THE QUERELLE DES ANCIENS ET DES MODERNES 
 AND THE CLASSICIST-ROMANTICIST 
 BATTLE 
 
 By 
 
 CECILE M. BELL 
 
 A. B. University of Illinois, 1919 
 
 THESIS 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
 DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ROMANCE LANGUAGES IN 
 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS, 1922 
 
 URBANA, ILLINOIS 
 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/querelledesancieOObell 
 
TABLF OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 I. Introduction 1 
 
 II. Diderot 6 
 
 III. Perrault 11 
 
 IV. The "QuerelleV 17 
 
 V. Fontenelle and the ’’Querelle” 21 
 
 VI. Fenelon and the Church .....25 
 
 VII. The Mingling of Genre 33 
 
 VIII. Perfectibility 36 
 
 IX. Soileau 37 
 
 X. ”Les Paralleles" and "Les Memo ire s ” of 
 
 Perrault 45 
 
 XI. ”Les Contes de Fees” 47 
 
 XII. The Second phase of the ’’Querelle” .....51 
 
 XIII. Conclusion 52 
 
 Bibliography • • 1 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE Q.UERELLE DES ANCIENS ET DES MODERNES 
 
 AND 
 
 THE CLASSICIST-ROMANTICIST BATTLE 
 
 Literary controversies of greater or lesser importance 
 have arisen more than once since the dawn of literature, and con- 
 troversies there are likely to be so long as men live, and write, 
 and think. It was so in the seventeenth century when Desmarets de 
 Saint-Sorlin produced his "Clevis", 1 1657, in which he dared sug- 
 gest the superiority of Christian over pagan philosophy as a source 
 of literary inspiration. He met his objectors, among them Nicolas 
 Boileau, who ridiculed the idea of Satan’s possessing any value 
 whatever as a character in literature. Incidentally it is worth 
 remembering that Milton was just then finishing his great Christian 
 epic 2 in which he made Satan the rival of Adam for the position 
 of hero of the story. It is probable that Boileau was not yet 
 familiar with the plan of the "Paradise Lost"; it is almost cer- 
 tain that he would not have agreed with one who so disregarded the 
 teachings of antiquity. But it is worth remembering that this idea, 
 new in France, was already being used in England, and that, by the 
 
 1 LcJason,G., Histoire de la Litterature Franqaise ;. 590 Abry, Audio 
 Crouzet; Histoire Illustree de Litterature Fran^aise, p. 301. 
 
 2 Rigault, H.; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des 
 Modernes p. 112. 
 
 Lanson, G., Histoire de la Litterature Fran^aise p. 590. 
 

 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 , 
 
 genius of his century. Desmarets was old, more than eighty he 
 was, when Boileau hurled himself against the new doctrine, and 
 he died before the dispute which he had provoked assumed any 
 alarmning proportions; but dying he let fall his mantle upon the 
 shoulders of Charles Perrault 1 who entered the quarrel with even 
 more zeal than his predecessor had done. For Perrault was impul- 
 sive, and apt, and young. He was besides well able to carry on 
 a controversy in verse; and when in 1687 he read before the aca- 
 demy "Le Siecle de Louis le Grand" he displayed a boldness of 
 spirit comparable to that exhibited in the presentation of "HernanjH" 
 almost a century and a half later. The storm burst,’ The Querelle 
 des Anciens et des Modernes was on, and leaders hastened to de- 
 clare their allegiance to their respective parties. Ostensibly 
 the quarrel was one between the friends and foes of antiquity. In 
 reality it was the revolt of youth against the fixity and dogma 
 of old age. It was the protest of age against the innovations 
 and progress of youth. In a broader sense it represented the con- 
 test between two spirits, that of submission to the past and that 
 
 ^■Herriot, E, Precis de 1’Histoire des Lettres Fran^aises p. 558 
 "Viens defendre, Perrault, la France qui t'appelle; 
 
 Viens defendre avec moi cette troupe rebell e, 
 
 Ce ramas d'ennemis qui, faibles et mutins, 
 
 / \ \ 
 
 Preferent a nos chants les ouvrages latins." 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 of free examination in thought and independence in taste. 1 The 
 
 contest was repeated in the nineteenth century when, weary with 
 
 the dull routine of thought of the age, a few bold spirits shook 
 
 themselves free from the conventional in all forms of art, and 
 
 declared themselves under a new banner, that of Romanticism. Not 
 
 without resemblances are these two revolutions, separated though 
 
 they be by more than a century of time, and this relationship we 
 
 are going to try to establish in this paper. 
 
 Indeed, no less an authority than M. Rigualt recognizes 
 
 in the insurrection of Perrault a precursor of the romantic re- 
 2 
 
 volution, and agrees with M. Pierre Leroux that the ideas of 
 Perrault and those of the romanticists agree in their insistence 
 upon the liberation of the human spirit and the emancipation of 
 taste. M. Leroux goes a step farther, and establishes a bond of 
 synpathy between "Les Parallel es" of Perrault and "Le Preface de 
 Cromwell” of Victor Hugo. Professor Irving Babbitt sees in ro- 
 manticism a revolt against this same formalism which dominated the 
 
 ^Rigault, H. , Oeuvres Completes- Vol . 1, p. 219 
 
 Brunetiere, F., Involution des Genres pp. 112-3. 
 
 / 
 
 Bailly, A., L'Ecole Classique Franpaise p. 194 
 ^Rigault, H., Oeuvres Completes - Vol. 1, p. 271. 
 
 ^Rigault, H., Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et dss Modernes 
 p. 483, from Leroux, De la Loi de Continuite qui unit le XVIII 9 
 Siecle au XVIII®, Revue Encyclopedique, 1832, 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 
 
 literature of the seventeenth century . x And at last the romanti- 
 cists themselves recognize in the Modernes of the seventeenth cen~ 
 tury their own literary ancestors. Perhaps M. Rigault defines 
 best the relative positions of the two schools. "Le romantisme", 
 he says, "qui proclamait 1 8 independance absolue du gout, crut 
 faire preuve de logique, en declarant la guerre a l'antiquite: 
 dans un manifeste ou il etablissait sa genealogie, il annonca qu' 
 il continuait l 8 oeuvre d 8 emancipation commencee par Perrault, et 
 se rattacha resolument aux Modernes du XVII® siecle". Even 
 Voltaire attributed to the seventeenth century the cosmopolitan 
 attitude of the eighteenth. "Nous avons perdu de vue" , said he, 
 "le clocher de notre village; le domains de l 8 esprit fran^ais, 
 c’est l'univers." 3 Voltaire did not attribute this revolution to 
 the seventeenth century, but he did recognize the influence of 
 those people who enlarged the field of criticism, and revealed the 
 relationship existing between all products of the spirit of which 
 they affirmed the progress. The revolution in the seventeenth 
 century, and again in the nineteenth came in response to a common 
 impulse, 4 a sympathetic desire to expand, to depart from the tra- 
 
 ^Babbitt Irving; Contemporary Literature 
 
 2 Rigault, H., Hi3toire de la Querelle des Anciens et des 
 
 Modernes p, 483. 
 
 5 Ibid. p. 275. 
 
 4 Stewart and Tilley; The Romantic Movement in French Literature 
 
 p. 1. 
 

 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 * , 
 
5 , 
 
 ditions of the past, to exercise the right of 'free examination*, 
 said the Modernss, 9 independence in taste * , said the romanticists, 
 and both schools in their respective infancies seemed equally in- 
 definite as to creed and goal. But in one purpose they were agreec , 
 these two rebel schools. They had in common the ambition to neu- 
 tralize, if not destroy, the influence of the classicists upon 
 the literature of the times. M. Rigault, more conservative than 
 M. Leroux, sees in Perrault a precursor of the school of Diderot 
 and Grimm, ^ more curious perhaps, and more accessible to new 
 ideas; but as a result of the revolt of Perrault, critics arose to 
 dictate to music, to sculpture, to painting, and the French 
 spirit, aroused from its complacency, reached across the borders 
 of its own land, and took unto itself customs and ideas of other 
 countries. And this foreign influence we remember as one of the 
 early changes registered by romanticism. To be sure Diderot leads 
 us towards the school of realism, towards the master, Balzac; but 
 may we not consider this very movement one in the direction of 
 romanticism? M. Pellissier has written at some length upon the 
 realistic element in the romantic school, and conversely has dis- 
 cussed the lack of realism in the classicist.^ According to M. 
 Pellissier one might say that the school of realism represents an 
 exaggerated form of one phase of romanticism. If this be true then 
 we may agree that a step toward realism is one in the direction of 
 romanticism. 
 
 ^■Rigault, H.; Oeuvres Completes - Vol. 1, p. 293. 
 
 ^Pellissier, G.; Realisms du Romantisme. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
 
 II 
 
 Diderot then is a link connecting the classic and roman- 
 tic schools, breaking away as he does from the traditional 
 character of the classical drama and depicting character ae it 
 is seen in real life. The innovations of Diderot are significant 
 in that they indicate the trend of literature which was passing 
 from a psychological to a physical realism which developed in the 
 novels of Le Sage, of Marivaux, and of Rousseau, and which, as 
 one critic has said, " culminated in the local color of the Roman- 
 tics".^ Despite the author's encyclopedic outlook upon life, one 
 finds in the works of Diderot many passages which indicate a ro- 
 mantic feeling for nature. Chateaubriand, for instance, might 
 
 easily have written: "Vous avez vu csnt fois le coucher du soleil 
 
 / 
 
 et le lever des etoiles, vous avez entendu la campagne retenir du 
 
 chant eclatant des oiseaux; mais qui de vous a senti que c'etait 
 
 2 
 
 le bruit du jour qui rendait le silence de la nuit charmante"? 
 
 Like many a prominent romanticist. Constant, Rousseau, Lamartine, 
 Diderot loved nature because it imposed upon him no semblance of 
 restraint. 3 His "Salons" contain some of the leading ideas ad- 
 vanced later in "Le Preface de Cromwell", and what Hugo wrote con- 
 cerning literature Diderot had already written for painting. 4 
 Diderot was not, strictly speaking, a forebear of romanticism, for 
 he left no masterpiece to which one may point as the turning point 
 
 ^Finch and Peer; Origins of French Romanticism p. 6. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 7. 
 
 3 Finch and Peer; Origins of French Romanticism p. 7, 
 
 4 Finoh and Peer; Origins of French Romanticism, pp. 14-15. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 of the century between classicism and romanticism; but he did 
 possess the romantic mind, and he advocated certain principles 
 which were later to characterize the great school of Rousseau. 
 
 Like Rousseau he was an individualist, a lover of nature, and a 
 man of sentiment. He was one of the early preachers of that 
 exoticism which came later to associate itself definitely with the 
 school of Chateaubriand, of Lamartine, and of Hugo. He repudiat- 
 ed utterly, classic tradition, and he succeeded in coloring the 
 thought of his age with his intense feeling for the true in art.^ 
 
 It was Diderot himself who looked forward to the coming of the 
 romanticists, and prophesied the date of their appearance. "Quand 
 verra-t-on naltre des poetes"? said he. "Ce sera apres le temps 
 de desastre et de grands malheurs, lorsque les peuples harasses 
 
 i / 
 
 commenceront a respirer. Alors les imaginations, ebranlees par 
 des spectacles terribles, peindront des choses inconnues a ceux 
 qui n'en ont ete les temoins". We believe the romanticists right 
 in claiming Diderot as a near relative, if not a direct ancestor. 
 Certainly his ideas corresponded exactly to many of the theories 
 which attached themselves to the revolutionists of the nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 It was Victor Hugo who called romanticism "le liberalisms 
 / 2 
 
 en litterature. " To this definition critics have offered the ob- 
 
 ^Finch and Peer; Origins of French Romanticism pp. 14, 15. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 15. 
 
