Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-03-29

cornpares English and French lcllon 10
the disadvantage of the former lie
confines himself to the nineteenth
century. ard selects twelve novels as
the basis of comparison: The Chart
reuse of Parma" by Boyle; The Two
Young Brides" BalZac; The Black
Tulip" Dumas pere; "Mauprat.'
George Sand; Carmen" and Colon
Ia" Merimce: "Notre Dame" Hugo;
The Romance Of a Poor Young Man"
Feuillct: THE Lady of the Camellias,
Dumas fills; Madame Bovary," F'lau-
bert: Fremont and Risler," Daudet;
Fence Nauperin,' j. and f. de Con
court; 'J'ne Vie" de Maupassant.
The sight of this glorious panorama
of French fiction" exclaims the writer,
naturally induces the question: can
England match ito" He answers with
assurance: England can not. She can
not show twelve novels by twelve dead
authors which, in variety and intensity
of power and beauty, might hold their
own against twelve such French
novels For steady, unintermitted,
various brlliancy French litera ture
has been unique for centuries, and in
this respect it easily maintained Wits
superiority during the nineteenth. We
have been forced to this conclusion by
the logic Of figures and schedules. which
surpass that of adjrctives and rhapso-
dies" The writer then presents 4 chart
Of nineteenth century fiction, which
shows seven English authors with
thirty works. and thirteen French au
thors with thirty eight works. on the
English side we have the names of
Jane Austen, Scott, Dickens, Thack-
cray, Charlotte BrOnte. George Eliot,
and Stevenson. on the French side we
have the twelve names cited
above. with the addition of Madame
de Stael The chart excludes
living n0velists, and it is meant
to exclude all nOvelists not alb
solutely in the first class. Thus. on the
English side, EdGeworth, Terrier, Gait.
Lover. Lytton, Milford, Peacock.
Reade. Marryat, Gaskell. Trollope,
Ainsworth, Borrow, Kinksley. and Dis
raleli are Intentionally omitted; and on
the French side, Chateaubriand Con-
slant, sue, Murger, About, Sandeau.
Feuillct, de lIsle Adam, and others.
Only the finest books of each author
are admitted, and in no case more than
seven Of Scott and seven Of Balzac, six
Of Dickens ana five Of Dumas.
The Providence Journal says that
questions in literature can not be set
tied by such rough and-ready methods.
"TwelVe novels in one language might
be supreme in their class, and twelve
novels in another language might be
equally supreme in q far different class.
The first thing to be determined in an
inquiry of the kind is the purpose of the
novel ana the standard to be applied
10 it. Art mas many forms, and the ar
fist is entitled to the choice of his own
medium. BalZac. for example, is one
of the sternest of realsts; his figures
are minutely drawn, yet they stand out
boldly on the scene: and their creator
regards them with that impersonal
aloofness which some critics would
have us believe is the highest genius.
Thackeray drew his world quite as ac-
curately, and his characters are GER
tainly no less vivid; but his attitude
toward them gives them place in our
affections, and thus a vivid human in
tercst, which BalZacs characters do
not have. If the artist is great by
what he accomplishes, therefore. then
the assumed superiority of BalZac's
method must yield to the obvious sup
eriority Of Thackeray's results. If we
are to make a list of English novelists
to oppose to the list of French novel
lists. ThaCkeray. then may be held to
overbalance Balzac. 1t might also be
argued that Dickens, inferior as he is
in art. is n greater genius than Daudet,
who has often been compared with him.
Scott might well hold his own against
Dumas and Hugo together, who We're
both in a certain sense his imitators
&c 10 i,,I,- ~,
superior of George Eliot. The great
writer's are to be judged by themselves
and not ny others. To all such lists the
opinion of the lamented Mr.. Bunsby
may best apply"