to a bad one. But it
has been urged--and with some truth as regards at least the later forms
of the French novel--that it is almost founded on theory, and certainly
Dumas _fils_ can be cited in support--perhaps, indeed, he is the first
important and thoroughgoing supporter. And this of itself justifies the
place and the kind of treatment allotted to him here, the justification
being strengthened by the fact that he, after Beyle, and when Beyle's
influence was still little felt, was a leader of a new class of
novelist, that he is the first novelist definitely of the Second Empire.

FOOTNOTES:

[349] As, for instance, in _A Short History of French Literature_
(Oxford, 7th ed., 1917), pp. 550-552.

[350] At the same time, and admitting (see below) that it is wrong to
meet overpraise with overblame, I think that it may be met with silence,
for the time at any rate.

[351] I have, for reasons unnecessary to particularise, not observed
strict chronological order in noticing his work or that of some others;
but a sufficient "control" will, I hope, be supplied by the Appendix of
dated books under their authors' names as treated in this volume.

[352] I observe with amusement (which may or may not be shared by "the
friends of Mr. Peter Magnus") that I have repeated in the case of Dumas
_fils_ what I said on Crebillon _fils_. The contrast-parallel is indeed
rather striking. Partly it is a case of reversal, for Crebillon _pere_
was a most respectable man, most serious, and an academician; the son,
though not personally disreputable, was the very reverse of serious, and
academic neither by nature nor by status. In Dumas' case the father was
extremely lively, and the Academy shuddered or sneered at him; the son
was very serious indeed, and duly academised. Some surprise was, I
remember, occasioned at the time by this promotion. There are several
explanations of it; mine is Alexander the son's fondness for the correct
subjunctive. George Sand, in a note to one of her books (I forget
which), rebelliously says that the speaker in the text _ought_ to have
said, "aimasse," not "aimais," but that he didn't, and she will not make
him do it. On the other hand, I find "aimasse," "haisse," and "revisse"
in just three lines of _La Dame aux Camelias_. And everybody ought to
know the story of the Immortal who, upon finding a man "where nae mon
should be," and upon that "mon" showing the baseness derived from Adam
by turning on his accomplic