 SPellissier, G.; Le Realism© du Romantisme p. 1, cited from "Le 
 Preface de Cromwell". 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 jection that it is purely negative, and includes no plan for the 
 disposition of the freedom for which the romanticist so vehement- 
 ly clamors. 1 The romanticists, to be sure, substituted no disci- 
 pline for the classic rules which they repudiated, and the lead- 
 ing romanticists differed, as did the Modernes in the ancient 
 quarrel, often among themselves; Bayle, for instance, could never 
 accept Perrault's favorite theory of "perf ectibilite" , M me de 
 Sta'el could not comprehend Chateaubriand's passion for coloring 
 everything with Christianity; but there are attributes peculiar 
 to the school - attributes which characterize it not only as the 
 
 enemy of classicism, but which lend it certain precepts by means 
 
 2 
 
 of which it may be recognized. Romanticism, being essentially 
 subjective attempts to restore to literature some degree of senti- 
 ment and imagination; but it does something more. If we are to 
 accept the creed as interpreted by M me de Stael, by Rousseau, and 
 by Chateaubriand, romanticism attempts to establish truth and 
 nature in literature, and on this side it approaches the school of 
 real ism. ^ 
 
 The romanticists, like the Modernes, were not without 
 admiration for the French masters of classicism, masters like 
 Racine, Corneille, and Moliere; but they could not accept classic- 
 ism as represented by Boileau, and La Fontaine who pretended to 
 follow nature in imitating the ancient poets. As a matter of fact 
 
 IPellissier, G. ; Le Realisms du Roman tisme p. 2. 
 
 2 Ibid.,p. 4. 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 6. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
 it was in the name of nature that the romanticists repudiated the 
 doctrine of classicism. 1 2 3 The contention of the romanticist was 
 that the classicist painted nature neither directly nor entirely; 
 that his fondness for imitations led him away from the actual as- 
 pects of nature, and made of him an imitator of an imitator. 
 Critics discussing this characteristic of the classic school, re- 
 call the sermons of Bossuet which gradually lose their element 
 
 of realism as they come more and more under the influence of 
 2 
 
 classicism. Boileau, himself, has supressed in his later writ- 
 ings what promised to be a faculty for seeing the realistic in 
 the world about him. M, Pellissier finds in the "Satires* of 
 Boileau proof for his assertion that the earlier works of this 
 disciple of classicism contain occasional passages of pure real- 
 ism. 3 
 
 "Deux assiettes suivaient, dont I’une etait ornee 
 D'une langue en ragout, de persil couronnee, 
 
 L’ autre, d’un godiveau tout brule par dehors, 
 
 Dont un beurre gluant inondait tous les bords;"^ 
 and again he quotes from the "Chants"; 
 
 1 Pell issier, G. : Le Realisme du Romantisme p. 15 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 19. 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 20. 
 
 ^Boileau; Satire III, Vol. 49 et suiv. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 ' * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 ✓ ' 
 
 "....Le prelat, muni d'un dejeuner. 
 
 Dormant d'un ledger somme, attendait le diner. 
 
 La jeunesse en sa fleur brill e sur son visage; 
 
 Son menton sur son sein descend a double etage, 
 
 Et son corps, r&masse dans sa courts grosseur, 
 
 - - .1 
 
 Fait gemir les coussins sous sa molle epaisseur." 
 
 In other words Boileau sacrificed his own personality to the disci- 
 pline of the seventeenth century which refused to tolerate a sug- 
 
 o 
 
 gestion of realism. To the ancients, imitating nature meant 
 imitating the antique version of nature; but fortunately there 
 were in the century those who protested against this interpretation 
 of nature, understanding as they did that nature could never be 
 copied correctly from imitators; that so long as writers imitated 
 the imitators of nature they could produce nothing more than an 
 artificial effect. And one does not read far into the classic 
 literature of the seventeenth century without finding a great deal 
 of this poor imitation which, left to itself, was destined to des- 
 troy every spark of originality before it dared appear. 
 
 ^Boileau, Chant l er Vol. 63 et Suiv. 
 ^Pellissier G., Le Realisms du Romantisme. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
 
 111 
 
 Charles Perrault was well equipped to lead the 
 fight against the Ancients. In the first place he was young, 
 and with the audacity characteristic of youth he dared express 
 himself when a man of more mature judgment might have hesitated. 
 
 In fact Perrault seems to have derived some particular satisfaction 
 from entertaining an idea contrary to current opinion. This anti- 
 pathy towards author ity he evidenced in his early childhood when, 
 
 incensed at the master’s command to cease talking, he left the 
 
 1 
 
 school, and refused resolutely to return. Instead, he with his 
 
 companion in the escapade, esxablijhed outside the pales of the 
 
 school, their own study where they worked for two years. At 
 
 school it seems that Perrault followed tne Dent of his own 
 
 nature, learning a little of many things, and specializing in 
 
 none. Perhaps the early training of the child may have inculcated 
 
 in him those ideas, modern, as they came to he called, and may 
 
 have given him courage to advance ideas ccritrary to those of his 
 
 2 
 
 century. He sprang from sturdy bourgeois stock, and unlike 
 BoileaUj had the good fortune of beirg reared in the heart of 
 a devoted family. He was taught to read by his mother , and it 
 is not unlikely that her personality may have influenced the 
 boy's attitude toward women, an attitude reflected in his 
 
 1. La Croix, P. Memoires de Charles Perrault p. 3 t 4 
 Leschanel, E. , Le Roman tisme des Classiques p. 237 
 
 f \ 
 
 2. Albert, Paul; La Litterature Pran^aise au XVII e Siecle p.363 
 
 3. Ibid. p. 364 
 
12 
 
 1 
 
 answer to .Soileau's "Satire sur Femmes"* I say that it is not 
 surprising that his feeling toward women should he more generous 
 than that of Boileau, whose own childhood was so sad and lonely. 
 Perrault grew up unfettered by the restraint imposed upon 
 Boileau from babyhood. It is a significant fact that while 
 Boileauiwas leafing his models of antiquity, Perrault with his 
 two brothers was busy composing a parody upon the sixth boo* 
 of the/teneid. Nor was Charles Perrault untrue to the family 
 type in his antipathy to the restraint suggested by t he tradition- 
 al and conventional in work or play. For the Perrault brothers, 
 four of them in all, are represented as free spirits, original, 
 
 resentful of traditions, enemies of routine, eager for novelty, 
 
 2 
 
 adventurous, bold, and modern. Perrault loved his own century. 
 
 ' X 
 
 11 "etait un homme a remercier Dieu chaque soir del' avoir fait 
 
 naltre en France, au XVII e siecle, pour etre temoin des 
 
 3 
 
 merveilles infinies du regne de Louis XIV." The intellect of 
 Perrault favors always the new, and opposes the traditional. 
 
 It was the ambition of this man to free poetry from the yoke 
 of imitation; and even before "Le Siecle de Louis le Grand" 
 appeared he had published his "Saint Paulin", 1686, which is 
 entirely at variance with the idea of religion entertained by 
 antiquity. Perrault read the story of the conversion of the 
 young Jew, and saw in it the history of the struggle of Christ- 
 ianity against paganism. Paul, reared in a pagan home had been 
 
 1. Albert, Paul; La Litterature Frangaise au XVII e siecle p. 364 
 
 2. Leschanel , 15.; Le Romantisme des Classiques p. 238 
 
 3. Albert, Paul; La Litterature Frangaise au XVII e Siecle p.563 
 
13 
 
 taught honestly to despise and persecute the disciples of the new 
 faith; but he received a marvelous revelation of light, and renounc 
 ing posit ion, wealth, and power, he pursued the ideal set up by the 
 
 Christian church, and died a martyr for his faith. To perrault the 
 
 1 
 
 story meant the dawn of modernism after the darkness of the past. 
 
 In the preface of !! Saint -Paul in, he says that heaven and hell, 
 
 angels and demons are all worthy of the attention of the poets. 
 
 This preface, itself .exemplifies the independence of taste, and the 
 
 disregard for tradition which make his works the subject of more 
 
 2 
 
 comment than does the subject matter itself. A oont emporary - said 
 of Perrault that all of his writings had a certain novelty, a 
 certain origionality peculiar to each particular product ion; that 
 he was guided by his own ideas which were unfettered by the in- 
 fluence of ancient models; that when he aimed to portray passion 
 
 he sought it not in books, but looked directly into the human 
 1 
 
 heart .When his friends suggested that he sacrifice his idea of a 
 
 ✓ 
 
 certain heroine , Therasie, to the taste of the public, he refused, 
 and presented this character as he believed her to be rather 
 
 d.S 
 
 than'his readers would have liked her to be. He felt that a writer 
 
 should not conform to the customs of his century when doing so 
 
 3 
 
 involved the misrepresentation of facts. He believed that the 
 customs of the time represented by the play might differ from 
 those of the time of the author without offending any of the 
 
 ✓ a \ 
 
 1. Albert ,p. ;La Litterature Franjaise a$a X5TJI Siecle 268 
 
 2. Rigault, H. , Histoire de La Querelle des Anciens et des 
 Moderns s p.114 
 
 3. Ibid. p. 115 
 
14 
 
 rules of art. These are some of the things which perrault discussed 
 
 in his preface to "Saint Paulin”, and some of them savor strongly 
 
 of the doctrine of Hugo. This idea of the time element in the drama, 
 
 Hugo would have sanctioned most heartily. Perrault then^ believed 
 
 that Christianity afforded a richer source of poetic inspiration 
 
 1 
 
 than did pagan superstition.lt was one of the foundation stones 
 of romanticism, this Christian faith, without which the core of 
 Chateaubriand's work would be gone.sFe would not say that Perrault 
 attained the heights of faith experienced by the poets of romanti- 
 cism, who entertained a more ethereal , perhaps a more exaggerated 
 conception of the idea. But we do believe that perrault' s adoption 
 of the Christian faith as a literary subject opened the way for 
 those who later made it the foundation for all literature. 
 
 Certainly it was a departure from the classic ideal, and was the 
 very idea which Boileau had so recently ridiculed in Desmarets. 
 "Saint Paulin"as a drama is not a succesful piece of art, but it 
 
 has proven interesting to students of romanticism who see in it 
 
 ✓ 
 
 the theory put forth in "Les Martyrs", and in "Le Genie du 
 2 
 
 Christianisme".It is the idea expressed in the "Clovis" which 
 enjoyed no greater success than did "Saint Paulin". The difference 
 in popularity lies in the fact that Chateaubriand possessed the 
 genius which was withheld from Perrault and Desmarets. 
 
