FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224  
225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   >>   >|  
to his wife--a jealousy which is backed up by an equally unfounded suspicion (supported by the most outrageous proceedings of espionage and something like burglary) on the part of a confidential servant, who, as we are informed at last, has himself had a secret passion for his innocent mistress. It is more like a Feuillet book than a George Sand, and in this respect shows the curious faculty--possessed also by some lady novelists of our own--of adapting itself to the change of novel-fashion. But to me at least it appeals not. So turn we from particulars (for individual notice of the hundred books is impossible) to generals. [Sidenote: Summary and judgment.] [Sidenote: Style.] It may be difficult to sum up the characteristics of such a writer as George Sand shortly, but it has to be done. There is to be allowed her--of course and at once--an extraordinary fertility, and a hardly less extraordinary escape from absolute sinking into the trivial. She is preposterous early, somewhat facile and "journalistic" later, but she is never exactly commonplace. She belongs to the school of immense and almost mechanical producers who are represented in English by Anthony Trollope as their "prior" and by Mrs. Oliphant[195] and Miss Braddon as commandresses of the order. (I think she runs a good deal below the Prior but a good deal above the Commandresses.[196]) But, if she does so belong, it is very mainly due, not to any pre-eminence of narrative faculty, but to that gift of style which has been for nearly a hundred years admitted. Now I have in this _History_ more than once, and by no means with tongue in cheek, expressed a diffidence about giving opinions on this point. I have, it is true, read French for more than sixty years, and I have been accustomed to "read for style" in it, and in divers other languages, for at least fifty. But I see such extraordinary blunders made by foreigners in regard to this side of our own literature, that I can never be sure--being less conceited than the pious originator of the phrase--that even the Grace of God has prevented me from going the same way. Still, if I have any right to publish this book, I must have a little--I will not say "right," but _venia_ or licence--to say what seems to me to be the fact of the matter. That fact--or that seeming of fact--is that George Sand's style is _too_ facile to be first-rate. By this I do not mean that it is too plain. On the contrary, it is sometim
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224  
225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

George

 

extraordinary

 

faculty

 

hundred

 

facile

 

Sidenote

 
admitted
 
History
 

expressed

 

diffidence


tongue

 

Commandresses

 

contrary

 

publish

 

sometim

 

eminence

 

narrative

 

belong

 

prevented

 
literature

foreigners

 

regard

 

originator

 

phrase

 

conceited

 

licence

 

blunders

 

French

 
giving
 

opinions


languages

 

accustomed

 

divers

 

matter

 

novelists

 
adapting
 

possessed

 

Feuillet

 

respect

 

curious


change

 
notice
 

impossible

 

generals

 

individual

 

particulars

 
fashion
 

appeals

 

mistress

 
innocent