that it had, quite independently of any theological or political influence, an immense share in diffusing and gratifying the taste for general information by which the century which has succeeded its publication has been more distinguished than perhaps any other in history.

No class of literature was

1789-1830.-General Sketch.-The period which elapsed between the outbreak of the Revolution and the accession of Charles X. has often been considered a sterile one in point of literature. As far as mere productiveness goes, this judgment is hardly correct. altogether neglected during these stirring five-and-thirty years, the political events of which have so engrossed the attention of posterity that it has sometimes been necessary for historians to remind us that during the height of the Terror and the final disasters of the empire the theatres were open and the booksellers' shops patronized as much or more than ever. Journalism, parliamentary eloquence, and scientific writing were especially cultivated, and the former in its modern sense may almost be said to have been created. But of the higher products of literature the period may justly be considered to have been somewhat barren. During the earlier part of it there is, with the exception of André Chénier, not a single name of the first or even second order of excellence. Towards the midst those of Chateaubriand (1768–1848) and Madame de Stael (1766-1817) stand almost alone; and at the close those of Courier, Béranger, and Lamartine are not seconded by any others to tell of the magnificent literary burst which was to follow the publication of Cromwell. Of all departments of literature, poetry proper was worst represented during this period. André Chénier was silenced at its opening by the guillotine. Le Brun and Delille, favoured by an extraordinary longevity, continued to be admired and followed. It was the palmy time of descriptive poetry. Fontanes, Castel, Boisjolin, Esmenard, Berchoux, Ricard, Martin, Gudin, Cournaud, are names which chiefly survive as those of the authors of scattered attempts to turn the Encyclopædia into verse. Chénedollé (1769-1833) owes his reputation rather❘ to amiability and to his association with men eminent in different ways, such as Rivarol and Joubert, than to any rcal power. Even more ambitiously, Luce de Lancival, Campenon, Dumesnil, and Parseval de Grand-Maison endeavoured to write epics, and succeeded rather worse than the Chapelains and Desmarets of the 17th century. The characteristic of all this poetry was the description of everything in metaphor and paraphrase, and the careful avoidance of anything like directness of expression; and the historians of the romantic movement have collected many instances of this absurdity. Lamartine will be more properly noticed in the next division. But about the same time as Lamartine, and towards the end of the present period, there appeared a poet who may be regarded as the last important echo of Malherbe. This was Casimir Delavigne (1793-1843), the author of Les Messéniennes, a writer of very great talent, and, according to the measure of Rousseau and Lebrun, no mean poet. It is usual to reckon Delavigne as transitionary between the two schools, but in strictness he must be counted with the classicists. Dramatic poetry exhibited somewhat similar characteristics. The system of tragedy writing had become purely mechanical, and every act, almost every scene and situation, had its regular and appropriate business and language, the former of which the poet was not supposed to alter at all, and the latter only very slightly. Poinsinet, Laharpe, M. J. Chénier, Raynouard, De Jouy, Briffaut, Baour-Lormian, all wrote in this style. Of these Chénier (1764-1811) had some of the vigour of his brother André, from whom he was distinguished by more popular political principles and better fortune. On the other hand Ducis (1733-1816), who passes with Englishmen as a feeble reducer of Shake

