occupy all the colonies which France now possesses in Oceania, Africa, and Asia, they are so many new fields open to European commerce generally. It is to the interest both of England and France to preserve their mutual friendship, and to that end a good understanding on colonial questions is one of the most necessary conditions: It is, moreover, to the general interest of Europe that France should find some foreign outlet to give new activity to her trade, and to raise her self-esteem. This would furnish the best guarantee for peace and harmony. Some idea of the views and wishes of those Frenchmen who are interested in colonial matters may be gained from the excellent work by M. P. Leroy-Beaulieu on the "Colonisation chez les Peuples Modernes" (Guillaumin). M. Leroy-Beaulieu is one of those who are most strongly convinced that it is the duty of France to turn her attention and energies in the direction of the colonies, and he analyzes in a most intelligent manner the elements of the colonial strength of the different modern nations.

Politics have almost wholly absorbed public opinion of late, and therefore hold the first place in the present article; nevertheless, the last months have witnessed more than one literary and artistic event worthy of note.

The theatrical season, without being very brilliant, has nevertheless been interesting. It opened with "Les Corbeaux," by M. Becque, at the Théâtre Français. This piece, lugubrious in its realism, but written with real dramatic feeling, has not met with the success it deserves, the reason being that, in spite of the theories of the naturalistic school, there are certain immoral endings which, though often to be met with in real life, the public will not tolerate on the stage. In M. Becque's play a charming and virtuous young girl, in order to rescue her family from ruin, consents to marry a miserable scoundrel, and the curtain falls on this triumph of disloyalty. In order that the spectators should go away satisfied a punishment ought to fall on the miscreant, and the young girl should be enabled by some accident to marry the good young man who loves her. It is all very well to say that in real life this would not always be the ending; the stage has its own particular requirements, logical, moral, and artistic: herein it is that it differs from the novel. The novel, true to real life, may be full of sudden and unlooked-for incidents, the outcome of purely accidental circumstances; to invent such is in fact one of the essential functions of the novelist's art. All that is required of him is that he should make them serve to illustrate the character of his personages. But on the stage events must have their logical sequence, regulated by the conflict of the different characters; if such conflict cannot be brought to a satisfactory issue, the piece must end with a catastrophe; but unexpected catastrophes, brought in to modify or unravel

the action, are inadmissible on the stage. This is really the reason why M. O. Feuillet's piece, "Un Roman Parisien," in spite of its success, due to the clever working out, the excellent writing, and the perfect playing of the actors of the Gymnase, is so little thought of in the literary world. One of the principal personages is carried off by apoplexy in the middle of the piece, and the point of the plot is a steamboat accident, in which the heroine is saved only by a miracle. All these startling incidents leave the spectator unmoved, because they bear no relation to the characters of the personages, so that chance becomes the chief personage.

M. Sardou, on the contrary, is wonderfully clever in the working out of his plot. The logic is rather apparent than real, and the change of one small circumstance would be enough to upset the whole edifice; but he conceals all that is artificial in the construction of his plays by the spirit and dramatic movement he infuses into them. His "Fédora," which has just been given at the Vaudeville, owes a great deal, no doubt, to the interest created by the reappearance of Mme. Sarah Bernhardt on the Parisian stage; a good deal also to M. Sardou's skill in the choice of subjects which answer to the immediate interests of the public. But Nihilism does not really play more than an auxiliary part in the piece; the main interest lies in the character of Fédora herself, an ardent Slav, impulsive and uncompromising in her love and her hatred. The tenacity with which she first pursues the man she believes to be the murderer of her betrothed; then her passionate love for him; and lastly, the final catastrophe, when she destroys herself because she has been the cause of the death of her brother and mother, and has been cursed by her lover, all this crescendo of strange and violent passion renders "Fédora" a really tragic spectacle, and endows it with a truly human interest.