 But lack of genius did not daunt the soul of perrault 
 
 1. Saint e-Beuve , C.A. ,Nouveaux Lundis,vol.l,p.306 
 Sainte-Beuve , C .A. , Causeries du Lundi vol.5,p.265 
 2. Albert, Paul; La Litteraturo Pran^aise au XVI I e Siecle p. 368 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■+ ■■ 
 
 « 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ . 
 
 f 
 
 • 1 
 
 
 
 I. . * • . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • • - ■ 
 
 , i 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' . / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 f . 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
15 
 
 He went serenely on nursing his belief in human progress which 
 he formulated Hater in "Le Siecle de Louis le Grand", inconsistent 
 he believed the argument that the ancients had attained perfection 
 in their day; for men of succeeding ages having the experience 
 of antiquity upon which to build should necessarily be more per- 
 fect than their ancestors. And although his idea was not express- 
 1 
 
 ed elegantly, nor even poetically, he did set forth principles 
 and ideas which succeeding generations adopted, and expressed 
 in true poetry. M. Albert believes this to be the first appear- 
 ance of the law of progress, "le reve de tant d' esprit superieurs 
 
 / / X / 
 
 et de coeurs genereux, la chimere de l'abbe de Saint-Pierre, la 
 
 supreme illusion de Condorcet mourant, de Jean Reynaud et de 
 2 
 
 tant d'autres". Perrault was doubtless the boldest figure in 
 
 t he "Querelle aes Anciens et des Modernes". He was a man of 
 
 new ideas, of inventions, a man looking always toward the future 
 
 3 
 
 with coixfidence in his own generat ion. "Son imagination et sa 
 
 raison combat tent; c'est l’heure du crepuscule qui f init et de 
 
 4 
 
 l'aube blanch issan te". He resented the idea, prevalent in hia 
 
 time, that his own century could never hope to rival that of 
 
 the ancients; and in his enthusiasm he went farther, and expressed 
 
 / p ^ 
 
 1. Albert, Paul; La Litter ature Franpaise au XVII Siecle p. 365 
 
 2. Ibid. p. 375 
 
 3. Sainte-Beuve, G. A. : Causeries du Lundi : Vol. 5 p. 255 
 
 4. Sainte-Beuve, C. A. : Nouveaux Lundis Vol. 1 p 314 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
 the belief that the century of Louis the Great was superior to 
 
 1 
 
 that of antiquity in its knowledge of fine arts and belles-lettres. 
 Perrault it was who broke with tradition and proclaimed free 
 
 2 
 
 examinat ion in literature and absolute independence in taste; 
 
 for his ideas of art were less dogmatic than were those of the 
 
 / 
 
 ancients. Poetry to him was "une peinture agreable qui donne 
 
 un corps, une ame, du sentiment, et de la vie aux choses aui n'en 
 3 
 
 ont point." It is imagination, in other words, which removes 
 
 Perrault from the ranks of the Ancients; and as we shall see 
 
 presently it is through his works of the imaginat ion that Perrault 
 
 lives for us, and not by virtue of his works of philosophy or 
 
 criticism. A little more than a century later another school 
 
 attempted to revive the imaginative element in literature. When 
 
 the romanticists turned their attention to the metaphysical they 
 
 indeed gave a soul, a body, a touch of sentiment to things that 
 
 had none of them, and Perrault ' s own definition of poetry 
 
 / 
 
 returns to us as we read again the "Meditations" of Lamartine. 
 Nothing tangible in the form of subject natter do they offer us, 
 and yet one feels that out of somewhere the author has captured 
 an idea which he has clothed with a new body. 
 
 p * 
 
 1. Lanson, G.; Ghoix de Lettres de XVII Siecle p428 
 
 Sainte- Beuve, G. A. Nouveaux Lundis Vol. 1 p. 303 
 
 2. Rigault, H. ; Oeuvres Completes, Vol. 1 p. 219 
 
 3. Ibid. Vol. 1. p. 210 
 
17 
 
 IV 
 
 "Le Sie cle de Louis le Grand then was the signal 
 
 * 1 
 
 for the beginning of hostilities between the two factions. It 
 
 E 
 
 is a humorous picture that Perrault draws of the academy — 
 
 Boilhau uneasy throughout the reading, growling from t ime to 
 time, and at last flinging himself from the assembly, unable 
 longer to endure the outrage perpetrated upon the academy, and 
 upon the ancient models by this impuaent young rebel. One 
 senses the satisfaction, the amusement that perrault experienced 
 during this proceedure even though he gives us no elaborate 
 details of the affair. Perrault even at the most critical points 
 in the quarrel seems to have remembered that he was a gentle- 
 man, and he has recorded against. him none of the vile epithets 
 used by his oponents in tne quarrel. "Le Siecle de Louis le 
 Grand" he followed by "Les paralleles des Aneiens et des Mod erne a" 
 containing the core of the cult of the new schooli and destined 
 to widen the gap bet ween the ancient and modern factions. The 
 
 N 
 
 Thesis of "Les Paralleles" is progress. If experience counts for 
 anything in the history of the race, and Perrault believes that 
 it does count, then by virtue of the age of its century the 
 literature of the moderns should excel, that of the ancients, 
 
 \ i ^ 
 
 1. Brunet ie re— £r Evolution des Genres p. 115 
 
 / 
 
 Lansom; Histoire de La Litter ature prangaise p. 150 
 
 ✓ 
 
 E. Lacroix, Paul; Memo i re s de Charles Perrault p* 131 
 3. Abry, Audio, Cruuzet; Histoire Illustree de la Litterature 
 
 franchise p. 303 
 
18 
 
 that in all forms of art, in architecture and in painting as well 
 
 as in literature , technique , may he perfected .perfect ibilite" to 
 
 perrault is a matter of growth, and the very age of the century 
 
 leads him to believe that the works of the Modernes "executes avec 
 
 une pleine connaissance et une longue habitude, sont plus parfaits 
 
 1 
 
 que les anciens, sortis de mains encore novices'JIn architecture, 
 in painting,in eloquence, in poet ry ,Perraultestablishes two stand- 
 ards, those that please at all times and places, and those that 
 are relative , pleasing certain persons in certain times and places. 
 Questions of the true and'' false , of the straight and the crooked, 
 may be decided for all time;but beauty , grace , deformity are relative 
 terms, and are constituents, all, of that something which one calls 
 
 taste. And taste itself is a relative term varying with the charac- 
 
 2 
 
 ter of the critic, and the age in which he lives. Perrault is not 
 particularly interested in the style oi an authorja translation 
 to him is as valuable - to hi m- as the original so long as it pre- 
 serves the thought of the author. And he believes that one finds 
 among modern writers delicate shades of passion and sentiment 
 which the ancients were quite incapable of port raying. Much of 
 this reasoning we meet again in "Le preface de Cromwell l T Hugo 
 lived later than Perrault ;he lived at a time more propitious for 
 the advancement of his ideas .And, above all, he possessed the genius 
 
 which permitted him to express his creed in a telling way.3ut the 
 
 / 
 
 author of "Le Preface de Cromwell”believed as did the Modernes 
 
 1 .Riga ult , H. ; Oeuvres Completes Vol.l,p.l91 
 2. Ibid. ,Vol.l,pp. 199-200 
 3. Ibid. , Vol .1 , p . 207 
 
19 
 
 that taste in literature was relative^ and that it could not remain 
 
 fixed through the centuries. Hugo objected to a verse form that 
 
 failed to carry properly the thought of the author even though it 
 
 might be the form thitherto recognized as the favored one. Each 
 
 epoch, has its particular idea and it must necessarily have its 
 
 1 
 
 own language for expressing that idea. And yet Hugo was not a 
 slovenly writer. On the contrary he was one of the most careful 
 writers that Prance has ever produced. And it seems that perrault, 
 far from advocating carelessness in diction, was trying in his day 
 to bring about the very structural change , advocated by Victor 
 Hugo in the nineteenth century. ’Vhy do we say this? Because both 
 Perrault and Hugo believed in purity of expression,but believed 
 that purity of expression might change from age to age, and that 
 it might as easily originate with an author of a later age as 
 with one belonging to the ancient order. 
 
 s 
 
 This idea of "perfect ibilite "is the same as that 
 me 2 
 
 advanced by M IuS de Stael in the succeeding century . Indeed we 
 
 v 
 
 remember the theme of her philosophy as the progress of the human 
 
 spirit. She too carried the idea into literature and in "de la 
 
 / 
 
 Litterature" she attempted to examine the influence of litera- 
 ture, of law, and of religion; and this was the project that perrault 
 was attempting to further when he attacked the fixity of the 
 classic ideals and purpose s.l/ lle de Stael believed with Perrault 
 
 1. Hugo.V. ;Oeuvres,Vol.24,p.27 
 
 ✓ 
 
 2. Lanson,G. ;Histoire de Litterature pranjaise p.592 
 
 3 . Sorel , A. ,I.i me de Stael p.81 
 
20 
 
 that the moderns were superior to the ancients by virtue of the 
 age of their century. We must admit certain weaknesses in this 
 
 -v 
 
 theory of "perf ectibilite applied to literature. Both Perrault 
 me • • 
 
 and M de Stael failed to take account of the fact that literary 
 qualities are not transmitted from one generation to another as 
 are physical charact eristics;andthis same flaw, occurring in the 
 arguments of the two writers , emphasizes again the sympathy exist- 
 ing between the two schools which they represent yperf ectibilite” 
 and”progre3s”were words that were to influence strongly the 
 literature of the century following Perrault. 
 
 And yet Perrault did not foresee the extent of the 
 influence of this, his protest against the authority of the Ancients 
 For one thing the quarrel was one between Paris and Some, and Eng- 
 lish and German models were not considered by either party in the 
 controversy.Foreign influences did not operate in the seventeenth 
 century, and Perrault , dissatisfied as he was with the dogma and 
 conventions of antiquity, did not dream of the big factor that 
 was to free French literature from the restraint of classicism; 
 
 and that factor was the entrance of cosmopolitanism into the 
 
 1 
 
 literature of the country. But the revolt of Perrault was the 
 opening wedge of discontent which left free the way for the en- 
 trance of ideas from other lands. And just as the rebellion of 
 our own forefathers contained the embryo of a new nation so the 
 revolution of the Modernes enclosed the germ of a new movement 
 which for two centuries was to divide the art of the world. 
 
 l.Texte J# ; Origines du Cosmopolittisme p.16 
 
21 
 
 In the development of romanticism cosmopolitanism was an important 
 
 me .1 
 
 factor. M de Stael during her periods of exile learned to under- 
 stand, and to love England, Switzerland, and Germany . Chateaubriand 
 and Saint t^Pi err e, as a result of their travels were impelled to 
 write of the strange America beyond the Atlantic. And Rousseau, 
 end Constant, and Senancour, all looked beyond the boundaries of 
 
 their own land,§nd found settings for their most prominent works 
 
 1 
 
 in Scotland, in Italy, in Switzerland. This influence, I say, was not 
 
 anticipated by Perrault, and yet, as we mentioned above, it was 
 
 romanticism itself which recognized its debt to this leader of 
 
 2 
 
 the revolution of the seventeenth century, 
 
 V 
 
 In the quarrel Fontenelle ranged himself on the side 
 3 
 
 of the Modernes.and in "les Digressions sur les Anciens et les 
 
 Modernes' T he repeated the idea of progress already expressed by 
 4 
 
 Perrault. Mr. Babbit. is inclined to rate him above Perrault as an- 
 
 important leader in the modern movement . Certain it is that he did 
 
 broaden Perrault’ s conception of progress by including in it his 
 
 3 
 
 own theory of climates. Briefly, the theory of climates tee. ches 
 that, other things being equal, men profit by the experience 
 acquired by the past ages, but that exterior circumstances , war , 
 climate, pestilence, may operate to prevent the maturity of any 
 
 1. Texte j J. ;Origines du Cosmopolitisms p.242 
 
 2. Rigault,H. ;Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 
 3. Ibid. , Oeuvres Completes Vol.l, p.427 p.483 
 
 Doumic, C.R. ;Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise p.368 
 
 4.Lanson, G.;Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise p.592 
 

 
faculty in any particular age; that nature is able to produce 
 
 great men in all ages, hut that man's reaction toward the forces 
 
 of nature is affected by his particular climatic environment. 
 
 Contrary to the classic idea , Font enelle teaches that man will 
 
 never degenerate , but appropriating always the experience of the 
 
 1 
 
 preceding age will go on towardsperf ection. "Modertt"is to him a 
 
 relative term, and he ventures the opinion that at one time the 
 
 Latins may have been called moderns, and that they became ancients 
 
 only when a great distance in time separated them from the 
 
 centuries which followed. And just so he sees the Modernes of his 
 
 own time classed as Ancients by the scholars of the future. And 
 
 again, just as the Latin period produced a literature which came 
 
 to be pronounced superior to that of the more ancient Greeks, 
 
 so the literature of the seventeenth century will be preferred 
 
 2 
 
 to that of either Rome or Greece. All this reminds us once more 
 ^ me 
 
 of M de Stael who set forth this very idea for the romantic 
 school. One cannot read ,f de la Lit terature "without recognizing 
 bits of the creed of these progressive spirits of the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 More than once in the "Ligre8sions"of Fontenelle 
 the author shows himself to be less coldly scientific than he 
 professed .Perhaps his appreciation for the beautiful may have 
 
 l.PontenellejLigressions sur les Anciens et les Modernes ,p.lS4-7 
 2. Ibid. ;p.l95 
 
 / 
 
 3 .Lanson,G.Histoire de la Litterature Francaise p.626 
 

23 * 
 
 been a note of warning presaging the awakening of that sensibilite* 
 which was to find its true place deep in the heart of romanticism. 
 Fontenelle, t o be sure, did not recognize this feeling, this passion 
 for the beautiful as anything except a weak spot in his consti- 
 tution. There is a bit of pathos, a bit of humor, too, in this 
 
 great man's confession of his one passion, "un peu de faiblesse 
 
 1 
 
 pour ce qui est beau". It was Fontenelle , too, who receiving into 
 
 the academy the successor of La Motte said "On lit les Anciens 
 
 2 
 
 par devoir; on lit les Modernes par plaisir". The romanticists 
 
 later claimed this virtue for their school, and attempting to define 
 
 the products of this later school, St endahl designated its work 
 3 
 
 as the literary form which gave the most pleasure. The definition 
 is not flawless; it is as indefinite as is the genre which it 
 attempts to catalogue , but coming from representatives of two differ- 
 ent centuries these statements interest us ,for they indicate 
 another bond of sympathy between the ideals of the Modernes of 
 the one century, and the romanticists of the other. And so we find 
 this strong character , Fontenelle , casting his influence on the side 
 
 of the youthful Perrault .preparing and announcing the"def init ion of 
 
 4 
 
 indefinite progress". More virile the conviction had grown with 
 
 LI me de Stael,but we must not forget that this idea of progress, 
 
 / 
 
 of perf ectibilite had been launched at the time of Perrault . Who 
 can say what strength of conviction the Modernes might have shown 
 had they lived a century later? 
 
