tion, and here is how he expresses
it:

"Oh! yes, upon the eyes first, as the most noble and most alive of the
senses; upon those eyes for what they have seen and regarded too
tenderly, or that which was too perfidious in others' eyes, or too
mortal; for what they have read and re-read of endearment that was too
dear; for what they have poured out in vain tears over fragile goods and
faithless creatures; for the sleep which they have too often forgotten,
thinking only of the evening!

"Upon the ears also for what they have heard and allowed themselves to
hear that was too sweet, too flattering and intoxicating; for that sound
which the ear steals from deceptive words; for what it drinks in from
stolen honey!

"Then the smell, for the too subtle and voluptuous perfumes of evening
and the springtime in the depth of the woods, for flowers received in
the morning and all through the day, and breathed in with so much
pleasure!

"Upon the lips, for what they have pronounced that was too confused or
too open; for what they did not reply at certain moments or what they
have not revealed to certain persons; for what they have sung in
solitude that was too melodious and too full of tears; for their
inarticulate murmur and for their silence!

"Upon the neck, in the place of on the breast, for the ardor of desire
according to the consecrated expression (_propter ardorem libidinis_);
yes, for the grief in affection and the rivalry, for too much anguish in
human tenderness, for the tears which are suffocated in a voiceless
throat, for all that goes to wound the heart and break it!

"Upon the hands also, for having seized a hand which was not bound to
holiness; for having received too burning tears; perhaps for having
begun to write and for finishing a response not lawful!

"Upon the feet, for not having fled, for not having been satisfied with
long, solitary walks, for not having been weary soon enough in the midst
of temptations which were ever beginning anew!"

You did not prosecute that. Here are two men who, each in his own
sphere, has taken the same thing and who have, according to his own
idea, added the sin, the fault. Can it be that you make an indictment
for simply translating the formula of the ritual: _Quidquid deliquisti
per oculos, per aurem_, etc.?

M. Flaubert has done just what M. Sainte-Beuve did, without
plagiarizing. He has made use of a right which belongs to any writer,
to add to what another has said