New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-04-28
UUHO'Q NEH IDEA.


tor Hugo's new romance may not be such as
to bring that French method of colloquialism
into literary fashion here which may be desig-
mated as the short and snappish. If we did
not see, however, some signs of such calam-
ity, we would say nothing about the matter.
Take the fault first in narrative:
"He cast his eyes around him. he was alone"
"And now they had forgotten him."
"He was ten years old"
1.-THE child turned toward the sea-"
| $50 he ran on."
Gle ran for an indefinite time"
monsters"
"Why monsersr
| "For daughters sake"
| This may suit the genius of the French
language, if it have any genius, but it is not
at all the style for English narration. Fancy
history composed in that way Or fancy leading
articles in The TRIBUNE written as follows:
"The Secretary has resigned"
"Why did he resignP
"He resigned, perhaps, because be wanted to-"
| mot at alp
why, theni"
Because he couldn't help himself" .
"yery good"
| "ve.y."
| We guess that such leader as this would
create some sensation in the commercial and
political circles of New-York. Some If not
more In the English translation, whatever
| may be its value in the French, one cannot see
any possible value in this jerkiness, or upon
what principle the paragraphs are chopped
and minced. Why is it any better to say
"a smaller shadow going and coming among the larger
| ones, indicated dwarf or child.
| 1t was q child"
Why should the words at was child" stand
thus by themselvesf
Now for the colloqualsm of the St. Vitus
variety.
"IAborer OF the mountain, who is this maur
| "a man"
| what tongues does he speak,"
| IAN"
"What things knows her,
| "An"
| "what counrryp
| "None and III"
| "what GodT
| God"
But this is quite enough. 1t is sufficient to
say that no pair of human beings ever talked
in this way except in French novel. Even
the laconic has its limits. 1t is very good
style for those who write by the yard but
think of the heroes of Shakespeare swapping at
each other after that fashion Not now and then,
but through whole play! Take the ghost
scene in Hamlet, for instance, and let US
Frenchify it, for few verses:
Hamlet-wmther wit thou lead mel
Ghost-Msrk me-
| Hdmlet-I will.
| Ghos.-My hour is almost come.
| Hamie-Aas poor ghost.
| Ghost-Pity me not.
| Hamiet-speak hear.
| Ghost-Revenge
| Hamiet-Whsti
| Ghost-My foul, unnatural murder.
Hanllet-Murderi
Ghost-Murder most foul. &C., &C.
Now, it is evident that by leaving out the
| Ghosts speech beginning 81 am thy fathers
spirit" consisting of fifteen solid lines of blank
| verse, the whole force and dignity of the scene
| is lost. Yet the Ghost was in hurry, and
might have been excused if he had abbreviated
his revelations after the Victor Hugo fashion.
We have calculated that this scene alone, if
beaten out after the Ere nch gold-leaf style
would occupy about one whole number of
AppletOnS Journal.
This method is not good one, and to an
English reader of taste it is about as irritating
as the mock-heroics Of 0ssian's poems, which
we suspect, are to some extent, answerable
for it. With all due reverence for M. Hugo,
we must think either that it is the style of
man who has but little to say, or who writes
by the page. and has designs upon his pub
lisher's purse. What other possible reason
could he have for perpetuating the following:
do you see that
WHAT
THAT.
WHAT
Away there
The Rpei Yes
What isiti