 1. Lanson,G;Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise p. 626 
 
 2. Rigault ,H. ;Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes p. 
 3. Stendahl, Racine et Shakespeare ; p.33 
 
 4. Gillot , 5 . ;Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes p560 
 
 5. Sainte-Beuve,A. jllouveaux Lundis Vol.l,p.304 
 

24. 
 
 Progressive, too, were the Modernes outside the field 
 
 of literature. Perrault, as soon as the garden of the Tuilleries 
 
 was completed, astonished its keepers by asking that it be opened 
 
 1 
 
 to the common people. M. Colbert, one of the ministers, objected 
 
 that only the lazy people from among the lower classes would take 
 
 advantage of this privelege ;but Perrault argued farther that the 
 
 garden would become a haven for invalids, for convalescents, for 
 
 those starving for air, for the children of the entire kingdom, 
 
 in fact. And so convincing was his argument that he won his point; 
 
 Les Tuilleries was opened to the public. The keepers, who had not 
 
 sensed the fact that a certain love for the beautiful is inherent 
 
 in man, were skeptical about the outcome of the altruistic plan of 
 
 Perrault. They seem to have looked upon the scheme as a repitition 
 
 of the project of casting one’s pearls before swine, and for it 
 
 they prophesied some such unfavorable results. But perrault counted 
 
 2 
 
 upon man’s love of beauty to prevent his mutilating the garden, 
 and if his confidence wusbetrayed he does no$ mention the fact 
 in his account of his discussion with the keepers. It was not 
 until the time of Diderot that the common people found a place in 
 literature. One can see that Perrault ' s sympathy for the more 
 unfortunate classes was a thought in advance of his time, and one 
 that agreed perfectly with the theory of Rousseau’s ’’Inegalite". 
 
 The rights of the common people received a later champion in 
 Benjamin Constant who gave impetus to the idea that the human 
 
 1. Sainte-Beuve ,A. ;Nouveaux Lundis Vol.l,p.304 
 
 / 
 
 2. La Croix, paul;Memoires de Charles Perrault p. 121-22 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 * » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
 
 vv h i c K 
 
 being had certain rights witJTthe powers of state should not 
 interfere. 
 
 VI 
 
 A most significant victory was accorded the Modernes 
 
 when the religious party allied itself with them against the 
 
 Ancient.. Unconscious of the fact that it was destroying the 
 
 source of its own power, the church came forward to sanctify the 
 
 / 1 
 
 doctrine of perfectibilite set forth by Perrault. It was a blow 
 to the Catholic faith whose very foundation was laid upon the 
 
 traditions and dogma of the past. The church at large was divided 
 
 / 
 
 in its sympathies, and Bossuet and Fenelon took up their pens 
 against one another. Bossuet was clearly an ancient. His love for 
 the classics had grown with him until he could scarcely tolerate 
 any departure from what had already been established as good in 
 art and in thought. Fenelon was determined to remain a neutral 
 spectator , but as a matter of fact his philosophy savors strongly 
 of moder&ism;and from the quarrel between Boileau and Perrault 
 was born a new literary spirit which was to expand under the 
 teachings of Fenelon. Fe'nelon would not have allied himself 
 openly with the new party, but his work is essentially liberal in 
 spirit, and more than once we find him departing from classical 
 
 traditions, and branching out into thought entirely modern in 
 
 / / 
 
 concept. For instance his Telemaque, classic in subject , classic 
 in color , classic in form, is not classic &t its foundation, for 
 
 it turns from the gods of paganism, and finds its inspiration in 
 
 ... 2 
 
 the Christian faith. One reads in '’Jj'Bducat ion des Filles n a new 
 
 1. Kigault ,H. ;Hikto-ire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 
 . / y P .484 77/} 
 
 2. Pelli ssier ,G. ;Precis de I'Histoire de la Litterature Frangaise p. 
 
won is 
 
 
 ( 
 
 t 
 
 t 
 
 "eoII.t r i aeb no! JiJoxr&fl ’J" at Bb>iei r>nO 
 
 - - ........ 
 
 
26 
 
 concept of woman's sphere of activity, and ix was by this very 
 
 treatise that Fenelon invited the antagonism of his contemporaries 
 
 in the church who had not grasped with him the idea that woman 
 
 1 
 
 was coming to be treated as an independent personality. L'Abbe 
 Fleury felt that it would be a great paradox to pretend that a 
 woman's education need consist of anything save her catechism 
 
 1 
 
 and perhaps the art of dancing, singing and speaking correctly. 
 Fenelon has not the modern disregard for the classic models. True, 
 he does imitate the ancients, but along with this process of imi- 
 tation he inserts his own genius , exercises his own freedom of 
 
 spirit, and produces altogether a suppleness of style that one 
 
 / 
 
 never finds in Boileau. In intelligence , too , and sentiment Fenelon 
 
 surpasses Boileaujhe is inspired by sensibilite^and is bound by 
 
 2 
 
 no system of rules in his effort to express himself, perhaps the 
 most dist inguishing characteristic of this man is his knowledge 
 of the human heart, and a sort of ingenious tenderness quite 
 foreign to the classic schooljfor the classicists emphasized al- 
 ways the predominance of reason over sentiment , and insisted upon 
 the observance of a cult of rules destined to discipline the 
 
 form and thought of the author. 
 
 / 
 
 Fenelon felt , too, that the language of the classicist 
 
 was not flexible enoughjthat the rules imposed by the classic 
 
 grammar were too uniform, and that they handicapped the true ex- 
 
 3 
 
 pression of thought. "On voit venir",said he in his letter to the 
 
 . ✓ / 
 l.Pellissier,G. ;Precis de l'Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise $ 277 , 
 
 2. Ibid. ;p.280 
 
 3 .Abry, Audio , Crouzet ; Hist. Illus.de la Litterature Franpaise p.275 
 
27 
 
 academy, ”un nominatif su'bstantif qui mene son adjectif par la main; 
 
 son verbe ne manque pas de marcher derriere,suivi d’un adverbe 
 
 / A 
 
 oui ne souffre rien entre deux,et IS regime appelle aussitot un ac- 
 
 ✓ 1 
 
 cusatif qui ne peut jamais se deplacer.” This rigidity of construc- 
 tion was a feature of classicism which irritated the romanticists 
 perhaps as much as any other single principle of the school. 
 
 For the romanticist liked to give his expression a variety of turns, 
 to accommodate it to his mood, to make it express the sighing of 
 the leaves ,or the singing of the waters as he willed. And so we 
 see the phrase, fixed with the classicist , becoming more and more 
 flexible as literature approaches the romantic school vrtiere the 
 expression proceeds from the heart of the writer. The classical 
 school, then, appreciated rectitude and order, while the romantic 
 group preferred less rectitude and more relief ;romanticism pre- 
 ferred movement to order and demanded that style conform to 
 2 , 
 nature. This, it seems, was the thing that Fenelon had in mind when 
 
 he began advocating the relaxation of the rules regulating the 
 order of the sentence. It was not for him to inaugurate the 
 movement proper. The time was not ripe for the adoption of an 
 idea so much at variance with the thought of the century; it re- 
 mained for the bolder school of the nineteenth century to effect 
 the structural changes advocated by this man who did not realize 
 what an innovation he was suggesting. 
 
 / 
 
 1. Pellissier ,G . ;Le Reulisme du Romantisme p. 6b from 
 
 ✓ / 
 
 Fenelon, Lettre a l'Acaderaie Chapter5 
 
 / 
 
 2. Pellissier, G. ;Histoire de la Litterature Fran^aise p.126 
 
26 
 
 Sven the sermons of Fenelon show a spontaneity of 
 sentiment and imaginations certain "plenitude de coeur" which he 
 considers essential to Christian eloquencl. Modern too is his 
 conception of history which he attempts to treat in its relation 
 to time and custom. In other words, he removes history from the 
 
 realm of generality by inserting in it local color. "Chaque race 
 
 / / 
 
 et chaque age a son genie"is the idea of Fenelon; it was the idea 
 of Perrault ; it was an idea which reached over into the nineteenth 
 
 century where it was destined to transform both history and 
 
 / 
 
 literary criticism. In Fenelon one glimpses an ancestor of romanti- 
 cism, for like the romanticists he refused to sacrifice diversity 
 
 2 
 
 to unity, or to subject independence to discipline. 
 
 Te have tried to indicate the modern sympathies of a 
 
 man who has been called the most ancient of the ancients; yet 
 
 Fenelon was neither Ancien nor Moderne. He was both Ancien and 
 
 Moderne,and as such he preferred to be known. He admitted great 
 
 4 
 
 imperfections in the ancients; the action of the classic tragedy, 
 for instance,he complained was improbable , and the comedy was 
 lacking in that delicacy of humor which one would like to find in 
 the drama. A little pedantic he found the ancients yet when pressed 
 by La Motte to declare his affiliations in the quarrel he re- 
 fused to ally himself with either party , insisting that his was a 
 neutral position. It seems that he defined well his position, for 
 
 his contemporaries could never classify him to their own sntis- 
 
 / 
 
 l.Pellissier ,G. ;Histoire de la Litterature Frangaise pp. 260-1 
 2. Ibid. pp. 260-261 N 
 
 3. Rigault , H. Oeuvres Completes Vol.l,p. 407 
 
 4. Rigault ,H. ;Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 
 pp.388-9 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29 
 
 faction, and during the second phase of the quarrel La Motte and 
 
 1 X 
 
 M me Dacier both claimed him for their respective parties. Fenelon 
 could never bring himself to break entirely with the past. A cer- 
 tain reverence for the masters kept him hopeful for the contin- 
 uation of the classic influence which he considered the strongest 
 kind of an educator .for the minds of men; butsimultaneously with 
 
 this wish he was expressing the conviction and the desire that 
 
 2 
 
 the Modernes might overtake and surpass the ancients.lt is well 
 to remember here that the early romanticists turned to Fenelon 
 for the inspiration and comfort which the classicists did not 
 offer them. Lamartine himself tells of the pleasure which this 
 author afforded him, of the relief he found after the dreary monot- 
 ony of the curriculum of his boyhood school, a system in which 
 
 he found no pleasure because it was bound down in slavery to the 
 
 3 
 
 traditions of classicism. Dissatisfied with these classic 
 
 studies, and wearied from his labors over vague translations 
 
 he used to look forward eagerly to his six weeks’ vacation in 
 
 the country home of his parents where he might revel in "la. 
 
 Jerusalem deliveree” of Tasso, or the ’’Telemaque” of Fenelon. 
 
