ansgress the precept lain down by
Ouintilian, still the Author would not have attained the main object,
which is to interest the reader, to charm him, to rivet his attention
in spite of himself,--in a word, to please him. As everybody knows, the
secret of pleasing the reader is not always based on regulation, nor even
on symmetry; there is need of smartness and tastefulness, if we would
strike home. How many of those perfect types of beauty do we see which
never strike home, and of which nobody feels enamoured! We do not wish
to rob Modern Authors of the praise that is due to them. Nicely turned
lines, fine language, accuracy, elegance of rhyme are accomplishments in
a poet. However that may be, let us consider of our own epigrams wherein
all these qualities are combined, perhaps we shall find in them far less
point, nay, I would venture to add, far less charm than in those of
Marot or Saint-Gelais, although almost all the works of the latter poets
are full of the same faults as are attributed to us. We will be told
that these were not faults in their day, whereas they are very great
faults in ours. To this we answer by a similar kind of argument, by
saying, as we have already said, that these would undoubtedly be faults
in another style of poetry, but not in this. The late M. de Voiture is
a proof in point. We need only read the works in which he brings to life
again the character of Marot. For our Author does not lay claim to
praise for himself, nor to rounds of applause from the public for having
put a few tales into rhyme. Without doubt he has entered on quite a new
path, and has pursued it to the utmost of his power, choosing now one
road, now another, and always treading with surer step when he has
followed the manner of our old poets "quorum in hae re imitari
negligentiam exoptat potius quam istorum diligentiam."

But while saying that we wished to waive this question, we have
unconsciously involved ourselves in its discussion. Perhaps this has not
been without advantage; for there is nothing that resembles faults more
than these licenses. Let us now consider the liberty which the Author
has assumed in cutting into the property of others as well as his own,
without making exception even to the best known stories, none of which
he scruples to tamper with. He curtails, enlarges, and alters incidents
and details, at times the main issue and the sequel; in short, the story
is no longer the same; it i