"show him to me in his own attitude and complete physical aspect—which, by the skill of your presentation, will at the same time indicate his whole moral nature—so that I may not confound him with any other concierge in the world." These observation-lessons were well learned, and became at last a second nature to the younger novelist.
In a critical survey of Maupassant's work it is impossible altogether to avoid mention of his attitude towards womankind and his handling of sex-relations. Without plunging into the eternal debate upon the deference due from art to morality, it is at any rate plausibly contended that a work of art may legitimately deal with subjects and problems of almost every kind, provided that they form an essential part of its main scheme, but not otherwise. The highest artists have touched many subjects unsuited to general discussion—even Southey, one of the Galahads of letters, asserted that "all the greatest of poets have had a spice of Pantagruelism in their composition, which I verily believe was essential to their greatness." On the other hand, impropriety, as a mere fringe or adornment to a work of art, is inadmissible. It remains to note how far Maupassant stands this not very puritanical test. Much of his best work bears it fairly; where there is grossness, it inheres in the
xxii