 These books he liked to carry into the garden where he pictures 
 
 himself in his ’’Meditations”. ”Je me couchais a cote de mes 
 
 livres cheris”, he says, ”et je respirais en liberte les songes 
 
 4 
 
 6[ui s'exhalaient pour mon imagination de leurs pages ” 
 
 \ 
 
 1. Rigault, H. ; Oeuvres Completes Yol. 1. p. 395 
 
 2. Bailly, A.; L’ecole Classique Francaise p. 199 
 
 3« Lamartine, A.; Meditations p. 16 
 
 4. Lamartine, A. ; Meditations p. 17 
 
30 
 
 One cannot read Lamartine without realizing that he was indeed 
 
 a creature with an imagination, and his own testimony to the 
 
 inspirit ation of Fenelon leads one to believe that the author of 
 / ✓ 
 
 Telemaque must have been more closely related than has been 
 supposed to this, later school which included Lamartine among its 
 
 pupils. In his natural spirituality, in his idealism, and in 
 
 / 
 
 his ease and tranquility of movement Fenelon reminds one of 
 Lamartine. nature to him, as to Lamartine, appeared always 
 
 gracious and smiling, and he allowed his imagionation to play 
 
 1 
 
 upon everything. Like Lamartine, too, he was fond of meditat- 
 ing upon history, economics, and politics; and in his "plan de 
 Oouvernment " he laid down a good many of the principles marked 
 by the romantic school. Benjamin Constant, for instance, de- 
 veloped Fenelon’ s own theory in his contention that in his 
 relation with the state man should have the rights of a human 
 
 being, and that no monarch should be vested with power to destroy 
 
 / 
 
 these rights. Fenelon was handicapped by the age in which he 
 lived, and he did not express this revolutionary doctrine as 
 strongly as did his sympathizers of the nineteenth century ; 
 but certainly these ideas harmonize more clearly with those 
 of Rousseau and of Constant than with those of the 
 
 conservative party of his own day. When he comes to 
 
 / / 
 
 paint Arcadia, and the ruins of Jerusalem, Fenelon 
 1. Faguet, 3.; XVII 0 Siecle Etudes Litteraires p. 376 
 

31 
 
 recalls to us similar pictures by Chateaubriand who stands as a 
 
 / 
 
 near relative of romanticism. Fenelon was in advance of his 
 
 century, as was Andre Chenier, and like Chenier he has been 
 
 claimed, rightly we believe, as an apostle by the nineteenth cen- 
 1 
 
 tury. He was one of those men whose position was not clearly 
 defined, whose sympathies lay with both parties in the quarrel 
 which divided his century, and who was, therefore, clearly one 
 of the poets of the transition period. 
 
 It was in his "Lettre sur les occupations de 
 
 / / 
 
 l'academie frangaise" that Fenelon introduced the idea of age 
 
 2 
 
 and climate in history; it was his "relat ivity" theory. This 
 theory sprang from the same source as did the idea of individual- 
 ism in religion. History,, he believed must be true to the cus- 
 toms of the nations, and since every nation is undergoing con- 
 tinual changes, one cannot paint their respective histories 
 
 3 
 
 in a uniform manner. L'UPellissier believes that the real history 
 
 of Prance was born with romanticism, and that M^de St a el, and 
 
 4 
 
 Chateaubriand stand as the first masters of modern history. He 
 
 means to say that romanticism by its sense of relativity was 
 
 responsible for the renewal of histoty in the nineteenth century. 
 
 The romanticist it was who applied to history, not only 
 / 
 
 Pension's theory of climate and age, but added his own idea of 
 soil and food; and if the romanticist is a little less exact 
 
 * ' S 
 
 1. Paguet, T3. ; XVII Siecle Etudes litteraires p.378 
 
 / 
 
 2. Bailly,A. ;L' ecole Olassique Franpaise p.199 
 
 3. Fenelon; Lettre a l'academie Chap. 8 
 
 / 
 
 _4.pellissier . ft. ; Realisme _du PogantiarnR 
 
, ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 • r 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
32 
 
 than his scientific predecessor, he is more vivacious, and by 
 
 / 
 
 virtue of his sensibilite has been able to impart more reality 
 1 
 
 to the past. And this is very much of the same thing that 
 
 / 
 
 Fenelon was trying to accomplish by his theory of climates. 
 
 / 
 
 In criticism, too, the ideas of Fenelon foreshadow 
 
 those of the romanticists; for, friend though he be of the 
 
 / 
 
 ancients, Renelon still preaches that rules are arbitrary 
 affairs, and that literary criticism should consider its subject 
 in its relation to its particular people and century* And so 
 
 we find classicism in the seventeenth century losing its 
 
 ✓ 
 
 prestige even among its own friends, men like Renelon who 
 
 loved still the traditions of the past, but who could no 
 
 / 
 
 longer be contained in the mould of antiquity. "L* ideal class- 
 
 / 
 
 ique n’est pas detruit, rnais chancelle. D'une main qui 
 
 / / / x 
 
 tremble de sa temerite, Fenelon montre les voie ou s'engagera 
 
 V N 2 
 
 le dix-huitierne siecle." 
 
 1 . 
 
 2 . 
 
 Pellissier, G. ; 
 Bailly , A.; L* 
 
 4 
 
 Le Real i sine du 
 
 / 
 
 ecole Classique 
 
 Roman ti sme 
 Fran caise 
 
 p. 251-3 
 p. 199 
 
33 
 
 VII 
 
 The moderns knew not the meaning of romanticism, 
 hut they jznderstood the wor d ,T freedom n , and it was the moderns 
 who succeeded in emancipating genius, and in freeing poetry 
 from the authority of t ne models which had been its master 
 
 for so long; and in doing this they prepared the way for the 
 
 1 
 
 "mo i " of Rousseau which appeared half a century later. For the 
 consequence of the rejection of antique mad els was "la faillite 
 
 / s 
 
 de l f ideal classique et 1* avenement de ce oue nous pourrons 
 
 1 / 
 
 appeler«**la modernite". And literature, freed of the shackles 
 
 of antiquity tended more and more to accommodate itself to the 
 
 2 
 
 taste of the century. And once the idea established that 
 beauty in literature might be found outside the venerable 
 models, the writing world began to take stodk of itself; it 
 became bolder; it attempted new things and the result was a 
 het orogeneous array of genres that could never have existed 
 under the ancient regime. Not all of these genresproved them- 
 selves valuable assets to the literary world, but the point 
 is that tradition was overthrown, and men at last dared 
 express themselves through their works instead of veiling 
 their individuality behind tne ritual of antiquity. M. G-illot 
 is right; Rousseau could never have put himself into a produc- 
 tion which was cramped into the mould of antiquity* As a 
 
 ✓ / 
 
 result of this departure the comedie serieuse was born, and 
 
 the arame bourgeoise, and the comedie larmayante. Tragedy and 
 
 1. Gillbt, H* ; Histoire de la Querelle des Andiens et des 
 
 2. Ibid* p. 540 Modernes p.539-4 ) 
 

34 . 
 
 comedy came to oe tolerated together in the same drama, and 
 here we see Diderot standing between the two schools with his 
 "Pere de Familie", with "le Fils Daturel," and with his 
 "Marianne in each of which appear both tears and laughter* In the 
 "Marianne" perhaps the author leans a little farther towards 
 romanticism; but without the "Marianne" Diderot would still 
 
 be related to the romanticist who tended always toward the 
 
 1 
 
 realism which Diderot sought. It was not the so raid, grimy real- 
 ism that came with the school that took the name; it was oily 
 the desire to paint things as they appeared in nature. And 
 it was in obedience to this impulse tnat the drama of Diderot 
 was created. For life is not all tears; neither is it all 
 laughter. It is neither quite serious nor altogether frivolous 
 at any particular time. 7» r hy then should the drama, any drama, 
 confine itself to the tragedies of life? What justification 
 can anyone offer fb r t he assumption that either joy or sorrow 
 may absorb the attention of the dramatist to the exclusion 
 of the otner? The idea had already taxen root in England, 
 and Shakespeare in his most violent tragedies’ had introduced 
 scenes of pure comedy and even buffoonery. John palstaff 
 was as much a favorite on the English stage as were the kings 
 with whom he appeared. Ana the drunken porter was accepted 
 as a part of "Macbeth”, and the grave diggers as belonging to 
 "Hamlet" without a thought as to the impropriety of the mixing 
 of these two extreme types of -genre. Cardinal Wiseman 
 
 / 
 
 1. Pellissier, G. ; Le Realisme du Romantisme p. 77 
 
35 
 
 maintained that the English moderns, Chaucer, Spencer, Milton, 
 
 Shakespeare loved, and expressed nature better than the great - 
 
 1 
 
 est poets of antiquity. We cannot go into the discussion of 
 the English phase of the quarrel, but it is worth remarking that 
 the moderns in England were engaged in a movement synonomous 
 to the modern movement in Prance and that the agitators in both 
 countries were contending for essentially the same things. 
 
 The cry of the Mo dames, then, was "freedom"; to tradition 
 they opposed particular sentiment; they strove to emancipate 
 
 reason, and to end the reign of dogmatism. "Proelamant 
 
 ✓ 
 
 hautement les droits du JLibre examen , les modernes preparent 
 
 ✓ / 
 
 cette emancipation decisive de l'individu, ce triomphe de 
 
 / ✓ 
 
 1 1 2 individual isme que consacrera def init ivement la revolution 
 2 
 
 roman tique . ,T 
 
 1. Higault , H. ; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des 
 Modernes p. 448. 
 
 2. Cillot , H. ; La Querelle des Anciens et 
 
 des Modernes 
 
 p. 561 
 
36 
 
 VIII 
 
 The anger of the Ancient s was kindled against 
 Perrault when he applied his theory of continuous progress 
 to literature. The Ancients argued that it need not 
 follow that Ghapelain was superior to Homer by virtue of the 
 fact that he lived a couple of thousand years after him, 
 
 or that any genre had been perfected in the interval between 
 
 1 
 
 the two reriods. For the Ancients admitted no relativity in 
 2 
 
 literary taste. Boileau, Racine, and La Fontaine owed their 
 
 culture to the study of the models of antiquity and they felt 
 
 it too much of a ^resumption on the part of the later authors 
 
 3 
 
 to attempt to equal these masters. This was the point of 
 
 contention between l]j^ G de Stael and her opponents when she 
 
 / 
 
 attempted to carry her theory of "per f ectibilit e" into litera- 
 
 / 
 
 ture. It was in her "de la litterature " that she attempted to 
 examine the influence of literature, law, and religion in the 
 history of the development of the world; and this seems to 
 have been in part the project that Perrault was proposing in 
 his law of progress. But here again Perrault f s lack of genius 
 stood him at fault.. I# 10 de Stael by her method of approach, 
 
 / e ' 
 
 1. Albert, Paul; La Litterature Frsn^aise au XVII Siecle p* 376. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 2. Lanson, G.; Histoire de la Litterature Fran^aise p* 493. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 3. Bailly, A.; L’ecole Classique Franpaise p. 194. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 • ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
37 
 
 compelled the attention of her readers. Her arguments were 
 not always sound, but iiie was able to make herself heard, and 
 having been heard she was emboldened to launch even farther 
 into her subject, confident that she would have the attention 
 of the reading public. Perrault had no such gift of style to 
 recommend him to his readers, and was consequently handicapped 
 to that extent when it was a question of obtaining for himself 
 a hearing. 
 
 IX 
 
 Boileau perhans better than any writer of the 
 
 1 
 
 seventeenth century represents tne classic spirit. He believ- 
 ed the ancients nearer perfection in beauty of language, simplici- 
 ty of feeling, and perfection of form. He believed that the 
 form employed by a writer ^oould be correct, and the correct 
 form to him was that already established by antiquity. Upon 
 this point, at least, Boileau remained true to his own teach- 
 ing^ for so careful was he of his rhyme that he is said to 
 
 2 
 
 have written often his second verse before the first in order 
 to insure his work against an error of this kind. True or not 
 as this story may be, he deplored, we know, the? tonden cy of the 
 century to abandon itself to inspiration, to pass beyond the 
 rules in the transports of genius; ana he constantly exhorted 
 
 _ s 
 
 1. Brunotiere, ]?.; Histoire de la Litterature Franchise Vol.2 
 
 p. 569-70 
 
 2. Pellissier , G.; Le Realisme du Roraantisme p.o4-55. 
 
38 . 
 
 writers to copy the ancients who to him were masters of form 
 
 1 
 
 and thought, and who had already attained classic perfection. 
 
