Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 9.djvu/708

072 FRANCE [LITERATUEE. that it had, quite independently of any theological or political influence, an immense share in diffusing and grati fying the taste for general information by which the century which has succeeded its publication has been more distin guished than perhaps any other in history. 1789-1830. General Sketch. The period which elapsed between the outbreak of the Revolution and the accession of Charles X. has often been considered a sterile one in point of literature. As far as mere productiveness goes, this judgment is hardly correct. No class of literature was altogether neglected during these stirring five-and-thirty years, the political events of which have so engrossed the attention of posterity that it has sometimes been necessary for historians to remind us that during the height of the Terror and the final disasters of the empire the theatres were open and the booksellers shops patronized as much or more than ever. Journalism, parliamentary eloquence, and scientific writing were especially cultivated, and the former in its modern sense may almost be said to have been created. But of the higher products of literature the period may justly be considered to have been somewhat barren. During the earlier part of it there is, with the exception of Andr6 Chenier, not a single name of the first or even second order of excellence. Towards the midst those of Chateaubriand (1768-1848) and Madame de Stael (17GG-1817) stand almost alone ; and at the close those of Courier, B6ranger, and Lamartine are not seconded by any others to tell of the magnificent literary burst which was to follow the publication of Cromwell. Of all departments of literature, poetry proper was worst represented during this period. Andre Chdnier was silenced at its opening by the guillotine. Le Brun and Delille, favoured by an extraor dinary longevity, continued to be admired and followed. It was the palmy time of descriptive poetry. Fontancs, Castel, Boisjolin, Esmenard, Berchoux, Ricard, Martin, Gudin, Cournaud, are names which chiefly survive as those of the authors of scattered attempts to turn the Encyclopaedia into verse. Che nedolle (1769-1833) owes his reputation rather to amiability and to his association with men eminent in different ways, such as Rivarol and Joubert, than to any real power. Even more ambitiously, Luce de Lancival, Campenon, Dumesnil, and Parseval de Grand-Maison endeavoured to write epics, and succeeded rather worse than the Chapelains and Desmarets of the 17th century. The characteristic of all this poetry was the description of everything in metaphor and paraphrase, and the careful avoidance of anything like directness of expression ; and the historians of the romantic movement have collected many instances of this absurdity. Lamartine will be more pro perly noticed in the next division. But about the same time as Lamartine, and towards the end of the present period, there appeared a poet who may be regarded as the last important echo of Malherbe. This was Casimir Dela- vigne (1793-1843), the author of Lcs Messeniennfs, a writer of very great talent, and, according to the measure of Rousseau and Lebrun, no mean poet. It is usual to reckon Delavigne as transitionary between the two schools, b t in strictness he must be counted with the classicists. Dramatic poetry exhibited somewhat similar characteristics. The system of tragedy writing had become purely mechan ical, and every act, almost every scene and situation, had its regular and appropriate business and language, the former of which the poet was not supposed to alter at all, and the latter only very slightly. Poinsinet, Laharpe, M. J. Clie"nier, Raynouard, De Jouy, Briffaut, Baour-Lormian, all wrote in this style. Of these Chenier (1764-1811) had some of the vigour of his brother Andr6, from whom he was distinguished by more popular political principles and better fortune. On the other hand Ducis (1733-1816), who passes with Englishmen as a feeble reducer of Shake speare to classical rules, passed with his contemporaries as an introducer into French poetry of strange and revolu tionary novelties. Comedy, on the other hand, fared better, as indeed it had always fared, Fabre d Eglantinc (1755-1794) (the companion in death of Danton), Collin d Harleville (1755-1806), Andrieux (1759-1833), Picard, Alexandre Duval, and Nc pomucene Lemercier (1771-1840) were the comic authors of the period, and their works have not suffered the complete eclipse of the contemporary trage dies which in part they also wrote. If not exactly worthy successors of Moliere, they are at any rate not unworthy children of Beaumarchais. In romance writing there is again, until we come to Madame de Stael, a great want of originality and even of excellence in workmanship. The works of Madame de Genlis (1746-1830) exhibit the ten dencies of the 18th century to platitude and noble sentiment at their worst. Madame Cottin, Madame Souza, and Madame do Krudener exhibited some of the qualities of Madame de Lafayette and more of those of Madame de Genlis. Fie vee (1767-1839), in Le Dot de Suzettc and other works, showed some power over the domestic story; but perhaps the most remarkable work in point of originality of the time was Xavier de Maistre s (1763-1852) Voyage autour de ma Chambre, an attempt in quite a new style, which has been happily followed up by other writers. Turn ing to history we find comparatively little written at this period. Indeed, until quite its close, men were too much occupied in making history to have time to write it. There is, however, a considerable body of memoir writers, especially in the earlier years of the period, and some great names appear even in history proper. Many of Sismondi s (1773- 184:!) best works were produced during the empire. De Barante (1782-1866), though his best known works date much later, belongs partially to this time. On the other hand, the pro duction of philosophical writing, especially in what we may call applied philosophy, was considerable. The sensation alist views of Condillac were first continued as by Destutt de Tracy (1754-1832) and Laromiguicre, and subsequently opposed, in consequence partly of a religious and spiritualist revival, partly of the influence of foreign schools of thought, especially the German and the Scotch. The chief philo sophical writers from this latter point of view were Royer Collard (1763-1846), Maine de Biran (1776-1824), and Jouffroy (1796-1842). Their influence on literature, how ever, was altogether inferior to that of the reactionist school, of whom De Bonald (1753-1840) and Joseph do Maistre (1754-1821) were the great leaders. These latter were strongly political in their tendencies, and political philosophy received, as was natural, a large share of the attention of the time. In continuation of the work of the Philosophes, the most remarkable writer was Volney (1757- 1820), whose Ruines are generally known. On the other hand, others belonging to that school, such as Necker and Morellet, wrote from the moderate point of view against re volutionary excesses. Of the reactionists, De Bonald is ex tremely royalist, and carries out in his Legislations Primi tives somewhat the same patriarchal and absolutist theories as our own Filmer, but with infinitely greater genius. As De Bonald is royalist and aristocratic, so De Maistre is the I [l * advocate of a theocracy pure and simple, with the pope t! for its earthly head, and a vigorous despotism for its system of government. Of theology proper there is almost necessarily little or nothing, the clergy being in the earlier period proscribed, in the latter part kept in a strict and somewhat discreditable subjection by the empire. In moralizing literature there is one work of the very highest excellence, which, though not published till long afterwards, belongs in point of composition to this period. This is the Pensees of Joubert (1754-1824), the most illustrious sue- J cessor of Pascal and Vauvenargues, and to be ranked