under the headings previously adopted. In philosophy proper France, like other nations, has been more remarkable for attention to the historical side of the matter than for the production of new systems; and the principal exception among her philosophical writers, Auguste Comte (1793-1857), besides inclining, as far as his matter went to the political and scientific rather than to the purely philosophical side (which indeed he regarded as antiquated), was not very remarkable merely as a man of letters. Victor Cousin (1792-1867), on the other hand, almost a brilliant man of letters and for a time regarded as something of a philosophical apostle preaching "eclecticism," betook himself latterly to biographical and other miscellaneous writing, especially on the famous French ladies of the 17th century, and is likely to be remembered chiefly in this department, though not to be forgotten in that of philosophical history and criticism. The same curious declension was observable in the much younger Hippolyte Adolphe Taine (1828-1893), who, beginning with philosophical studies, and always maintaining a strong tincture of philosophical determinism, applied himself later, first to literary history and criticism in his famous _Histoire de la litterature anglaise_ (1864), and then to history proper in his still more famous and far more solidly based _Origines de la France contemporaine_ (1876). To him, however, we must recur under the head of literary criticism. And not dissimilar phenomena, not so much of inconstancy to philosophy as of a tendency towards the applied rather than the pure branches of the subject, are noticeable in Edgar Quinet (1803-1875), in Charles de Remusat (1797-1875), and in Ernest Renan (1823-1892), the first of whom began by translating Herder while the second and third devoted themselves early to scholastic philosophy, de Remusat dealing with Abelard (1845) and Anselm (1856), Renan with Averroes (1852). More single-minded devotion to at least the historical side was shown by Jean Philibert Damiron (1794-1862), who published in 1842 a _Cours de philosophie_ and many minor works at different times; but the inconstancy recurs in Jules Simon (1814-1896), who, in the earlier part of his life a professor of philosophy and a writer of authority on the Greek philosophers (especially in _Histoire de l'ecole d'Alexandrie_, 1844-1845), began before long to take an active and, towards the close of his life-work, all but a foremost part in politics. In theology the chief name of great literary eminence in the earlier part of the century is that of Lamennais, of whom more presently, in the later, that of Renan again. But Charles Forbes de Montalembert (1810-1870), an historian with a strong theological tendency, deserves notice; and among ecclesiastics who have been orators and writers the pere Jean Baptiste Henri Lacordaire (1802-1861), a pupil of Lamennais who returned to orthodoxy but always kept to the Liberal side; the pere Celestin Joseph Felix (1810-1891), a Jesuit teacher and preacher of eminence; and the pere Didon (1840-1900), a very popular preacher and writer who, though thoroughly orthodox, did not escape collision with his superiors. On the Protestant side Athanase Coquerel (1820-1875) is the most remarkable name. Recently Paul Sabatier (b. 1858) has displayed, especially in dealing with Saint Francis of Assisi, much power of literary and religious sympathy and a style somewhat modelled on that of Renan, but less unctuous and effeminate. There are strong philosophical tendencies, and at least a revolt against the religious as well as philosophical ideas of the Encyclopedists, in the _Pensees_ of Joubert, while the hybrid position characteristic of the 19th century is particularly noticeable in Etienne Pivert de Senancour (1770-1846), whose principal work, _Obermann_ (1804), had an extraordinary influence on its own and the next generation in the direction of melancholy moralizing. This tone was notably taken up towards the other end of the century by Amiel (q.v.), who, however, does not strictly belong to _French_ literature: while in Ximenes Doudon (1800-1872), author of _Melanges et lettres_ posthumously published, we find more of a return to the attitude of Joubert--literary criticism occupying a very large part of his reflections. Political philosophy and its kindred sciences have naturally received a large share of attention. Towards the middle of the century there was a great development of socialist and fanciful theorizing on politics, with which the names of Claude