ten
assumes the aspect of progress, nay, in some cases is identical with
progress. Most of the poets, dramatists, and other writers of the
Romantic School were, either by affinity or predilection, legitimists
and neo-Catholics. Gothic art, mediaeval sentiment, the ancient monarchy
and the ancient creed, were blended in their programme with the
abrogation of the "unities," and a greater license of poetical
expression.

Imbued with the precepts of a former age, and fresh from the study of
its masterpieces, M. Sainte-Beuve was at first repelled by the mutinous
attitude of the new aspirants. He made his _debut_ in an attack upon the
"Odes and Ballads" of Victor Hugo. But his opposition quickly yielded to
the force of the attraction. Nature had given him a peculiar mobility of
temperament, and a strong instinctive sense of beauty under every
diversity of form. Moreover, resistance would have been useless and
Quixotic. In literature, as in politics, dynasties perish through their
own weakness. The classical school of France had no living
representative around whom its adherents could have rallied. Its only
watchword was "The Past," which is always an omen of defeat.

Properly speaking, therefore, M. Sainte-Beuve began his career, not as
an opponent, but as the champion of the new school. He entered into
personal and intimate relations with its leaders, joined, as a member of
the _Cenacle_, in the discussion of their plans, attended the private
readings of "Cromwell" and other works by which the breach was to be
forced, and took upon himself the task of justifying innovation, and
securing its reception with a hesitating public. Hence his criticism at
this period was, as he himself has styled it, "polemical" and
"aggressive." It was, however, neither violent nor sophistical. On the
contrary, it was distinguished by the candor and the suavity of its
tone. Goethe, who watched from afar a movement which, directly or
indirectly, owed much to German inspiration, was particularly struck
with this trait. "Our scholars," he remarked to Eckermann, "think it
necessary to hate whoever differs from them in opinion; but the writers
in the Globe know how to blame with refinement and courtesy."

At home many, without being converted, were propitiated, and some, while
still hostile or indifferent to the new literature, became warmly
interested in its advocate. At the suggestion of Daunou, one of the most
distinguished among the survivors of