The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-03-17
French Criticism of English Literature


the acutest critical journal published in
France. reviews Middlemarch at great
length. The French critic admits that
George Eliot "is certainly not deficient in
{" scholarship, talent or brilliancy," and
I" does not lack fertility in invention" while
Z" few English writer's equal her in power. ,
He gives her credit for "keen and dell
cate study OF human ambitions and weak
nesses," but emphalically declares that all
her "noble and substantial, delicate and
visible qualities are not enough to re-
deem q fragrant contempt for the "essentlal
"rules OF art" What these :" essential
rules" are is not clearly lained. Mid
dlemarch is described as being composed OF
/" disconnected chapters thrown together
apparently by chance" and George Eliot is
reminded that, to merit place among nov
elists OF the frat rank, she must recognize
the truth that "the first condition OF beauty
"is to perfect the main part OF the struc-
"ture before celebrating it's ornament;"
that "periecLion in detail will not supply
deficiency in plan;" that "the ideal is not
"above nature, it forms part Of the truth,
"it is indispensable to all superior work. "
And because George Eliot has deliberately
put observation above imagination " and
"bas subjected to implying analysis oil
"that belongs to passion, sensbility and
Clancy" the French critic wilholds from
her ga place among the worlds greatest
novelists."
The questions raised by the critic would
be easier OF solution il he had named "the
worlds greatest novslists, "amongst whom
the author OF Adam Bede, of the Mill on the
Floss and OF Middlemarch is denied place.
1t would probably be found tkat they were
writer's of whom the century knows nothing;
whose works, in dusty manuscript, are hid
den away in dingy garrets, or, on the back
shelves OF publishers, await the time when
q better understanding OF the infallible
"rules OF art" shall enable ordinary minds
to plumb their depths and scale their sum-
mits; writer's, In fine, who will be -emem-
bered when George Eliot is forgotten, and
not until then. But the failure OF the critic
to furnish standard by which the value OF
his literary judgment may be exactly deter
mined does not justify an ignoring OF 80
much OF his criticism as may be found in-
telligible. II we understand him correctly
his decision is that George Eliot is not
great novelist, because the plan OF her work
is defective and because she deals with the
real-thas is, with living men and women-
instead OF the ideal-that is such person
ages as French authors create when they
are not dlssectipg the heroes OF the coulisseS
or the DANES OF the QUARTER Breda. Lamar
tine and Alexandra Dumas might serve to
represent the ideal, and Paul de Kock and
George Sand the real.
For two hundred yerrs the fight has waged
between the critics OF the Gallic school and
the writers who have made the English
tongue immortal. The French affect ik-
ing for "the Divine Williams" but they
place him in niche for below that which is
occupied by Corneille and Racine. 1l ike
manner the Henriadee,, III the Gallic mind,
towers above Paradise Lost. For this there
,s o sound reason. The French look more
to manner than to matter, to form than to
substance. F6rcs to them ia weakness, un-
less it be symmetrical. Such thing as the
vehemence OF genius, which looks only to
the accomplishment OF certain result, and
holds that to be the true process which gives
the desired effect, finds no sympathy in the
heart OF the French homnae de lett''eS. Tur-
ner stuck wafer upon one OF his paintings,
with the deliberate purpose OF giving to his
work the patch Of bright color needed to
prevent it from being eclipsed by the garish
coloripg OF picture which hung by lts side
The bold stroke was successful, but, doubt.
less, Turner was soundly berated by the
French critic OF the period.
The time may come when q novel shall
be written which will be as perfect in plan
as In execution, but no such novel has yet
appeared. For The present the reading
public must content themselves with admir-
Ing genius in whatever shape it manifests
ITSELF II IL be fault 10 George Eliot that
she has not the skill OF Wilkie Collins, OF
Reade and, in lesser degree, OF Scott, in
forming plot, her fault is shared with
Thackeray and Dickens and in host OF
others whom oil critics, save French critics,
admit to be great writer's. Aad il choice
must be made between ingenuity OF plan
and perfection OF detail the preference will
unhesitatingly be given to the latter. A
work which relies for it's interest on the ex.
element OF curiosity will fall dead when
that curiosity is gratided; while works like
those Of George Eliot, which rely for their
success upon the large-hearted understand
| ing of the virtues and vices Of throbbing and
suffering human nature, upon their graphic
descriptions OF events, and upon their subtle
comprehension OF motives OF action and the
modes OF mental and moral development
and change, rpsn with their age and never
lose their charm. The French critic, more
over, has not read understandingly the pre-
face or the concluding paragraphs OF the
novel which he processes to weigh impair
AlNn, t. L i