Henri, comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), Charles Fourier (1772-1837), Etienne Cabet (1788-1856), and others are connected. As political economists Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), L. G. L. Guilhaud de Lavergne (1809-1880), Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881), and Michel Chevalier (1806-1879) may be noticed. In Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) France produced a political observer of a remarkably acute, moderate and reflective character, and Armand Carrel (1800-1836), whose life was cut short in a duel, was a real man of letters, as well as a brilliant journalist and an honest if rather violent party politician. The name of Jean Louis Eugene Lerminier (1803-1857) is of wide repute for legal and constitutional writings, and that of Henri, baron de Jomini (1779-1869) is still more celebrated as a military historian; while that of Francois Lenormant (1837-1883) holds a not dissimilar position in archaeology. With the publications devoted to physical science proper we do not attempt to meddle. Philology, however, demands a brief notice. In classical studies France has till recently hardly maintained the position which might be expected of the country of Scaliger and Casaubon. She has, however, produced some considerable Orientalists, such as Champollion the younger, Burnouf, Silvestre de Sacy and Stanislas Julien. The foundation of Romance philology was due, indeed, to the foreigners Wolf and Diez. But early in the century the curiosity as to the older literature of France created by Barbazan, Tressan and others continued to extend. Dominique Martin Meon (1748-1829) published many unprinted fabliaux, gave the whole of the French _Renart_ cycle, with the exception of _Renart le contrefait_, and edited the _Roman de la rose_. Charles Claude Fauriel (1772-1844) and Francois Raynouard (1761-1836) dealt elaborately with Provencal poetry as well as partially with that of the trouveres; and the latter produced his comprehensive _Lexique romane_. These examples were followed by many other writers, who edited manuscript works and commented on them, always with zeal and sometimes with discretion. Foremost among these must be mentioned Paulin Paris (1800-1881) who for fifty years served the cause of old French literature with untiring energy, great literary taste, and a pleasant and facile pen. His selections from manuscripts, his _Romancero francais_, his editions of _Garin le Loherain_ and _Berte aus grans pies_, and his _Romans de la table ronde_ may especially be mentioned. Soon, too, the Benedictine _Histoire litteraire_, so long interrupted, was resumed under M. Paris's general management, and has proceeded nearly to the end of the 14th century. Among its contents M. Paris's dissertations on the later _chansons de gestes_ and the early song writers, M. Victor le Clerc's on the _fabliaux_, and M. Littre's on the _romans d'aventures_ may be specially noticed. For some time indeed the work of French editors was chargeable with a certain lack of critical and philological accuracy. This reproach, however, was wiped off by the efforts of a band of younger scholars, chiefly pupils of the Ecole des Chartes, with MM. Gaston Paris (1839-1903) and Paul Meyer at their head. Of M. Paris in particular it may be said that no scholar in the subject has ever combined literary and linguistic competence more admirably. The Societe des Anciens Textes Francais was formed for the purpose of publishing scholarly editions of inedited works, and a lexicon of the older tongue by M. Godefroy at last supplemented, though not quite with equal accomplishment, the admirable dictionary in which Emile Littre (1801-1881), at the cost of a life's labour, embodied the whole vocabulary of the classical French language. Meanwhile the period between the middle ages proper and the 17th century has not lacked its share of this revival of attention. To the literature between Villon and Regnier especial attention was paid by the early Romantics, and Sainte-Beuve's _Tableau historique et critique de la poesie et du theatre au seizieme siecle_ was one of the manifestoes of the school. Since the appearance of that work in 1828 editions with critical comments of the literature of this period have constantly multiplied, aided by the great fancy for tastefully produced works which exists among the richer classes in France; and there are probably now few countries in which works of old authors, whether in cheap reprints or in _editions de luxe_ can be more readily procured.

