New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-03-14
NATURALISM.
zo,.A.s NOTIONS OF SCIENCE.

in a formal way to give reason partly philo-
sophie partly scientific. for what NJ. Zola cans
naturalism In literature The words parity
phosophic" are used advisedly For. WINE NJ
lola Is a professed foe to metaphysics ms SCI
ence would cut very sorry figure without his
theoretical assumptions-especaly without tle
primal hypothesis that in his novels ne mas io'-
lowed the rigid experimental method lor eA-
ample. of his favorite savant Claude Bernard
He does not take to himself the credit OF having
been the first TO do this. On the contrary he
draws a parallel between the work OF beri'a'u
and that of Balzac. and he asserts that hatura'-
ism is as old the human race Inc last ''
ser;,on when the author means by naturalism
only what others mean by realism In thlhss Vi
the IMAGINATION Is true enough. But IN MS
snecu,ations the word means more than IL does
when he has occasion to define II. lie himself
illustrates this when he reports discussion
,,o, no held with a certain Partisan Journals
cat Ne had explained that he was not the
founder of a new school in literature. ne hau III
lated upon the change which had come over INC
r,a ard had broken with all the traditions or
scholasticism The formula adopted IN phSsr
oiogv in chemistry, and in the natural his'ois
sciences generally. he said, had also peeuh "
uor, IN other fields. 1t had "remodelied hs'o'!
and criticism: II had TRANSFORMER 'he "'
and the drama beginning with Diuero' anu
I,orsseau down TO Balzac and his followers
Then he added that If he was prominent Ill 'ne
movement which he had described 1t was simply
s. 20 tho fact that he was the standard-bearer
:, tho scientific idea in literature. Whereupoh
,,o journalist took on first look OF gravity
,hor ~ dsappointment then OF disgust anu
finally exclaimed:
what, Is that all it is? Why, then It's not
even remarkable III, .,,u tour
One cannot help sympathizng WITH '''' '
nalist. who had been listening 10 the WIN anu
wb,rling words of one whom perhaps he 'oon
for a prophet only 70 discover that the proio"hu
sacret of the coming literature was a mere oo'n
monplace Even NJ. lola felt pity for him. eVi-
IDENTIFY to Judge by this refreshing continent
"The moment that became reasonaoie ina.
M longer preached a ridiculous rehsloh' ''e
- ceased 10 be remarkable" AS long as
NJ lola, with his head in the CLOUDS 'aiN7'
.hov, the .dntellectual movement of the CEN
,rrv" this would-be disciple imagined that there
was mystery wrapped in the works OF one
writer on the obscene" the one wnom ne saw
before him: but when the principle by which
1o,a cane 10 be guided was announced II was
81. 90 be trivial The reader will find through
,, the volume that wherever the author
dsscends from theory to solid ground he becomes
un,mportant No question Is raised mere as 10
NJ Zola's genius. That may be LETT 10 SPEAK
for itself But what of his Wanted empirlcai
method? The value Of experime:'' IN mooeth
science is familiar to all. Upon the treatment
of given chemical elements, separately toee'her'
now in one ratio. now in another, vareo results
depend from which differences can be Drawn
To come the nearest to human thought possioie
for the physologist a preparation can De maze
nv paring away the brain of frog untll the
movements Of the animal depend solely on the
spinal cord. The reactions of the trunca'ed
creature to different stimuli suggest important
conclusions as to the nervous system Ingenious
variations In food with animals In captivity
NAV lead to important conclusions about them
in a state Of nature. These may suffice by way
of illustration 1t will be seen that in all such
cases in fact in all scientific experiment. the
bald result is obvious and far 1t goes. con-
yincing TO every one There is no need OF any
mental preparation TO apprehend what has hap
pened II there be such need in any case then
the genuineness of the experiment is at once
placed in doubt and the processes are scanned
10 see IL the conditions were artificial or in ac-
cordance with nature. That is to say, the true
scientific experiment carries conviction even
against a mental prepossesson. But when 1t
comes to differences from the results of expert
ment two scientists, standing side by side. may
differ widely. OutWardly tney Doth Witnessed
and recorded the same result but their mental
differences led to unexpected divergence when
they came to argue from what they had seen.
Now. considered as science. NJ. Zola's novel
Of naturalism is vitiated by both the defects
here indicated Its conditions are necessarily
artificial. and Its differences necessarily those
of single mind. The pretended experiment
even In the most realistic Of novels Is confessedly
made under circumstances which the author has
imagined. His preparation is far .less trust
worthy than that of the frog just mentioned.
He has created characters more or less like
actual human beings He has brought these
together In an environment which at the very
best he can only partially outline. He evolves
from his own consciousness the lines of conduct
which each of his characters pursues. and, If
man Of high genius, he lives in each of them.
Thus he produces result. perhaps. of the high
est import. But Is II not mere mystihcat;on ana
confusion Of words to call this result scientfck?
The so-called experiment can be performed again
neither by the author nor by anybody else. The
result can never be verified. In the nature OF
things 1t can have no outward validity, and the
differences drawn from IT appeal TO the witnesses
OF the experiment. that is, to the readers OF the
novel for reasons wholly foreign to external
nature One may say: VERY true. How wonder
fully Hfeliker' and on; but one does this
because the novel has been constructed In ac-
cordance with mental laws which one obeys
whether conscious of them or not. The appeal
Is wholly from the self-consciousness OF the
narrator to that of the listener or the reader
Hosts Of people may rise to say that there Is
not a word Of truth in the tale that 1t does not
reflect nfe that its characters bear no resem-
blance to humanity in many Of its aspects. They
may be wrong. But nobody can prove beyond
doubt the ncorrectness Of their criticism. The
scientific experiment proves itself. The scientific
novel proves nothing, not even the sanity OF it's
author. Fiction appeals to an inner sense Of the
fitness Of things. and il is judged by that forth
with without a thought of repetition. 1t Is the
..a... nnlinl