speare to classical rules, passed with his contemporaries as an introducer into French poetry of strange and revolu tionary, novelties. Comedy, on the other hand, fared better, as indeed it had always fared. Fabre d'Eglantine (1755-1794) (the companion in death of Danton), Collin d'Harleville (1755-1806), Andrieux (1759-1833), Picard, Alexandre Duval, and Népomucène Lemercier (1771-1840) were the comic authors of the period, and their works have not suffered the complete eclipse of the contemporary tragedies which in part they also wrote. If not exactly worthy successors of Molière, they are at any rate not unworthy children of Beaumarchais. In romance writing there is again, until we come to Madame de Stael, a great want of originality and even of excellence in workmanship. The works of Madaine de Genlis (1746-1830) exhibit the tendencies of the 18th century to platitude and noble sentiment at their worst. Madame Cottin, Madame Souza, and Madame de Krudener exhibited some of the qualities of Madame de Lafayette and more of those of Madame de Genlis. Fiévée (1767-1839), in Le Dot de Suzette and other works, showed some power over the domestic story; but perhaps the most remarkable work in point of originality of the time was Xavier de Maistre's (1763-1852) Voyage autour de ma Chambre, an attempt in quite a new style, which has been happily followed up by other writers. Turning to history we find comparatively little written at this period. Indeed, until quite its close, men were too much occupied in making history to have time to write it. There is, however, a considerable body of memoir writers, especially in the earlier years of the period, and some great names appear even in history proper. Many of Sismondi's (1773-1842) best works were produced during the empire. De Barant (1782-1866), though his best known works date much later belongs partially to this time. On the otner hand, the production of philosophical writing, especially in what we may call applied philosophy, was considerable. The sensationalist views of Condillac were first continued as by Destutt de Tracy (1754–1832) and Laromiguière, and subsequently opposed, in consequence partly of a religious and spiritualist revival, partly of the influence of foreign schools of thought, especially the German and the Scotch. The chief philosophical writers from this latter point of view were Royer Collard (1763-1846), Maine de Biran (1776-1824), and Jouffroy (1796-1842). Their influence on literature, however, was altogether inferior to that of the reactionist school, of whom De Bonald (1753-1840) and Joseph de Maistre (1754-1821) were the great leaders. These latter were strongly political in their tendencies, and political philosophy received, as was natural, a large share of the attention of the time. In continuation of the work of the Philosophes, the most remarkable writer was Volney (17571820), whose Ruines are generally known. On the other hand, others belonging to that school, such as Necker and Morellet, wrote from the moderate point of view against re volutionary excesses. Of the reactionists, De Bonald is extremely royalist, and carries out in his Législations Primitives somewhat the same patriarchal and absolutist theories as our own Filmer, but with infinitely greater genius. De Bonald is royalist and aristocratic, so De Maistre is the advocate of a theocracy pure and simple, with the pope for its earthly head, and a vigorous despotism for its system of government. Of theology proper there is almost necessarily little or nothing, the clergy being in the earlier period proscribed, in the latter part kept in a strict and somewhat discreditable subjection by the empire. In moralizing literature there is one work of the very highest excellence, which, though not published till long afterwards, belongs in point of composition to this period. This is the Pensées of Joubert (1754-1824), the most illustrious successor of Pascal and Vauvenargues, and to be ranked

As

distinguished children, were by no means free. The abso- | lute literary importance of the two was very different. Madame de Stael's early writings were of the critical kind, half æsthetic half ethical, of which the 18th century had been fond, and which their titles, Lettres sur J. J. Rousseau, De l'Influence des Passions, De la Littérature considérée dans ses rapports avec les Institutions Sociales, sufficiently show. Her romances, Delphine and Corinne, have singularly lost their attraction in seventy years, but their influence at the time was immense. The work, however, which had really the most fertile influence was the De l'Allemagne, which practically opened up to the rising generation in France the till then unknown treasures of literature and philosophy, which during the most glorious half century of her literary history Germany had, sometimes on hints taken from France herself, been accumulating. The style of these various works is not of the most admirable, and in their matter there is still, as we have said, much hollow talk. But the enthusiasm which pervaded them had a powerful effect, and the indications of new sources at which this enthusiasm might satisfy itself had an effect more powerful still. The literary importance of Chateaubriand is far greater, while his literary influence can hardly be exaggerated. Chateaubriand's literary father was Rousseau, and his voyage to America helped to develop the seeds which Rousseau had sown. In René and other works of the same kind, the naturalism of Rousseau received a still further development. But it was not in mere naturalism that Chateaubriand was to find his most fertile and most successful theme. It was, on the contrary, in the rehabilitation of Christianity. The 18th century had used against religion the method of ridicule; Chateaubriand, by genius rather than by reasoning, set up against this method that of poetry and romance. "Christianity," says he, almost in so many words," is the most poetical of all religions, the most attractive, the most fertile in literary, artistic, and social results." This theme he develops with the most splendid language, and with every conceivable advantage of style, in the Génie du Christianisme and the Martyrs. The splendour of imagination, the summonings of history and literature to supply effective and touching illustrations,, analogies, and incidents, the rich colouring so different from the peculiarly monotonous and grey tones of the masters of the 18th century, and the fervid admiration for nature which were Chateaubriand's main attractions and characteristics, could not fail to have an enormous literary influence. The romantic school, acknowledged, and with justice, its direct indebtedness thereto; but at the same time Chateaubriand's power of argument is perhaps weaker than that of any writer of equal emi nence; and great as has been his literary following, his followers have very rarely adopted his principles.