Beranger.

Lamartine.

Lamennais.

_The Romantic Movement._--It is time, however, to return to the literary revolution itself, and its more purely literary results. At the accession of Charles X. France possessed three writers, and perhaps only three, of already remarkable eminence, if we except Chateaubriand, who was already of a past generation. These three were Pierre Jean de Beranger (1780-1857), Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869), and Hugues Felicite Robert Lamennais (1782-1854). The first belongs definitely in manner, despite his striking originality of _nuance_, to the past. He has remnants of the old periphrases, the cumbrous mythological allusions, the poetical "properties" of French verse. He has also the older and somewhat narrow limitations of a French poet; foreigners are for him mere barbarians. At the same time his extraordinary lyrical faculty, his excellent wit, which makes him a descendant of Rabelais and La Fontaine, and his occasional touches of pathos made him deserve and obtain something more than successes of occasion. Beranger, moreover, was very far from being the mere improvisatore which those who cling to the inspirationist theory of poetry would fain see in him. His studies in style and composition were persistent, and it was long before he attained the firm and brilliant manner which distinguishes him. Beranger's talent, however, was still too much a matter of individual genius to have great literary influence, and he formed no school. It was different with Lamartine, who was, nevertheless, like Beranger, a typical Frenchman. The _Meditations_ and the _Harmonies_ exhibit a remarkable transition between the old school and the new. In going direct to nature, in borrowing from her striking outlines, vivid and contrasted tints, harmony and variety of sound, the new poet showed himself an innovator of the best class. In using romantic and religious associations, and expressing them in affecting language, he was the Chateaubriand of verse. But with all this he retained some of the vices of the classical school. His versification, harmonious as it is, is monotonous, and he does not venture into the bold lyrical forms which true poetry loves. He has still the horror of the _mot propre_; he is always spiritualizing and idealizing, and his style and thought have a double portion of the feminine and almost flaccid softness which had come to pass for grace in French. The last of the trio, Lamennais, represents an altogether bolder and rougher genius. Strongly influenced by the Catholic reaction, Lamennais also shows the strongest possible influence of the revolutionary spirit. His earliest work, the _Essai sur l'indifference en matiere de religion_ (1817 and 1818) was a defence of the church on curiously unecclesiastical lines. It was written in an ardent style, full of illustrations, and extremely ambitious in character. The plan was partly critical and partly constructive. The first part disposed of the 18th century; the second, adopting the theory of papal absolutism which Joseph de Maistre had already advocated, proceeded to base it on a supposed universal consent. The after history of Lamennais was perhaps not an unnatural recoil from this; but it is sufficient here to point out that in his prose, especially as afterwards developed in the apocalyptic _Paroles d'un croyant_ (1839) are to be discerned many of the tendencies of the Romantic school, particularly its hardy and picturesque choice of language, and the disdain of established and accepted methods which it professed. The signs of the revolution itself were, as was natural, first given in periodical literature. The feudalist affectations of Chateaubriand and the legitimists excited a sort of aesthetic affection for Gothicism, and Walter Scott became one of the most favourite authors in France. Soon was started the periodical _La Muse francaise_, in which the names of Hugo, Vigny, Deschamps and Madame de Girardin appear. Almost all the writers in this periodical were eager royalists, and for some time the battle was still fought on political grounds. There could, however, be no special connexion between classical drama and liberalism; and the liberal journal, the Globe, with no less a person than Sainte-Beuve among its contributors, declared definite war against classicism in the drama. The chief "classical" organs were the _Constitutionnel_, the _Journal des debats_, and after a time and not exclusively, the _Revue des deux mondes_. Soon the question became purely literary, and the Romantic school proper was born in the famous _cenacle_ or clique in which Hugo was chief poet, Sainte-Beuve chief critic, and Gautier, Gerard de Nerval, the brothers Emile (1791-1871) and Antony (1800-1869), Deschamps, Petrus Borel (1809-1859) and others were officers. Alfred de Vigny and Alfred de Musset stand somewhat apart, and so does Charles Nodier (1780-1844), a versatile and voluminous writer, the very variety and number of whose works have somewhat prevented the individual excellence of any of them from having justice done to it. The objects of the school, which was at first violently opposed, so much so that certain academicians actually petitioned the king to forbid the admission of any Romantic piece at the Theatre Francais, were, briefly stated, the burning of everything which had been adored, and the adoring of everything which had been burnt. They would have no unities, no arbitrary selection of subjects, no restraints on variety of versification, no academically limited vocabulary, no considerations of artificial beauty, and, above all, no periphrastic expression. The _mot propre_, the calling of a spade a spade, was the great commandment of Romanticism; but it must be allowed that what was taken away in periphrase was made up in adjectives. Musset, who was very much of a free-lance in the contest, maintained indeed that the _differentia_ of the Romantic was the copious use of this part of speech. All sorts of epithets were invented to distinguish the two parties, of which _flamboyant_ and _grisatre_ are perhaps the most accurate and expressive pair--the former serving to denote the gorgeous tints and bold attempts of the new school, the latter the grey colour and monotonous outlines of the old. The representation of _Hernani_ in 1830 was the culmination of the struggle, and during great part of the reign of Louis Philippe almost all the younger men of letters in France were Romantics. The representation of the _Lucrece_ of Francois Ponsard (1814-1867) in 1846 is often quoted as the herald or sign of a classical reaction. But this was only apparent, and signified, if it signified anything, merely that the more juvenile excesses of the Romantics were out of date. All the greatest men of letters of France since 1830 have been on the innovating side, and all without exception, whether intentionally or not, have had their work coloured by the results of the movement, and of those which have succeeded it as developments rather than reactions.

