A Short History of French Literature
then at Paris, though his republicanism did not recommend him. He was an
active supporter of the Revolution of February, and a consistent
opponent of the Empire, during which he remained in exile. Quinet's
works, both in poetry and prose, are numerous. The chief are a great
prose poem, or dramatic allegory, called _Ahasuerus_, 1834, a work on
the early French epics (insufficiently informed, but appreciative and
enthusiastic), _Le Genie des Religions_, 1843 (a series of discourses
full of the widest and vaguest generalisation, but stimulating and
generous), _Les Revolutions d'Italie_, _Merlin l'Enchanteur_, 1861
(another curious book something after the fashion of _Ahasuerus_), a
nondescript miscellany on history and science entitled _La Creation_,
1869, and _La Revolution_, 1865. His poems (in verse) are _Promethee_,
_Napoleon_, _Les Esclaves_, of which the first and last are dramatic in
form. His style and thought were strongly tinged with mysticism, and
with a singular undogmatic pietism, as well as with strong but
speculative republicanism in politics. He is thus not a historian to
consult for facts (though his knowledge both of history and literature
was accurate and wide), but an inspiriting generaliser on the philosophy
of history. Both in Michelet and in Quinet there is an affectation of
the seer, as well as an undue fluency of language, and an absence of
precision in form and place, which detract from their otherwise high
literary value. The collected works of the first exceed fifty volumes,
those of the second fill nearly thirty; and much of this vast total is
ephemeral in interest and unchastened in form. Although neither was a
journalist, both exhibit the defects of a period of journalism.
[Sidenote: Tocqueville.]
The last of the greater names calling for mention is that of Alexis de
Tocqueville, who was born, of a noble Norman family, at Verneuil, in
1805. Tocqueville was educated for the bar, and called to it after the
Restoration. But after the revolution of July he exchanged his
appointment in the magistracy for a travelling mission to America, to
examine the prisons and penitentiaries of the United States. He,
however, studied something else than prisons, and, in 1835, published
his famous work on 'Democracy in America.' He married an Englishwoman,
and soon afterwards entered the Chamber. During the Republic he occupied
positions of some importance. The Empire dismissed him from public life,
but gave him the opportunity of writing his second great book on the
_Ancien Regime_. His health was, however, weak, and he died, in 1859, of
consumption. The characteristics of Tocqueville as a historian (or
rather as a philosophic essayist on history) are great purity and
clearness of style, unusual logical power, and an entire absence of
prepossession. He is one of the few historians who have treated
democracy without either enthusiastic love for it on the one hand, or
fanatical dislike and fear of it on the other; and his two books are,
and are likely to remain, classics.
[Sidenote: Minor Historians.]
A very rapid survey must suffice for the remainder of the names in this
division. A. de Barante, among numerous other works of merit, is best
known by a careful and detailed history of the Dukes of Burgundy; J. A.
Buchon, Petitot, J. A. Michaud, and J. Poujoulat, produced invaluable
collections of the chronicles and memoirs in which France is so rich. J.
J. Ampere occupied himself chiefly with Roman history, and with the
history of France and French literature in the Gallo-Roman time. A.
Beugnot, besides other work, arranged a precious collection of feudal
law. Emile de Bonnechose wrote a good short history of France. Louis
Blanc (an important actor in the Revolution of 1848) produced an
elaborate and well-written history of the Revolution from the moderate
republican side, and afterwards reprinted from newspapers some curious
letters from England during his exile here. In opposition chiefly to
Thiers, P. Lanfrey, in a laborious history of Napoleon, entirely
overthrew the Napoleonic legend, and damaged, it would seem irreparably,
the character of its hero. Philippe de Segur gave a history of the
Russian campaign of Napoleon. Mortimer-Ternaux accomplished a valuable
history of the Terror. M. Henri Martin was the author of the only recent
history of France on a scale which challenges comparison with Michelet.
It has no extraordinary literary merit, and its author was something of
a partisan. But it is full, sober, and fairly accurate. In recent days
M. Taine, deserting literary and philosophical criticism for history,
executed a new and remarkable history of the Revolution, which, by once
more putting its horrors in a clear and fair light, very much irritated
the partisans of the 'ideas of 89.' The Duke d'Aumale has made something
more than a mere addition to the works of 'Royal and Noble Authors,' in
his History of the Princes of Conde. The Duke de Broglie, a politician,
upon whom the political changes of France enforced political retirement,
has produced a series of historical works on the 18th century and has
edited the interesting memoirs of his father, the patron of Guizot. Of
other recent memoirs by far the most remarkable, whether as literature
or history, are those of Madame de Remusat, mother of Charles de
Remusat, who died early in the Restoration period, but whose memoirs and
letters, not published till after her son's death (but already referred
to here), have given her a posthumous reputation hardly inferior to that
of any of the literary ladies before her and not likely soon to wane.
