New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-12-30

she made an unhappy marriage which stirred
into open revolt the latent insurrectionary Gle
ments of her nature. Thus she reached cnfran-
chsement and at the same time discovered her
vocation.
George Sand was on author born, not made.
Her style was never formed. II came to
her with her first literary essay. In
word. she began great writer The
fuency which enabled her to pour forth so I'M
mense n quantity o. matter was. however a
drawback not an advantage and if her books
nre forgotten this will be a principal cause of
it, She was mistress Of that casy writing which,
in her case. In most was often hard reading Be-
cause it cost her no trouble she made her char
acters prose on Unfortunately, she gave loose
rein to her controversial spirit and flooded her
books with prolx disquisitions which she did
not understand. 1t is true that she could carry
en- brilliant conversations in her novels. but as
a rule her people talk too much. and too much
like books. Her didactic works indeed were
never tolerable, and cannot live. Such survival
as is possible for her must depend upon a rigid
wedding of her works and the rejection OF q
large proportion Of them There will remain a
select few characterized in the main by SIM
plicity and that deep feeling for nature which was
Of her strongest traits. and in yielding to
which she produced her best work Also IL will
probably happen that more of her short stories
than of her novels will be appreciated by pos
terity. which will be able to make nothing Of
those seni-serious romances whose advocacy Of
some ism" OF the passing hour indicates the
extent TO which she received and reflected the
views Of others during great part Of her career.
She had her own peculiar views Of life. and
they dominated her writings during what NJ
Caro- terms her second period. The one motive
of fiction. as she saw il. was love and her ideas
of love were remarkable. to say the least She
held that passion was in its essence divine. From
this premise flowed many strange conclusions
Passion being credited with divine origin, 10
was the duty Of those whom It assailed to yield
to 1t. In George Sands novels this is precisely
what they do. They regard themselves, as NJ
Caro- SAYS. rather priests than as lovers. In
the course of time George Sand outlived this
period of sanctifed free love. though it is ques-
tionable whether she ever fully realized the
enormity of the doctrine she had taught If 1t
did not do SO much harm it might have done,
her unreal manner the modifying agent
probably. for the argument Lamb employed on
behalf OF the dramatists Of the Restoration might
be applied TO much OF her most immoral writing
It was startling. audacious. not seldom revolt
ing, but 1t was illustrated in the sayings and
doings of people who did not seem 90 belong TO
this world after all; who might have been the
queer inhabitants of another planet, or OF a
fourth dimensional space
George Sand was in some respects the opposite
Of Balzac, and yet not wholly so. With him
form was efficient, and style, though he labored
hard il, was subordinate. 1t is certainly
not true as Henry James has said. that Balzac
had no style He had a style. and II was a
powerful and essentially masterful one fitted to
be the vehicle of his virle and profound thoughts
fitted also for the elaborate detail dear to
him, and, while inelegant of a character to
be repugnant only to dilettante critics, George
Sands style was easy and beautiful. and 1T often
enshrned dreadful stuff. But she and Balzac
had this in common. that they were Seers; that
they drew freely upon their Imagination, which
responded freely: that they could look into their
own hearts and write. But in the expression
Balzac was UNNECESSARILY the superior OF his
brilliant contemporary. Whatever he saw within
he saw and transferred with limpid clearness
Imagination served him no less faithfully than
objective vision There was visible line of
demarcation between his inner and outer OK
either imagination played the strangest tricks
or the faculty of expression was defective. In
any case, where she resorted TO her
own fancy she Immediately passed in
to world the unreality of which was
palpable to her readers Mr.. James says that
George Sand does not make one believe her. as
Balzac and Thackeray do; and the criticism IS
Just The element Of credibilty, however, is
the chief cause Of the of the greatest nov
elists, and to the extent that George Sand lacked
this element she was not great writer
Not that real observation is absent from her
works. It Is there in sufficient quantity TO show
what she might have done had she disciplined
herself But discipline was nbhorrent to her.
She wrote as bird sings, wildly and naturally.
She was in fact, a great improvisatricc, and
with all the defects of Improvisation. 1t is
doubtful if she ever thought out a plot before
sitting down to write Her stories made them
selves as they Proceeded NJ Caro- observes that
while oil her novels begin well. with plenty of
fire and dash, the inspiration seems presently to
fail, the author to grow weary of her work, and
the end drags. Or, when the interest began to
flag, she would have recourse 10 the fantastic
and improbabilities, forced situations, all kinds
Of extravaganza, testified TO the loss Of instructive
power. Much Of the negligence which marred
her work no doubt had its origin in the facility
with which she composed She never became
tired while writing. II not 90 her the in
tense labor which Balzac found it, But, on
the other hand, neither was her finished work
comparable to BalzaCs for sohdity, power, or
coseness Of texture. When she abandoned po-
lemics and politics, when she laid aside her i'm
possible and fantastic theory of love, and con
tented herself with describing nature and natural
people, she achieved the masterpieces upon which
her future literary position will probably rest
Then she was charming and satisfying and in
style and treatment inimitable But these happy
hits formed, after all, small proportion of hrr
writings, and Of the most ambitious among her
books it is more doubtful every year whether
many viii stand the test of time
To all who have read George Sand, whether
they believe in the enduring character of her
fame or not, we can nevertheless cordially COM
mend this little book Of VI Caro-. No more care
ful, welLbalanced and caudid criticism OF her and