New-York tribune., 1896-03-29

It Is restless, cynical literature. full II taste
saturated In the spirit Of man who cares for
good pictures good books. above all for the
exercise OF the intellectual faculties for ts
own sake The writings Of Stendhal suggest
man who tested all tho things OF his experience
b. the rationalisic touchstone OF the eighteenth
century but VINO anticipated the latter years
Of the nineteenth in giving such free play TO his
personality to ask OF all matters OF thought
or action: How does this affect me? Am -
be pleased or bored? In this interesting universe
which Is called my aoul do these sensa tions prom
ise 10 be amusing or otherwise? Have they n
place there at all? Is II not possible that they
are vulgar that they belong 10 the world outside
the world which am dinidcntly exploring with
view to importing It's profitable and divertng
things into my own expericnce?' because he
was born In the last years OF the eighteenth CEN
tury because something OF the atmosphere OF
that time hangs over him, because, In short. he
was q spiritual heir to the age which produced
philosophical dilettanu without number and cul-
minated In VOltaire and Rousseau II Is impossible
to detach him from that age. II the tone OF much
literature that is printed to-day were to be classi
fed the strength OF Its resemblance to the
work of Stendhal. 1t might be asserted that we
were witnessing q recrudescence Of eighteenth
century tHOuSHt but III ~ ldllcT 10 tiidi tIc
fastidious materialism Of the present time Is
largely the natural, spontaneous fruit OF new
conditions. and Stendhals relation to this epcur-
eanism Is something more than relation founded
on resemblance. He belonged to the eighteenth
century by virtue Of his phi1sophc attitude.
He belongs In his very grain. to the present
day, by virtue OF his cosmopotanism. This was
why Sainte-Beuve could not like him altogether.
There is dreadful irregularity about the
cosmopolitan: he has so many standards OF
taste he Is apt T. be needless OF academic
precepts, and since this elasticity OF feeling
was reflected In S.endhals style. In the form as
well as in the substance Of his books 1t is easy
to understand how Sainte- Beuve resented him.
He could not withstand the good criticism. the
poetic fervor the intellectual vivacty which
Stendhal illustrated. and as the critic OF the
romantic movement. he was civil to a brilliant
worker In his field. But there was always the
rectitude Of the academy In Sainte-Beuve. and
with this rectitude there repose there
was q sanity which found Stendhal Irritating.
He got on the Of his austere critic Sainte-
Beuye admired his good qualities, he sympathized
with his romanticsm. but plaintively he regretted
that In order to be elastic NJ Stendhal appar-
emily found It necessary to be lawless. How d!-
ferent It all seems to NJ. Bourgct! II Stendhal
IL lawess. then NJ. Bourget begins 10 nave doupts
as to the virtue OF the law. 1t has been suggested
above that NJ Bourgeois view Of the matter IL
not necessarily the final one. In fact. the meas
ured Judgment OF Sante- -Beuve Is the Judgment
upon Stendhal which seems most likely to en-
dure. But that La Chartreuse de Parme" or
lie Rouge ct lie Nor' must appeal to most read
! ers to-day they appeal to NJ. Bourget ls in
controvertible.
one either these bOOkQ
conclusive types Of fiction. No modern writer