roughout his story or was selecting it anew for every scene. In the
first case, the one character whom he could see would be determined in
advance: in the other, he should have to decide from the point of view
of which of them that special scene could be the more effectively set
forth.

The attitude of limited omniscience is more easy to maintain than that
of a god-like mind intimately cognizant of all the characters at once;
and furthermore, the employment of the more restricted point of view
is more likely to produce the illusion of life. In actual experience,
we see only one mind internally,--our own; all other people we look
upon externally: and a story, therefore, which lays bare to us one
mind and only one is more in tune with life itself than a story in
which many minds are searched by an all-seeing eye. Also, a story told
in the third person from the point of view which has been illustrated
from Jane Austen's novels enjoys nearly every advantage of a narrative
told in the first person by the leading actor, without being
encumbered by certain of the most noticeable disadvantages.

=3. The Rigidly Restricted Point of View.=--For the sake of
concreteness, however, it is often advisable for the author writing in
the third person to restrict his point of view still further, and,
foregoing absolutely the prerogative of omniscience, to limit himself
to an attitude merely observant and entirely external to all the
characters. In such a case the author wears, as it were, an invisible
cap like that of Fortunatus, which permits him to move unnoticed among
his characters; and he reports to us externally their looks, their
actions, and their speech, without ever assuming an ability to delve
into their minds. This rigidly external point of view is employed
frequently by Guy de Maupassant in his briefer fictions; but although
it is especially valuable in the short-story, it is extremely
difficult to maintain through the extensive compass of a novel. The
main advantage of this point of view is that it necessitates upon the
part of the author an attitude toward his story which is at all
moments visual rather than intellectual. He does not give a ready-made
interpretation of his incidents, but merely projects them before the
eyes of his readers and allows to each the privilege of interpreting
them for himself. But, on the other hand, the reader loses the
advantage of the novelist's superior knowledge of his creatures: and,
exce