On the other hand, V. Hugo's "Le Roi s'amuse" is true neither from the human point of view nor from the historical; and in spite of the fine verse scattered through the piece, in spite of the beauty of the mise en scène, in spite of the great name of Hugo, its revival at the Théâtre Français has been a fiasco. Fifty years ago it was prohibited, after the first performance, by the Government of Louis Philippe, who in so doing rendered V. Hugo a great service, for ever since people have cherished the belief that if reproduced it would create a great sensation. Certain of its fine passages have been read and re-read,-Saint Vallier's tirade; for instance, and the scene between Triboulet and his daughter. But no one realized the dulness of the scenes between the courtiers in the first act, the vast improbability of the character of Francis I., or the little sympathy excited by all the personages without exception. Triboulet is so vile in the first act, when he makes game of Saint Vallier, that his

VOL. XLIII.

N

paternal grief touches us but slightly; and Blanche, with her love for the king, who has dishonoured her all but publicly, is a psychological monstrosity. The truth is that the popularity of "Rigoletto" had been reflected back on "Le Roi s'amuse," and that the latter is the least remarkable of V. Hugo's plays. It has neither the lyrical grace which is so fascinating in "Hernani," nor the epic sublimity of "Burgraves." The old poet knew it well, and for years opposed every suggestion for its revival. He was forced to yield, and those who forced him to do so made a great mistake.

The Odéon has also been trying its hand at tragedy, and the experiment, though unattended by any very brilliant result, has been most creditable. "Amhra," by M. Grangeneuve, is a Gallic—that is, a patriotic piece. Its grand sentiments and pathetic scenes, its often rugged verse, reminding one here and there of Corneille's in its vigour, and finally the under-current of patriotism, the old adversaries of the Gauls being substituted for the present enemies of France-have ensured to its author a very fair success. M. Grangeneuve has decided dramatic talent, and will do well to turn to less remote times in his next choice of a subject.

The stage, it has been seen, is still the field on which the noblest tendencies of our literature exhibit themselves. There we still look to find a certain ideal of grandeur, delicacy, and passion. The novel, on the contrary, is sinking lower and lower. M. Zola's naturalism has given birth to a hideous race of works, alike devoid of observation and style, which seek to arrest public attention by the monstrous invention of vile sentiments and revolting situations. M. Brunetière has just published an admirable book on the "Roman Naturaliste" (Lévy.) He has no difficulty in proving that, with respect to literar theories, M. Zola has made no innovations, and that, as to his practice, nothing can be less true or less artistic than what he puts forward as contemporary truth. He points to far truer and profounder naturalists than M. Zola amongst the English novelists. M. Brunetière is one of the only two literary critics of the younger generation; M. Bourget is the other. They represent two very different tendencies. Whilst M. Bourget, both a poet and a critic, is above all things a man of sensitive mind, a psychologist, and a philosopher, who confines himself to describing the modern spirit without judging it, M. Brunetière is a doctrinaire, who, in the midst of the present literary anarchy, adheres to certain rules of art and taste which he believes to be

eternally true. These two distinguished spirits deserve a prominent place in the literary movement of the day.

Amongst the mass of vile and indifferent novels with which we are flooded, the only two that are worthy of note are, "L'Insurgé," by M. Vallés, and "L'Evangéliste," by M. Daudet. In "L'Insurgé" M. Vallés

relates his personal recollections of the latter days of the Empire, the War, and the Commune. It contains some pages of a brutal flavour, bold picturesqueness of style, and lifelike pictures; but more revolting reading we do not know, though it contains nothing offensive from a moral point of view. It is the envious and bitter rancour that runs through every line of it that makes it so revolting. Everything and everybody is debased, degraded, ridiculed, tarnished. Of the nobler side of Socialism, the tender compassion for human misery, the generous aspiration towards the ideal, there is in this so-called socialistic novel no trace. In place of it there is nothing but hatred and contempt. The political friends of M. Vallés are as badly treated as his opponents. If his view of things is to be accepted, political France would be indeed a world of "Tiger-apes."

