New-York tribune., 1891-12-18
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
STENDHAL.


ct Gle. New-York F. W. Chrstern.
NJ Rods fine and discriminating study Of Stcndhal
will no doubt give offence TO the votarfes OF ehat
author, who will feel that tfere T. frigdity In his
criticism suggestive OF anything but sympathy, yet
it must be admitted that Henri Boyle one OF the
last men to inspire warmth OF emotion. ana the
readers Of this velume not likely to find, in bis
career, character or work, much ground for rhe en-
thuslasm which has been hvished upon him by his
more impetuous admirers. The account OF bis carly
life, however. shows clearly enough that lie should
be held responsible for some OF the pecuharites
which came to characterze him later. lie had
most unhappy childhood aud youth Losing tender
mother too early, he became the victim OF haru
and even cruel stepmoher, and his home was maze
miserable to him. His father in sympathy wtl
tho old regime (fIenrl was born in 1883 ana 50
were the Oher members Of the family. Perhaps IL
from hatred TO his domestic tormenoc rather thah
from conviction that the boy developed strong
tinge of Jocobinism. lie was a child oil the KeVom-
ton however, and It's doctrines were in the air. lie
witnessed the Terror. lie approved OF the dea "
OF Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, yet as VI. Rod
observes he who hated Kings did not show the least
repugnance to usurper; on the contrary, lie made'
"a he himself said religion OF Napoleon anu
followed him to the end with The utmost enthusiasm.
The young Beyie entered the army, and while he did
not see a great deal of fghtng. having been after
HttIe attached to the commissaiat department he
was present at the battle Of MareOgo, and he made
the disastrous Russian campaign with his hero
Here he distinguished himself by his executive
ability and his absolute selfpssesson and coolness
He never despared he never failed in his duty, and
his cxertons useful to the retreating and
demorallzed troops. lie soon after this began his
literary career or, to speak more exactly, he tried to
begin IT, In truth the public would have nothing to
say to him. lie wrote a book Love, and only
seventeen copies OF II were sold In eleven years.
Such an experience would have disheartened many
opnin 1Qy
of letters. AS NJ. Rod says he was gentleman who
amused himself by writing. in short diletante, and
while he believed that there was literary future for
himself he was prepared to walt for It, and he would
not have broken his heart had 1t been revealed
10 him that fame would come only after death The
analysis OF his character given by VI. Rod, however,
makes IL evident that Beyles diletautism was rooted
deep In his nature. He was inconsistent and often
ipcoherent in his views The socalled philosophy
which has been termed Beylsm" is as crude, fag-
mentary and fantastic nosystem OF thought as was
ever put forward worthy OF being followed. But
Stendha Was not a man who ever could have founded
a real system. for he Incapable of logical or e1-
tended thought. For instance he regarded the down
fall Of Napoleon check TO liberalism. VI. Rod
SAWS that his idea Of liberalism disbelief in God
and persecution Of the Jesuits sufficiently queer
programme but really not travesty of Beye's actual
position.
OF the hundred DAYS and what followed he cared
side in Italy. and disguised with France and
French affairs that he ceased to take the least In
terest in current events. His Italian epoch was
curious one. He occupied himself with love affairs.
music and such literary society As the neighborh0od
afforded. Gradually, however. he tended more to
literature occupation, and having been ap-
pointed Consul at Trleste-where the remaining years
Of his life were to be Spent-he produced the Two
works upon which mainly his reputation rests, namely.
Rouge ct Noir' and d" La Chartreuse dc Parme." A
third novel. called Armance." is little read now,
and fourth, Ic Chasseur Vert was unhnished at
his death in 1912. NJ. Rod speaks very highly OF
ue promise Of this fragment, which he thinks would
have proved the rpest and best Of Stendhars work.
OF the other books IL may be said that from the
present point Of view their defects are quite AS
apparent as their merits In all Stendhaps fiction
there is an entire absence of that creative power
which is so conspicuous In the "Comedie Humane"
lie could not individuaze and diferentiate his
characters. All his heroes are himself In various
disguises. All the women in his books are his
sweethearts, who figure under different names
Nor are his plots good natural. lie is stiff and
artificial often, and his notions of romanticsm and
realism confused and inconsistent But he was the
creator of the psychological novel, and herein lies the
true significance OF his and the cew TO his posi-
ton in literature. lie belonged to no school, but at
tackled all the existing schools iudferentiy. NJ. Red
does not feel certain that his psychology genu-
iDe, but that is doubt which may Just safely be
INDUCED regarding the work Of entirely modern
writer's OF psychological fiction. In fact has fire.
quently been suggested in these columns it Is often
open TO question whether such work as Paul B0uigets
to conspicuous example-does not owe much
Of It's interest TO pSy Geological assumptions and anal
yses with which vivid Imagination has far 10 do
than knowledge of the springs of human action. New
erheess Stendhal the real founder Of This school,
and NJ. Rod is certainly within the mark in claiming
that his works have eXered a strong influence upon
iterature-no only French but German Engl sh Amer
lean, Russian, spanish and Itsan-from that day to
this. Stendhal himself had not reasoned ont the
methods on which he proceeded In his way lie
original thinker. but he systematic one,
lie at with the romantics" only in his ad-
mrstion for Shakespeare Generally speaking, he dis
liked and despised them, saying that they only
the coninuators of Chateaubriand whose iambuoyant
sentmentality his pet aversion. Perhaps the best
thing in Sendhals favor the fact that Balzac found
much 10 approve in him. and this certainly not
because his work resembled that Of Bazac in any re-
spec for there is between the two radical differ
ence as that between Ice and fire.
Stendhal, however, did not know the literature OF
his time. For long time he would not read IT.
lie held that Merimee of the greatest writers
Of his day; and he put jules Janien next to him.
Such judgments indicate the abSence OF the critical
faculty In him, and indeed that conclusion is reinforced
by many Of his observations. Balzac however, was a
penetrating observer and lie among the first to
perceive that Beyle writer OF striking originality
and force In unexplored fields. lie classed him among
the writers OF ideas, he prnsed it, and ceI tanly
stendhal satisfies the definition lie not prolific
author did he write with any facility, while his
fastdiousness in the choice Of and his anxiety
about his style detracted from the nauralness Of his
work and rendered it, if terse and expressive, yet
deficient in vitality. One feels in reading him that
his literary period too late in life. The truth
probably is that the demands made upon his vitality
by the suferngs OF the Russian campaign left him
permanently enfeebled This enfeeblement was neces
ssrly reflected in his writings and especially it de-
pfived them OF that warmth and that glow OF life which
fn literary Immortality