 Suppressing then whatever spark of originality he might have 
 
 possessed, Boileau proceeded to produce what seems to us good 
 
 2 
 
 rhetoric, but which savors but slightly of good literature; 
 
 and his language though strong and vigorous seems always a 
 
 bit constrained and laborious. It was in "1 'At t Poetique” with 
 
 which he answered ,T Le Sieele de Louis le Graiia" that Boileau 
 
 set forth his poetic creed. It has been called the code of 
 3 
 
 Classicism, not unwisely, far in it he defined exactly the 
 position of the classicist, particularly in his interpretation 
 of good diction. The ”sover ei gnty of reason’ 1 2 3 4 is the text of 
 the whole "thing, and in the name of reason Boileau demands 
 qualities of clearness and order wh ich he allows no genius 
 to disregard. To all genreshe assigns definite limits, and 
 
 whatever be the production in question these rules must be re- 
 
 •4 
 
 spected. This predominance of reason over sentiment we remember 
 
 as the keynote of classicism. Boileau works always toward 
 
 the reduction to the universal, for as M. Pellissier says; 
 
 "G'est une maxime essentiellemen t classique d'amender la nature, 
 
 / / / 
 
 d'en supprimer les irregularities et les defauts, de la 
 modeler sur l'idee universelle des choses”. "les elassiques, 
 
 1. Petit de Julle^ville; Ilistoire de la Longue et La Litterature 
 Prangaise Vol. 5. p. 178 
 
 2. Pellissier, G . ; Histoire de la Litterature Prang ai se p. 247. 
 
 3. Ibid. pp. 251,252. 
 
 4. Ibid. pp. 251,252. 
 
39 . 
 
 negligeunt ce qui peut accident ell ement se produire, choissent 
 
 dans la nature ou dans l'histoire ce que la raison avoue et au 
 
 1 
 
 besoin, ils les rectifient, ils les changent tout entieres". 
 
 ?o ?, l'Art Poetique" the romanticists objected that 
 it was narrow and contrary to nature in its insistence upon 
 the observance of the rules and precepts of antiquity; and for 
 
 this restraint they substituted variety, caprice, and exuberance 
 
 2 
 
 in all forms. It is not hard to conjecture what would have 
 
 been Soileau’s attitude towards victor Hugo, and his disciples. 
 
 Almost prophetic is thia n l'Art Poetique" which expresses the 
 
 author's hopes and fears, his favor and his scornfor literature, 
 
 present and future. He attacks violently the romanesque type, 
 
 and fears the result of its introduction into the ecologue so 
 
 dear to the heart of the classicist; and he rejects utterly 
 
 the irregular tragedy, the tragic-comedy which less than half 
 
 a century later was t o be perfected by Diderot. In a word, 
 
 Boileau has but little appreciation for the romance of poetry, 
 
 but prefers constantly precision and truth, measure and restraint. 
 
 Nature to him is human, not universal; and the rocks, the 
 
 mountains and the solitude which offered food to the soul of the 
 
 romanticist find no place in the affections of 3oileau. Nature 
 
 remained almost a stranger to this man who demanded of it food 
 
 4 
 
 for his intellect and reason. And when nature refused him this 
 
 1. Pellissier, G . ; he Realisme du Romantisme p. 55 
 
 2. Petit do Julleville; Histoire de la Langue et de la Litt erature 
 
 Frangaise Vol. V, p. 194 
 
 3.Faguet, S. ;XVI1 S Biecle etudes Litteraires Vol. 2, 
 
 4.Lanson, G. ; Boileau p. 55 
 
 Jr 1 2 
 

 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40. 
 
 consolation he turned for his subject matter to generalities, 
 
 and as a consequence produced works which contained none of the 
 
 personality which permeated the productions of the great child of 
 
 nature, Jean Jaques Rousseau. Boileau attacked the "Sottises 
 
 champetres, les Iris en l'air, les "je vous hais; dits tendre- 
 
 1 
 
 ment de Quinault". In admiring Homer he failed to see the real 
 beauties of this the greatest poet of antiquity; for not until 
 Rousseau discovered nature upon the shores of Lake Bienne, and 
 
 l 
 
 Chateaubriand and Saint e-Pierre revealed to their people the 
 wild beauties of America and of l*Ile de la Prance did the 
 French people perceive the true source of beauty in Homer. 
 
 Nature in Homer they had overlooked. 
 
 The romanticists repudiated any form of imitation; 
 for imitation, they claimed, hid nature from the artist. If one 
 would paint a storm, they said, let him observe the storm, and 
 not copy Homer's reflections upon it. If one would paint char- 
 acter let him observe human nature. Victor Hugo said that the 
 
 moment one became an imitator he made himself a classicist even 
 
 2 
 
 though he chose a romanticist for his model. And so romanticism 
 
 3 
 
 warred upon Boileau until his influence was no longer felt; 
 lor itt wuiit a barrier between the France of yesterday and the 
 France of to-day from a literary point of view just as the Revolu- 
 tion changed forever the political situation. And literature 
 
 1. Faguet, E^. ; XVII e Htudss Litteraires, Vol. 2, p. 239 
 
 2. Pellissier, G. Le Realisme du Romantisme p. 59 
 
 3. Abry, Audio, Cr-ouzet ; Litterature Franpaise p. 217 
 
41. 
 
 after the dispute, tended toward romanticism rather than toward 
 
 1 
 
 the classical style advocated by 3oileau. Boileau was not the 
 
 founder of the classical school, but he formulated these prin- 
 
 2 
 
 ciples into a creed which united writers with sympathetic ideals, 
 
 and gave to classicism a body capable of making itself felt. 
 
 3 
 
 throughout France, and entire Europe. The classicists were not 
 
 without their excellencies. Excellent craftsmen they were, and 
 
 elegance, and simplicity, and strength marked their work. But 
 
 there was with them a certain narrowness produced by the very 
 
 proficiencies which we have just mentioned. M.Strachey points 
 
 out that omissions occur as a result of careful and deliberate 
 
 selection, and he wittily remarks the French classicists, being 
 
 artist s , "practiced with unsparing devotion the virtue of leaving 
 4 
 
 out". For to obtain clari.ty ana simplicity involved the abandon- 
 ment of other beauties, vague suggestion, and strangeness of 
 imagination which have come to mean the beauty par excellence of 
 poetry*, Lor was this all, for as classical traaition degenerated 
 we fin£, blindly following the dogma of classicism, writers in 
 whom the true classic spirit has long since died. It is the thing 
 which rendered classicism insipid and meaningless to succeeding 
 generat ions. 
 
 1. Lanson, £.; Boileau p. 203 
 
 2. Strachey ,G.L. ; Landmarks in French Literature p. 74 
 
 3. Ibid. p. 75 
 
 4. Btrachey ,0- .L. ; Landmarks in French Literature p. 68 
 

 
42 . 
 
 If Perrault was fitted to lead the Moderns in their rev- 
 volution, Boileau was not less well equipped to hold the field 
 for the Ancien.5 . In the first place, he knew the classics; 
 
 for he had been educated, first for the ministry, and later for the 
 
 1 
 
 bar. He had not much inclination toward the former of these call- 
 ings, and he laid by the practice of law in order to devote him- 
 self to literature. But his early preparation necessitated 
 a familiarity with the writers of antiquity which prepared him 
 for the position he was later to take as their defender. Horace 
 
 he admired, and modeled his own "l* Art Poetique" aftbr "1 ‘Arc 
 
 1 
 
 Poetica" of Horace. In fact it was the aspiration of Boileau 
 
 2 
 
 to be known as the French Horace, and toward this goal he strove 
 
 2 
 
 as he worked over his satires, and moral epitres. The boy 
 Boileau seems to have been a docile child with none of the vim 
 and determination which characterized the youthful Boileau. 
 
 The father of Boileau used to say: "Nicolas est un bon enfant 
 
 3 
 
 qui ne dira jamais de m&l de personne". And it was this good 
 child that was to grow into the keenest satirist of his time. 
 Perhaps this satirical tone which he adopted for his masterpieces 
 may have come as a result of the sad experiences which sur- 
 rounded his early childhood. His mother dying when he was but 
 a baby left him, one of fifteen children, to the care of his 
 father; and his father, engrossed with other duties, immediately 
 
 1. Duval, Josephine; Histoire de la Litterature Franjaise, p. 141 
 
 2* Faguet,H.; XVII e Ftudes Litt/raires, Vol. 2, p. 238 
 
 3. Duval, Josephine; Histoire de la Litterature Fran^aise, p. 139 
 

 > 
 
 
 
 
 < t 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 l. 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 r 
 
 ' ?' 
 
 ( 
 
 r 
 
 X 
 
 ■ * < 
 
43. 
 
 transferred the care of this child to an old nurse. This woman, 
 a vixen she was, lodged the child in a garret dungeon, and was 
 always harsh and imperious in her attitude towards him. Just 
 how much the work of Boileau was affected by this early train- 
 ing is hard to conjecture. Certain it is that he grew to man- 
 hood with ideas altogether conservative, and with a respect for 
 discipline and authority which did not appear in Perrault • 
 
 The position of Boileau in the quarrel v/as by no 
 means an enviable one; it was embarassing, his trying to defend 
 the ancients in a century already made famous by Corneille and 
 Racine, by LaFontaine and Moliere, by LaBruyere and Bos suet. 
 Perhaps this may have accounted for hisgenerous treatment of his 
 opponents when the reconciliation came in 1700. Boileau wrote 
 to Perrault admitting that in some respects the moderns were 
 superior to the ancients; that in science and arts they sur- 
 passed the ancients, and that even the tragedies of the moderns 
 
 1 
 
 were superior to anything attempted by antiquity. The letter 
 pacified Perrault, but a truce between the two leaders could 
 not destroy the fire already so well under way. And the quarrel 
 rested for a spell only to reappear a few years later more 
 violent than it had been in its earlier stage. 
 
 Meanwhile the Mo derne^ gained in popularity, people 
 looked upon them as liberators of the human spirit, and began to 
 call LaMotte "l’ame de genie ”, For Boileau, representing law 
 
 1. Abry, Audio, Crouzet ; La Litterature Fran^aise, p. 305 
 
 2. Rigault,H. ; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des 
 
 Modernes, p. 428 
 

44 
 
 and order as he did, did not appeal to those stirred by imagina- 
 tion et sensibilite^ nor to those seeking emancipation from rule. 
 Novelty and originality he discouraged as seducers tempting 
 writers to disregard the rules of the masters; but the century 
 seems to have been ready for a change, just as it was ready for 
 a change in Victor Hugo's time, and so the Mod ernes continued to 
 add disciples to their fold. Perrault came off victorious. 
 
 The academy favored him; the young people favored him; the 
 
 women favored him; and it was Soileau who made the concessions 
 
 1 
 
 when a reconciliation was effected. It was not easy for Boile&u 
 
 to write to Perrault, for he had been bitter in his criticism 
 
 of the new party. He had referred to Perrault as a man without 
 
 taste, and had applied to him such unflattering epithets as 
 
 "insense", "furieux", and "imbecile"; yet Perrault did not reply 
 
 in kind to these attacks* As he said, he was content to allow 
 
 Boileau to hurl the insults while he offered reasons for his 
 3 
 
 own convictions. 
 
 ✓ e x 
 
 1. Albert, Paul; la Litterature Pranjaise au XVIII Siecle, p. 362 
 
 / 
 
 2. Abry, Audio, Crouzet; Litterature Pran^aise, pp. 303-4 
 
 3. Ibid. p. 303 
 
 "Nous d irons tou jours des raisons, 
 
 Ils diront toujours des injures." 
 
 / 0 \ 
 from the Preface du 2 volume des paralleles. 
 

