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 Encyclopédists, in
the Pensées of Joubert, while the hybrid position characteristic
of the 19th century is particularly noticeable in Étienne Pivert de
Sénancour (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 Ximénès Doudon (1800–1872), author of Mélanges 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), Étienne Cabet (1788–1856), and
others are connected. As political economists Frédéric 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 Eugène 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 François 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 Méon (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 François
Raynouard (1761–1836) dealt elaborately with Provençal
poetry as well as partially with that of the trouvères; 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 français, his editions of Garin le
Loherain and Berte aus grans piés, and his Romans de la table
ronde may especially be mentioned. Soon, too, the Benedictine
Histoire littéraire, 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. Littré’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 École 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 Société des Anciens Textes Français 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 Émile Littré (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 poésie et du théâtre au seizième siècle
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 éditions de luxe can be more readily procured.
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 Béranger. past generation. These three were Pierre Jean de Béranger (1780–1857), Alphonse de Lamartine (1790–1869), and Hugues Félicité 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. Béranger, 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. Béranger’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 Lamartine. with Lamartine, who was, nevertheless, like Béranger, a typical Frenchman. The Méditations 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 Lamennais. 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’indifférence en matière 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,