M. Daudet's latest novel will add nothing to his literary glory. Of late years he has made the mistake of trying to give a political or social interest to his novels, to the neglect of his happiest vein-the portrayal of the habits and feelings of the small bourgeoisie and the people. In the "Nabab" he described the official political world of the Second Empire; in the "Rois en Exil" the Bohemian band of royalties and grandees that took refuge in Paris under the Third Republic; in "Numa Roumestan" the adventures of a Republican Minister. In "L'Evangéliste" he has tried to portray the Protestant world; but it is an unknown one to him; and the information he has been able to collect about it has been too scanty, and of too purely external a nature, to prevent him from falling into material as well as more serious moral inaccuracies. His confounding Lutheran and Reformed, and introducing candles into Protestant church ceremonial, is of no great consequence; but that he should have represented the wife of a Parisian banker, as combining the theatrical exaltation of the members of the Salvation Army with the fanaticism of certain sectarians of the sixteenth or seventeenth century, is more serious. This woman, who takes a girl away from her mother by force to turn her into an evangelist, and administers narcotics to disorder her mind on religious matters, is a monster without parallel in the French Protestant world. Starting from such false data as these, and describing a world he is ignorant of, M. Daudet's wonted fire and poetical inspiration have failed him, and, though very short, his novel is tedious and dull.

If our works of fiction show a lack of invention, our more serious literature is fortunately in better case. The close of the year 1882 witnessed the appearance of a number of works, all remarkable in their way. The lovers of erudition will turn with interest to M. de Beaucourt's "Histoire de Charles VII.," the second volume of which brings us down to the year 1435. It is heavy reading, and badly

put together, but very exhaustive as a work of research. The English reader will find all that relates to the military operations and diplomatic negotiations of Charles VII. especially interesting. M. Viollet's publication on the "Etablissements de Saint-Louis," and his introductory volume to the text, are a model of textual criticism and juridical history. M. Glasson's work on the "Institutions Politiques et Administratives de l'Angleterre" has less of original merit. It is more especially a work of analysis and of compilation; but the appearance in France of such an important work on English institutions is in itself interesting and noteworthy. Four volumes are already published, and there are two or three more, no doubt, to come. M. Chéruel is going on with his "Histoire de France sous le Ministère de Mazarin," the second and third volumes of which are just out. Though hardly attractive to all classes of readers, M. Chéruel's work is an important one, as containing a vast number of unpublished documents, and as throwing a new and most favourable light on the character of Mazarin's policy. M. Michaud, formerly priest of the Eglise de Paris, who followed Père Hyacinthe's steps in his rupture with the Church, and is now Professor at the University of Berne, is engaged on the publication of a work in four volumes on "Louis XIV. et Innocent XI." He has confined himself to an analysis of the correspondence addressed to Louis XIV. from Rome by his diplomatic agents. The fact of his deriving his information exclusively from this one source greatly diminishes the historical and critical value of the book; but though excessively prolix, this analysis is nevertheless most interesting. M. de Broglie's work on "Frédéric II. et Marie Thérèse," on the other hand, is remarkable from the literary and historical point of view. Never yet has M. de Broglie produced a work so well constructed, so full of vigorous thought and writing, as this is. Supported by a considerable mass of printed and unprinted documents, he contrives to rise above his subject, and gives a true and striking picture of European politics at the time of the war of the Austrian succession. M. de Broglie may be accused of a somewhat too ironical tone as regards Frederick, and too tender a one as regards Marie Thérèse; but his judgment of the two leading personages in this great struggle is true at the period from which M. de Broglie starts, and it was well to avenge public good sense and morality of the clumsy and impudent apologies put forward in Germany for the policy of Frederick II.

A few words in conclusion, on a philosophical work which has earned a brilliant and rapid success, owing to the interest of the subject and the sympathetic living talent of the author: "Les Origines," by M. de Pressensé. The distinguished Protestant orator has undertaken to review the great discussions which have arisen in our day as to the origin of the world, of man, and of morality; he studies the problems of creation, of evolution, and of free will,