 
 
45 
 
 X 
 
 "Les Paralleles T, was written as .a sort of an after- 
 thought following the reading of ”Le Siecle de Louis le Grand". 
 
 Soileau, during the reading, had shown signs of discomfort, and 
 
 1 
 
 at last had left the assembly in a rage. Racine, at the close 
 of the session, paused to congratulate the author of "Le Siecle 
 de Louis le Grande" upon the serious aspect he had lent to this 
 
 piece of plaisanterie. Perrault was piqued and immediately began 
 
 % 
 
 preparing"Les Paralleles" in proof of his seriousness in pre- 
 ferring modern writers to those of antiquity. Like "Le Preface 
 de Cromwell", "Les Paralleles" is a declamation of emancipation 
 in literature. Hugo and Perrault were brothers in their dis- 
 like for imitations, and both the "Preface" and "Les Paralleles" 
 are manifestos against established rules. "Les paralleles" is 
 not a masterpiece, but it shows the marks of a free mind, and 
 exhibits a spirit of independence without which the romantic 
 school could not have materialized. Perrault worked impulsive- 
 ly# saying what he thought without much regard for the way in 
 which he said it. Perhaps he felt the awakening of that spon- 
 taneity which was to embellish the poetry of romanticism. "Les 
 paralleles" and "Le Preface de Cromwell" were alike inspired 
 
 1. La Croix, Paul; Memoires de Charles Perrault, p. 151 
 
 2. Rigault,H.; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes, 
 
 p.148 
 
 / 
 
 3. La Croix, Paul; Memoires de Charles Perrault, p. 132 
 

46 
 
 by the particular ideas of their respective authors and the 
 
 plans of the ancient models were not considered in the composition 
 
 of either of these manifestos. It is the same freedom of mind, 
 
 the same independence of taste as that exhibited in the earlier 
 
 works of Perrault , in his ,T Saint Paulin” which we discussed above, 
 
 and, ridiculous as his classic contemporaries found his precepts, 
 
 some of these precepts, at least, found lodgment in fallow ground, 
 
 and Lamartine , and De. Vigny, a century later proved the truth 
 
 of Perrault* s contention that ”Le ciel et les enfers, les anges 
 
 et les demons pouvaient etre le digne objet des travaux des 
 1 
 
 poetes”. 
 
 V / »l 
 
 The Memo ires of Perrault, the only ones of their kind 
 
 2 
 
 left by the century of Louis XIV, show a familiarity of style, 
 and a depth of sincerity hardly surpassed by the memoires of 
 the romantic period. They contain none of the mal de Siecle 
 that characterize the confessions of Rousseau, but they are 
 subjective i» that thoy in that they deal almost exclusively 
 with the life of the author, and treat but lightly the affairs 
 of his friends. 3ven the quarrel with Boileau is passed over 
 
 quickly with scarcely more than a page describing the effect 
 
 \ 
 
 of the reading of "Le Siecle de Louis le Grand” upon the acade- 
 my. And this short story he f?ives us only as an explanation 
 for his writing "Les parallels'*. Not without a sense of humor 
 
 1. Rigault, H.; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 
 p. 114. 
 
 / / 
 
 2. La Croix, p. ; Memoires de Charles Perrault-pre face p. II 
 
 2. Ibid. p. XVII. 
 
 4. ibid. p. 132 
 

 
 
 . , 1 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 if > • 
 
 t • : f • 
 
 
 t ■ • «t <. 
 
 
 ; - >. 
 
 , r , < 
 
 
 
 . *( . 
 
 
 
 it . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
47 . 
 
 either, is Perrault . One cannot escape the humorous mood of 
 
 1 
 
 the writer as he describes Boileau's reception of his poem. 
 
 The whole situation Perrault describes for us in a page or so 
 
 without much comment upon either of the parties involved in the 
 
 / 
 
 quarrel. The "Memo! res" are not long; one wishes that Perrault 
 
 might have written more of this stimulating narrative of him- 
 
 * 
 
 self; but they are long enough to show a departure from the 
 classic ideal and to indicateo a new type of literature which 
 was to culminate in the subjectivity of romanticism. 
 
 XI 
 
 But Perrault does not live for us by virtue of 
 
 his "Memoires" nor yet by his literary criticism. perhaps 
 
 the real genius of the man appeared not until it appeared 
 
 / 
 
 in "Les Contes de Fees” which he published in his old age 
 
 after the quarrel had been forgotten. He published these 
 
 stories under the name of his little son, perhaps because 
 
 he considered them unworthy of the efforts of a member of 
 2 
 
 the academy. In a sense these stories form the masterpiece 
 
 / 
 
 1. La Croix, P. ; Les Memoires de Charles Perrault p. 132 
 
 2. Deschanel, R. ; Le Romantisme des Classiques p. 263 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 IHH II i ] a ; ™ ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 
 
 of our rornanesque literature, but Perrault did not live to 
 
 realize the value of this humble piece of work. "Der Jurist, 
 
 Staatsman , Akademiker , Dichter und Rufer im Streit der Alten und 
 
 Modernen, Perrault, hatte sich wohl nie traumen lessen, dass 
 
 von ell seinen Werken diese kurzen Marchen die Aschenbrodel 
 
 1 
 
 seiner Muse, sich allein als lebenskraft ig erweisen solten" . The 
 
 source of "les Contes” is a disputed point, but whatever their 
 
 origin may have been it is pretty certain that Perrault merely 
 
 collected the stories handed down by tradition, and inserted in 
 
 2 
 
 them the characteristics of his own nation. The stories are 
 marked by a simplicity of tone, and a faithful observation of 
 detail which, together with a suggestion of the marvelous, make 
 of them real romans for the children. For the supernatural is 
 
 the religion of children 9 and they delight in the fairies and 
 
 / 
 
 guardian angels which dominate "les Contes des Fees". The super- 
 natural is very close to a religion with the romanticist, and 
 one feels that Perrault was not far from the ideals of this later 
 school as he wrote "Les Contes". It is true that he has not 
 concealed well his own philosophy, but the moral of his story 
 is never pronounced, and is always one of interest. Telling the 
 stories again and again to his boy he must have noted the points 
 which most impressed the child, and adding bits of his own 
 philosophy ,he produced the delightful combination of the 
 
 1. Pletscher,T# ; Die Marchen Charles Perrault, p. 4 
 
 ✓ 
 
 2. Petit de Julleville, Histoire de la Langue et de la Litterature 
 
 Franpaise, p. 586 
 
 3. Deschanel,F. ;Romant isme des Classiques, p. 263 
 

 
 
 
 
 ( > til . ( : 
 
 
 
 - • 
 
 y. : 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
49. 
 
 1 
 
 experience of the old man and the simple faith of the child. The 
 marvelous in "les Contes” is emphasized constantly, and together 
 with the imaginative element helps mark the author as inherent- 
 ly sympathetic with the principles of Romanticism. ”Les Contes” 
 are fantastic, but they represent human feelings and portray 
 real life. They do not generalize; they show their characters 
 without and within. Some of these characters are grotesque 
 and terrible; others, are sublime and beautiful. And if Victor 
 Hugo was right we find here in Perrault the beginning of romanti- 
 cism itself. For it was Hugo who believed that the introduction 
 
 of the grotesque in literature was the point of cleavage between 
 
 3 
 
 the classic and the romantic schools. The Blue Beard of perrault 
 is no more impossible than is Iago, or Richard III of Shakespeare; 
 nor is Sleeping Beauty more sublime than Desdemona or Ophelia. 
 
 All are creatures of the imagination, and if we grant Shakespeare 
 a place among the romanticists certainly Perrault may occupy 
 a place beside him. The women in ”Les Contes”, too, occupy a 
 more prominent place than the classicist would have given them. 
 Boileau and Perrault, we remember, had disagreed in their ideas 
 of women, and Perrault with his "Apologie des Femmes” had announc- 
 ed himself their champion following the publication of the 
 "Satire sur Femmes” of Boileau. If there was strategy in this 
 move of Perrault it was well rewarded, for the women flocked to 
 
 1. Petit de Julleville; Histoire de la Langue et de la Litt. Fran. 
 
 p . 586 
 
 8. Deschanel, E. ;LeRomant isme des Classiques, p; 287 
 3. Hugo, V.; Le Preface de Cromwell; Oeuvres Vol.24, p. 17 
 

 
 
 
 * i- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
50. 
 
 his side in his quarrel with the Ancients. But whatever his 
 motives in defending the women against the satires of Boileau, 
 whether to strengthen his own following or to antagonize his 
 adversary, one can hardly ascribe a similar motive to his treat- 
 ment of women in n Les Contes”; for the quarrel had passed into 
 history, and Perrault had settled down to a peaceful home life 
 before the ”Contes” appeared. Besides all this the role of his 
 women characters is too natural for one to believe that it is 
 forced. One or two other romantic features of ”Les Contes des 
 Fees” we must not overlook. It is in these stories that Perrault 
 
 paints nature as he does not paint it in his poetry, and one 
 
 1 
 
 sees in these pictures the author T s own feeling for nature. It 
 is in his ”Riquet a la Houpe” that one finds mingled the 
 
 / ft 
 
 grotesque with the idealisme amoureux a century and a half before 
 the time of Hugo; and it is here too that is set out the superior- 
 ity of spirit over the advantages of figure, the facility of the 
 
 2 
 
 heart in ambellishing that which it loves. How much like Hugo 
 it all sounds I Hugo who was so fond of showing a queen in love 
 with a Vfclet, a princess infatuated with a bandit, or of por- 
 traying parental love beneath a distorted body, or a dwarfed 
 soul. That the classicists had no use for ”Les Contes” goes 
 without saying. Boileau disdained them all, and refused to ad- 
 mit them a place in literature. Yet the Contes of Perrault live 
 still, and much of what Boileau did has been forgotten. 
 
 1. Deschanel,H. ; Le Romantisme des Classiques p. 309 
 
 2. Ibid. p. 310 
 
51 
 
 XII 
 
 Following the reconciliation between Perrault and 
 
 Boileau peace reigned for a while in the literary world of France 
 
 while the war was carried on in England; but it recrossed the 
 
 channel and was resumed in France fifteen years after the old 
 
 leaders had laid down their arms. But though sponsored by new 
 
 champions the later phase of the quarrel amounted Substantially 
 
 to the same thing as that which had engaged the two factions 
 
 1 
 
 between 1687 and 1690. La Motte played the role of Perrault 
 
 precisely. Like Perrault he believed the doctrine of progress, 
 
 and taught that' the human mind of his day was as capable as one 
 
 2 
 
 of antiquity of producing great things. It was in 1713 that 
 La Motte published his translation of the Illiad, and a very 
 queer Illiad it was, so far removed from the original that one 
 could no longer recognize Homer in it. La Motte took great 
 liberties with this monument of antiquity, for he believed him- 
 self justified in embellishing the beautiful, in suppressing 
 
 y 
 
 the ugly, in abreviating, in changing/! general the original so 
 
 long as he effected improvements by these changes, Lot without 
 
 some scruples concerning the consequences of his rash act was 
 
 La Motte and ending his translation he admitted the fact that he 
 
 risked being called rash and ignorant . His prophecy was soon to 
 
 be fulfilled, for M^D&cier immediately came forward to defend 
 
 3 
 
 the divine Homer against those who turned him to ridicule. 
 
 l.Rigault ,H. ; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 2. Ibid. p. 369 p.269 
 
 3. Ibid. p. 374 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52 
 
 Homer had been only one phase of the earlier part of the quarrel, 
 but between La Motte and M me Dacier it narrowed to the Illiad and 
 became more violent than it had been between Soileau and perrault. 
 M me ©a cier had for a motive the defense of Homer, and the per- 
 secution of those who would detract from his glory. She was 
 bitter in her denunciation of her opponents whom she designated 
 as "barbarians who had ravaged Greece 7 La Motte, however, like 
 his predecessor was successful in enlisting for his party the 
 
 U16 
 
 sympathy of the women; and soon after LI 'Lacier began her elaborate 
 defense of Homer the women of the country began imitating La Motte. 
 
