ook
place not as it ought and as it ought not. But of the fact of it and of
the corresponding variety introduced with it, the very pioneers of the
so-called Romantic movement give ample proof. We have seen this even in
the extremely inchoate stage of the first two decades; when the great
definitely Romantic leaders made their appearance it was more remarkable
still. The four chief writers who gave the Romantic lead before 1830
itself may be taken to be Nodier, Hugo, Merimee, and Vigny. They stand
in choice of subjects, as in treatment of them, wide apart; and just as
it has been noted of Vigny's poetry, that its three chief pieces,
"Eloa," "Dolorida," and "Le Cor" point the way to three quite different
kinds of Romantic verse, so, confining ourselves to the same example, it
may be repeated that _Cinq-Mars_ and the smaller stories exemplify, and
in a way pattern, kinds of Romantic prose fiction even further apart
from each other. Always, through the work of these and that of Gautier,
and of all the others who immediately or subsequently follow them, this
broadening and branching out of the Romantic influence--this opening of
fresh channels, historical and fanciful, supernatural and
ordinary--shows itself. The contention, common in books, that this
somehow ceased about the middle of the century, or at least died off
with the death of those who had carried it out, appears to me, I
confess, to be wildly unhistorical and uncritical. At no time--the
proofs fill this volume--do we find any restriction, of choice of
subject or conduct of treatment, to anything like the older limits. But
the most unhistorical and the most uncritical form of this contention is
the astonishing endeavour to vindicate a "classical" character for
Naturalism. Most certainly there is "impropriety" in some of the
classics and "impropriety" in all the Naturalists, but other resemblance
I can see none. As for the argument that as Naturalism is opposed to
Romance and Classicalism is opposed to Romance, _therefore_ Naturalism
is Classical--this is undoubtedly a very common form of bastard
syllogism, but to labour at proving its bastardy would be somewhat
ridiculous.

The fact is, as should have been sufficiently made good above, that
Naturalism is not opposed to Romance in anything like the sense that
Classicism is: it is nothing but a degradation and exaggeration at once
of certain things in Romance itself. Nor do I think that there is the
slightest diffi