_Drama and Poetry since 1830._--Although the immediate subject on which the battles of Classics and Romantics arose was dramatic poetry, the dramatic results of the movement have not been those of greatest value or most permanent character. The principal effect in the long run has been the introduction of a species of play called _drame_, as opposed to regular comedy and tragedy, admitting of much freer treatment than either of these two as previously understood in French, and lending itself in some measure to the lengthy and disjointed action, the multiplicity of personages, and the absence of stock characters which characterized the English stage in its palmy days. All Victor Hugo's dramatic works are of this class, and each, as it was produced or published (_Cromwell_, _Hernani_, _Marion de l'Orme_, _Le Roi s'amuse_, _Lucrece Borgia_, _Marie Tudor_, _Ruy Blas_ and _Les Burgraves_), was a literary event, and excited the most violent discussion--the author's usual plan being to prefix a prose preface of a very militant character to his work. A still more melodramatic variety of _drame_ was that chiefly represented by Alexandre Dumas (1802-1870), whose _Henri III_ and _Antony_, to which may be added later _La Tour de Nesle_ and _Mademoiselle de Belleisle_, were almost as much rallying points for the early Romantics as the dramas of Hugo, despite their inferior literary value. At the same time Alexandre Soumet (1788-1845), in _Norma_, _Une Fete de Neron_, &c., and Casimir Delavigne in _Marino Faliero_, _Louis XI_, &c., maintained a somewhat closer adherence to the older models. The classical or semi-classical reaction of the last years of Louis Philippe was represented in tragedy by Ponsard (_Lucrece_, _Agnes de Meranie_, _Charlotte Corday_, _Ulysse_, and several comedies), and on the comic side, to a certain extent, by Emile Augier (1820-1889) in _L'Aventuriere_, _Le Gendre de M. Poirier_, _Le Fils de Giboyer_, &c. During almost the whole period Eugene Scribe (1791-1861) poured forth innumerable comedies of the vaudeville order, which, without possessing much literary value, attained immense popularity. For the last half-century the realist development of Romanticism has had the upper hand in dramatic composition, its principal representatives being on the one side Victorien Sardou (1831-1909), who in _Nos Intimes_, _La Famille Benoiton_, _Rabagas_, _Dora_, &c., chiefly devoted himself to the satirical treatment of manners, and Alexandre Dumas _fils_ (1824-1895), author in 1852 of the famous _Dame aux camelias_, who in such pieces as _Les Idees de Madame Aubray_ and _L'Etrangere_ rather busied himself with morals and "problems," while his _Dame aux camelias_ (1852) is sometimes ranked as the first of such things in "modern" style. Certain isolated authors also deserve notice, such as Joseph Autran (1813-1877), a poet and academician having some resemblance to Lamartine, whose _Fille d'Aeschyle_ created for him a dramatic reputation which he did not attempt to follow up, and Gabriel Legouve (b. 1807), whose _Adrienne Lecouvreur_ was assisted to popularity by the admirable talent of Rachel. A special variety of drama of the first literary importance has also been cultivated in this century under the title of _scenes_ or _proverbes_, slight dramatic sketches in which the dialogue and style are of even more importance than the action. The best of all of these are those of Alfred de Musset (1810-1857), whose _Il faut qu'une porte soit ouverte ou fermee_, _On ne badine pas avec l'amour_, &c., are models of grace and wit. Among his followers may be mentioned especially Octave Feuillet (1821-1890). Few social dramas of the kind in modern times have attained a greater success than _Le Monde ou l'on s'ennuie_ (1868) of Edouard Pailleron (1834-1899). (See also DRAMA.)

Victor Hugo.

Musset.

Gautier.