FOOTNOTES:
[292] Merimee's work is not absolutely despicable in bulk, for it
extends to some eighteen volumes pretty closely packed. But much of
these is occupied with familiar letters, and much more with merely
miscellaneous writing. His finished and definitely literary publications
do not amount to a third of the whole.
[293] In this notice of the acting drama of France, with which, as
contrasted with the literary theatre, the present writer has
comparatively little acquaintance, he is considerably indebted to Mr.
Brander Matthews' useful _French Dramatists of the Nineteenth Century_.
London and New York; 1882.
CONCLUSION.
In the five books of this _History_ the reader has, it is believed,
before him a sufficient though necessarily brief description of the
various men and works whereof knowledge is desirable to enable him to
perceive the main outlines of the course of French literature. In the
interchapters some attempt has been made to sum up the general phenomena
of that literature as distinguished from its particular accomplishments
during the chief periods of its development. Beyond this neither the
scale of the book, nor its plan as indicated in the preface, has
permitted of indulgence in generalising criticism. But it has been
suggested by authorities whose competence is not disputable that
something in the nature of a summary of these summaries, pointing out
briefly the general history, accomplishments, and peculiarities of the
French tongue in its literary aspect during the ten centuries of its
existence, is required, if only for the sake of a symmetrical
conclusion. It may be urged on the other side that the history of
literature--like all other histories, and perhaps more than all other
histories--is never really complete, and that there is consequently some
danger in attempting at any given time to treat it as finished. He must
have been a miraculously acute critic who, if he had attempted such
treatment of the present subject sixty or seventy years ago, would not
have found his results ludicrously falsified by the event but few years
afterwards. But this drawback only applies to generalisation of the
pseudo-scientific kind which attempts to predict: it can be easily
guarded against by attending to the strict duties of the historian and,
without attempting to speak of the future, dealing only with the
actually accomplished past.
The first thing, and perhaps the most important thing, which must strike
anyone who looks upon French literature as a whole, is that, taking all
conditions together, it is the most complete example of a regularly and
independently developed national literature that presents itself
anywhere. It is no doubt inferior in the point of independence to Greek,
but then it has a much longer course, considered as the exponent of
national character. It has a shorter course than English, and it is not
more generally expository of national characteristics; but then it is
for a great part of that course infinitely more independent of foreign
influences, and, unlike English, it has scarcely any breaks or dead
seasons in its record. Compared with Latin (which as a literature may be
said to be entirely modelled on Greek) it is exceptionally original:
compared with Spanish and Italian it has been exceptionally long-lived
and hale in its life: compared with German it was exceptionally early in
attaining the full possession of its faculties. Just as (putting aside
minor and somewhat pedantic considerations) no country in Europe has so
long and so independently developed a political history, so in none has
literary history developed itself more independently and for a longer
space of continuous time. No foreign invasion sensibly affects the
French tongue; no foreign influence sensibly alters the course of French
literature. It has been shown at intervals during this history how
little direct influence classical models had on the original forms of
literature in France, how completely German and Celtic contributions of
subject were assimilated, how the Provencal examples of form were rather
independently followed than literally or slavishly adopted. The dawn or
rather the twilight of the Renaissance seemed to threaten a more
powerful and dangerous admixture. But the native genius of the language
triumphed, and finally, in the Pleiade reforms, reduced to harmlessness
the Rhetoriqueur innovations and the simultaneous danger of
Italianising. The criticism of Malherbe, harmful in some ways, served as
a counterpoise to the danger of Spanish influence which was considerable
in the early years of the seventeenth century, and by the eighteenth the
idiosyncrasy of French was so strong that, great as was the effect
successively produced by English and by German, it was unable to do more
than slightly modify French literature itself. Yet again the singular
[Greek: autarkeia] of French may be seen by turning from its general
accomplishments at different times to its particular forms. No one of
these was directly adopted from any foreign, not even from any classical
example, with the doubtful exception of the classical tragedy. The
French made their own epic, their own lyric, their own comic and
miscellaneous drama. They may be said almost to have invented the
peculiar and striking kind of history called the memoir, which has
characteristics distinguishing it radically from the classical
commentary. They apparently invented the essay, and though they only
borrowed the beast-fable, they are entitled to the credit of having seen
in it the germ of the short verse tale which has no direct moral
bearing. All the nations of Europe, so to speak, sent during the middle
ages their own raw material of subject to be worked up by French or
French-speaking men into literary form. France therefore gives (next to
Greece, and in some respects even before Greece) the most instructive
and trustworthy example extant of the chronology and order of
spontaneous literary development--first poetry, then drama, then prose:
in poetry, first epic, then lyric, then didactic and miscellaneous
verse: in drama, first ceremonial and liturgic pieces, then comedy, then