FRENCH LITERATURE.*

Mn. G. L. STRACHEY, in his Landmarks in, French Lilerature, has acsomplished an extremely difficult task with considerable success. As an introduction to the study of a fascinating subject his book is a thoroughly sound and useful piece of work, admirably concise; and eharacterized throughout by a • • .Landmarks in Trench Iiterntaro. B, _v. G. L. Stranbey. " Heine University Library." Loudon Wil1iain and Holguin. [lama.]

careful and scholarly appreciation of the peculiar qualities of the French genius. We do not, however, agree with all,

Mr. Strachey's verdicts on individual authors, and we differ front him in particular with reference to Montaigne anck

Voltaire. He says of Montaigne:—

"His scepticism is not important as a contribution to philo- sophical thought, for his mind was devoid both of the method and, of the force necessary for the pursuit of really significant intel- lectual truths. To claim for him such titles of distinction is to overshoot the mark and to distract attention from his true emi- nence. Montaigne was neither a great artist nor a great philo- sopher; he was not great at all."

To us, however, since we consider that the chief weakness.

of every philosophy is in the fact that it is the work of' a philosopher, Montaigne's thought, so fluid and living that it never imprisons itself in any dead formula, is. one of the most important contributions of the Fronds genius ; and its importance will be immediately recog- nized if we consider the influence of the Emig on Bacon, on the Liberlins, and on the extraordinarily various in- tellect of Pascal. Where we differ from Mr. Strachey with, reference to Voltaire is in his explanation of the phrase,

Ecrasez " L'infilme" to Voltaire was simply organized fanaticism and superstition, and he attacked it wherever it. was to be found, in the Society of Jesus, in the Janseni8t ParZentent of Paris, and in the Calvinist Republic of Geneva. Mr. Strachey tells us that " l'infilme" was religion, and that Voltaire was a profoundly irreligious man. It would be true, we think, to say that he was neither mystical nor emotional in his creed. We do not know that any satisfactory definition of religion in the abstract has ever been made, but we cannot

imagine one by which Voltaire would be excluded. Mr. Strachey's error is rather one of method than of fact, how- ever, and immediately after the positive statement that Voltaire was "profoundly irreligious" he proceeds to qualify the words ; but, unfortunately, a positive statement very seldom admits of any subsequent qualification, and is almost. invariably untrue in itself.

While we feel bound to mention these small blemishes we. do not think they detract much front the general excellence of the book. Mr. Strachey is a very sound guide in his purely literary criticism, and shows a keen appreciation of style an& form. All his criticism of French poetry is full of insight and sympathy, and this is particularly true of what he says with. regard to Racine: "His great aim was to produce, not an ex- traordinary nor a complex work of art, but a flawless one; he wished to be all matter and no impertinency. His conception of a drama was of something swift, simple, inevitable; an action taken at the crisis, with no redundancies howeven interesting, no complications however suggestive, no.

irrelevancies however beautiful — but plain, intense,.

vigorous, and splendid with nothing but its on essential force. Nor can there be any doubt that Racine's view of what a drama should be has been justified by the subsequent history of the stage." These. words express admirably the French ideal of increased. order with increased complexity. The simplicity is, in fact,.

only apparent, the result of consummate art ; that is to say,. that behind the simplicity of the function is a highly elaborate. and complicated structure of organic relations, of which,. perhaps, the best example is to be found in Androntaque. Arnold, however, was not wrong to object to M. Scherer's

saying that Racine "is in reality simply a Greek speaking French." Indeed, we should say that Racine's work is not distinctively Greek at all, but Latin ; and that Arnold. himself has praised the French poet with more discrimination. when he speaks of his " Virgilian sweetness and pathos."' It is not, after all, with Sophocles that we should compare- Racine ; in so far as he is Greek at all, it is through Theocritus. and the Alexandrians. To us Racine represents the cul- mination of the Latin race in dramatic poetry, as Sophoolga of the Greek and Shakespeare of the English race; and there should be really. no comparison or opposition of one to. another. Mr. Strachey has recognized this, and inconsequence his criticism is admirably sane. In fact, wherever be treats e French poetry, in the pages he devotes to Yillon, or to. La Fontaine, or to Andre Chaster, his touch is singularly felicitous and sure. While we admire most his handling of

French poetry, we fully recognize his sounduese in dealing with the other branches of literature, the splendid rhetoric of

Bossuet, the laughter of Rabelais; and the ruthless portraituee of Saint-Simon. We regret that M6rim6e is not mentioned among the writers of the nineteenth century, but such omissions are perhaps inevitable in a book of this kind. We shall only repeat what we have said in its praise. Such work must of course be very largely its own reward; but still it is in the interest of Providence that there should be some excep- tions to this rule, and Mr. Strachey's book deserves a place among the exceptions.