 The press, ever sensitive to public opinion, came to his defense, 
 
 2 
 
 and the Modernesonce more triumphed. It was again the triumph 
 of progress over traditions as had happened in the early part 
 of the quarrel, and as happened again in the nineteenth century. 
 
 XIII 
 
 The romanticists of the nineteenth century refused 
 to concede that they were foreigners on French soil, or that they 
 were innovators in the revolutions which they proposed, on the 
 contrary they established for themselves tradition and went back to 
 the pleiade to find ancestors for the Cenacle. Against Boileau 
 they protested as strongly as the fclodern&s of the seventeenth 
 
 1. Abry, Audic, Crouzet ; Hist oire lllus.de la Litterature Franqaise 
 
 ✓ p. 305 
 
 2. Harriot, 3.; Precis do I’Histoiro de3 Lettres Franjaises p. 557 
 
 3.. Albert, Paul; La Litterature Franjaise hu XIX e jiecle p. 24 
 
53 
 
 1 
 
 century bad. done, for Boileau's theory was diametrically opposed 
 to those sources from which the romanticist drew his inspira- 
 tion. Romantic poetry was inspired by three forces, God, nature 
 and humanity* Now the seventeenth century with its cold formal- 
 ism had almost succeeded in banishing God from art, and especially 
 from poetry. She classicists drew their inspiration from 
 the gods of paganism who fought, and argued, and contended with 
 man, but who offered no consolation to the weary, struggling 
 soul. But the poets of antiquity had found a place in their 
 literature for these gods, and the later day classicists 
 frowned upon any effort to replace them by the Christian Deity* 
 
 And so it was that Desmarets, and Perrault brought ridicule 
 upon themselves , and scorn upon their work when they attempted 
 to establish Christianity as an inspiring force in poetry. It 
 is not strange that these classicists should have found themselves 
 opposed by the romanticists. And the nineteenth century 
 classicists protested against romanticism just as the Ancients 
 had protested against Perrault, and just as the eighteenth cen- 
 tury had protested against Diderot and Rousseau. These men were 
 
 2 
 
 all"dangerous spirits" because they predicted and advocated 
 certain literary changes. If the wild verses of romanticism con- 
 stituted poetry said the classicist then Boileau was wrong to say 
 
 1. Pr. Arno GeiBler; Die Theorien Boileaus p. 2 
 Lanson, G,; Boileau p. 202 
 
 2. Albert, P. ; La Litterature Pranpaise au XIX e Siecle p. 25. 
 
54 
 
 "Rien n’est beau que le vrai 
 
 1 
 
 Que toujours le bon sens s'accorde avec la rimei’ 
 
 And so we say that many of the grievances agitated between the 
 
 romanticist and the classicist had already been fought out 
 
 between the Ancients and the Moderns in this quarrel in the 
 
 seventeenth century, 
 
 What then are the kindred points between these two 
 revolutions, between the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes, 
 
 and the Classicist-Romanticist battle? In the first place both 
 
 2 
 
 quarrels represented "une explosion de jeneusse", a revolt against 
 
 the rules fixed by tradition; and both rebel parties demanded 
 
 liberalism in art* Modernes and romanticists alike thought 
 
 themselves cramped by the inflexible rules of classical syntax, 
 
 and clamored for a freer vehicle of expression. Between the two 
 
 revolting parties there was a common dislike of imitations, and 
 
 a sympathetic conception of nature which led them to copy her 
 
 directly instead of accepting the impressions of a classic model; 
 
 and these same parties turned from the pagan gods of antiquity 
 
 and sought inspiration, in the newer philosophy of Christianity. 
 
 Through the innovations of Perrault and his following the way 
 
 was opened for the alliance of genres, for the mingling of comedy 
 
 and tragedy v/hich both Musset and Hugo recognized as an essential 
 
 4 
 
 characteristic of romanticism. And above all there was with the 
 
 1. Albert, Paul; La Litterature Franpaise au XIX Siecle p. 45. 
 
 / e n. 
 
 2. Albert, p.;La Litterature Franjsaise au XIX Siecle p. 22. 
 
 3 “Sctiint z and Xing, 17th Century Readings,p.ll8 — ,r Les Paralleles" 
 •Davies, T. R.;French Romanticism, y, 24 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 i J 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
55 
 
 Mod ernes and the romanticist the common belief in IT perf ectibilite", 
 perfectibility in all forms of art, suggested by perrault in 
 "Les Paralleles" , and preached boldly by M me de Stael at the 
 dawn of the romantic period. 
 
 Modernes and romanticists were alike , innovators and 
 revolutionists in t.heir respective centuries. Revolutionary 
 they were in their antagonism towards the dogma and restraint 
 of classic tradition; and innovative they were in their intro- 
 duction of new ideas, ideas of Christian inspiration. , of cos- 
 mopolitanism, of freer verse form , of the mingling of genres, 
 and of political revolution* .*11 in all. Moderns against Ancien, 
 or romanticist against classicist, the question resolves itself 
 into one of progress ;and,, it is., the question that is ever on. 
 
 In religion, in politics, in literature , when a change is pro- 
 posed tradition stands firm, and we see conservatism arrayed 
 against progress. 
 
 We have not tried to prove the Modernes romanticists 
 
 in the strict sense of the word. The pure romanticist came as 
 
 a result of a century and a half more of growth in all forms of 
 
 art. We have attempted to indicate a few of the sympathetic 
 
 features between these two parties; and to show Perrault a pioneer 
 
 me 
 
 in the field made famous by Victor Hugo and Lamartine, by M de 
 Stae'l and Jean- Jacques Rousseau; and to suggest that Perrault, and 
 La Motte, and Fontenelle blazed a bit of the trail which was to 
 lead these later spirits into the heart of romanticism. 
 

 
 (. ' 
 
 
 
 i : • r , / ' , 
 
 ’» I ‘ *(/.» 
 
 
 
 
 
I 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Abry, Audio ,Crouzet; Histoire Illustree de la Litterature Franpaise 
 
 Paris, 1912, Henri Didier 
 
 / A \ 
 
 Albert, Paul; La litterature Franpaise au XVII Siecle 
 
 Paris, 1909, Hachette et C irt 
 
 Albert, Paul; La Litterature Franpaise au XIX P . Siecle 
 
 Paris, 1901, Hachette at C 1 * 
 
 Babbit, Irving; Contemporary Literature 
 
 Course given at Radcliffe College 1922 
 
 / 
 
 Bailly, Auguste; L* Boole Classique Franpaise 
 
 Paris, Librairie Armand Colin 
 
 Boileau, Nicolas; Oeuvres 
 
 Paris, 1864, Firmin Didot Preres 
 
 Boileau, Nicolas; Oeuvres v 
 
 Paris, 1872, Gamier Preres 
 
 N ' 
 
 Brunetiere, Ferdinand; L* Evolution des Genres 
 
 Paris, 1916, Hachette et C 1 * 
 
 \ * 
 
 Brunetiere, Ferdinand; Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise 
 
 Paris, Librairie Ch. Delagrave 
 
 Chiorini, Maria; Un Adversaire de L' Influence Italienne en Prance 
 
 Imola, 1911, Paola Galeati 
 
 / 
 
 Deschanel, Pmil; Le Romantisme des Classiques 
 
 Paris, 1891, Caiman Levy 
 
 Doumic , R. ; Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise 
 
 Paris, 1911, Librairie Classique Paul Delaplane 
 
 Dupuy, A.; Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise au XVII* Siecle 
 
 Paris, 1892, Rrnest Leroux 
 
 / 
 
 Duval, Josephine; Histoire de la Litterature Franpaise 
 
 Boston, 1893, D.C. Heath & Co. 
 
 Faguet, Fmile; Propos Litterature , x 
 
 Paris, 1904, Societe Franpaise d'Imprimerie 
 et de Librairie 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 f ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
II 
 
 Faguet, Emile; XVIl e Siecle Etudes Li'teraires . 
 
 Paris, 1894, Lecbne, Oudin et G 1 
 
 Penelon; . ; L'Rducation des Pilles, Oeuvres de Pension, Vol. 2. 
 
 Paris, 1870, pirmin Didot Preres, pils et C ie 
 
 Pinch and Peers; The Origin of French Romanticism 
 
 London, 1920, Constable and Go, L. T. L. 
 
 / / / 
 
 Fleury, Jean; Histoire Elementaire de la Litterature Pranpaise 
 
 Paris, 1901, Plon-Hourrit et G ie 
 
 Pontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de; Digressions sur les Anciens et 
 les Mod erne§, Oeuvres, Yol. 4 
 
 Paris, 1758, B, Brunet 
 
 GeiBler, Pr, Arno; Die Theorien Boileaus 
 
 Leipzig, 1909, Universitat 
 
 Gillot , Hubert ; La Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 
 Paris, 1914, Edouard Champion 
 
 / ,, 
 
 Herriot, Edouard; Precis de I’Histoire des Lettres Pranpaises 
 
 Paris, R, Rieder et C ie 
 
 Hugo, Victor; Oeuvres, Yol. 24 
 
 Paris, J. Hetzel et C ie 
 
 La Croix, Paul; Memoires de Charles Perrault 
 
 Paris, 1878, Librairie des Bibliophiles 
 
 Lamartine, Alphonse prat; Oeuvres Completes, Yol. 1 
 
 Paris, 1860, Chez 1’ Auteur 
 
 Lanson, Gustave; Boileau 
 
 Paris, 1900, Librairie Hachette et C ie 
 
 Lanson, Gustave; Choix de Lettres de XVII Q Siecle 
 
 Paris, 1906, Hachette et C le 
 
 Lanson, Gustave; Histoire de la Litterature Fvanqaise 
 
 Paris, 1908, Hachette et C ie 
 
 Michaut, Gustave; pages de Critique et d'Histoire Litteraire 
 
 Paris, 1910, Pontemoing et C ie 
 
 Morillot, p.; Boileau 
 
 Paris, 1697, Societe Prancaise d'imprimerie 
 et de librairie 
 
 Pellissier, Georges; Histoire de la Litterature Frangaise 
 
 Paris, 1918, Librairie Delagrave 
 
f 
 
 * n*l! 
 
 f 
 
 T 
 
 f 
 
 f r 
 
 < 
 
 
 t 
 
 f 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ill 
 
 Pellissier, Georges; Le Realisme du Romantisme 
 
 Paris, 1912, Librairie Hachette et C le 
 
 Petit de Juleville; Histoire de la Langue et de la Litterature 
 Fran^aise . 
 
 Paris, 1896, Armand Colin et C 1 
 
 Pletscher, Theodore; Pie Marchen Charles Perrault 
 
 Berlin, 1906, Mayer und Miller 
 
 Rigault, H. ; Histoire de la Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes 
 
 Paris, 1856, Librairie de L. Hachette et C ie 
 
 Rigault, H. ; Oeuvres Completes, Vol. 1 
 
 Paris, 1859, Hachette et C le 
 
 Sainte-Beuve, C. A.; Causeries du Lundi 
 
 Paris, Gamier Freres 
 
 Sainte-Beuve, C. A.; Les Houveaux Lundis 
 
 Paris, 1885, Caiman Levy 
 
 Schintz and King; Seventeenth Century French Readings 
 
 Hew York, Henry Holt and Co. 
 
 Sorel, Albert; M me de Sta&l 
 
 Paris, 1907, Hachette et C le 
 
 St endahl (Henri 3eyle ) ; Racine et Shakspeare 
 
 Paris, Calmann-Levy 
 
 Stewart and Tilley; Romantic Movement in French Literature 
 
 Cambridge, 1913, University press 
 
 Strachey, G.L.; Landmarks in French Literature 
 
 He w York, 1912, Henry Holt and Co. 
 
 Text e, Joseph; Jean Jacques Rousseau et les Origines du Cosmopoli- 
 tisme Xlttpraire 
 
 Paris, 1895, Hachette et C 
 
 bright, C. H. Conrad; A History of French Literature 
 
 New York, 1912, Oxford University Press, 
 American Branch