Literature since 1830.-In dealing with the history of French literature during the last half century, a slight alteration of treatment is requisite. The subdivisions of literature have lately become so numerous, and the contributions to each have reached such an immense volume, that it is impossible to give more than cursory notice, or indeed allusion, to most of them. It so happens, however, that the purely literary characteristics of this period, though of the most striking and remarkable, are confined to a few branches of literature. The characteristic of the 19th century in France has hitherto been at least as strongly marked as that of any previous period. In the Middle Ages men of letters followed each other in the cultivation of certain literary forms for long centuries. The chanson de geste, the Arthurian legend, the roman d'aventure, the fabliau, the allegorical poem, the rough dramatic jeu, mystery, and farce, served successively as moulds into which the thought and writing impulse of generations of authors were successively cast, often with little attention to the

suitableness of form and subject. The end of the 15th century, and still more the 16th, owing to the vast extension of thought and knowledge then introduced, finally broke up the old forms, and introduced the practice of treating each subject in a manner more or less appropriate to it, and whether appropriate or not, freely selected by the author. At the same time a vast but somewhat indiscriminate addition was made to the actual vocabulary of the language The 17th and 18th centuries witnessed a process of restriction once more to certain forms and strict imitation of predecessors, combined with attention to purely arbitrary rules, the cramping and impoverishing effect of this (in Fénelon's words) being counterbalanced partly by the efforts of individual genius, and still more by the constant and steady enlargement of the range of thought, the choice of subjects, and the familiarity with other literature, both of the ancient and modern world. The literary work of the 19th century and of the great romantic movement which began in its second quarter was to repeat on a far larger scale the work of the 16th, to break up and discard such literary forms as had become useless or hopelessly stiff, to give strength, suppleness, and variety to such as were retained, to invent new ones where necessary, and to enrich the language by importations, inventions, and revivals. The result of this revolution is naturally most remarkable in the belles lettres and the kindred department of history. Poetry, not dramatic, has been revived; prose romance and literary criticism have been brought to a perfection previously unknown; and history has produced works more various, if not more remarkable, than at any previous stage of the language. Of all these branches we shall therefore endeavour to give some detailed account. But the services done to the language were not limited to the strictly literary branches of literature, Modern French, if it lacks, as it probably does lack, the statuesque precision and elegance of prose style to which between 1650 and 1800 all else was sacrificed, has become a much more suitable instrument for the accurate and copious treatment of positive and concrete subjects. These subjects have accordingly been treated in an abundance corresponding to that manifested in other countries, though the literary importance of the treatment has perhaps proportionately declined. We cannot even attempt to indicate the innumerable directions of scientific study which this copious industry has taken, and must confine ourselves to those which come more immediately under the headings previously adopted. In philosophy France, like other nations, has principally devoted itself to the historical side of the matter, and the names of Damiron, Jules Simon, Vacherot, Quinet, De Rémusat, and Renan must be mentioned. Victor Cousin (1792-1867), after enjoying a brief celebrity as the chief of an eclectic school, is now principally remembered as a philosophical historian and critic. Towards the latter part of his long life he quitted even this connexion with philosophy, and devoted himself chiefly to the study of French history. The importance of Auguste Comte (1793-1857) is rather political and scientific than literary. We must also mention M. Taine (b. 1828), a brilliant writer, who busies himself alternately with history, philosophy, and criticism. Theology again, with the ex ception of Lamennais, to'be mentioned hereafter, supplies no name on which we need linger except that of M. Renan (b. 1823), whose somewhat florid literary style has contributed largely to the influence of his theological ideas. Montalem bert (1810-1870), an historian with a strong theological tinge, deserves notice, and among orators Lacordaire (18021861) and the Père Félix (b. 1810) on the Catholic side, and Athanase Coquerel (1820-1875) on the Protestant The Penscés of Joubert, partly moral and partly literary, belong, in point of publication and interest, to this period, and so do the melancholy moralizings of De Sénancour

(1770-1846), which have had a great influence, though on a somewhat limited circle. Political philosophy and its kindred sciences have naturally received a large share of attention. Towards the middle of the century there was a great development of socialist and fanciful theorizing on politics, with which the names of St Simon, Fourier, Cabet, and others are connected. As political economists Bastiat, De Lavergne, Blanqui, and Chevalier may be noticed. In De Tocqueville (1805-1859) France produced a political observer of a remarkably acute, moderate, and reflective character. The name of Lerminier (1805-1857) is of wide repute for legal and constitutional writings, and that of Jomini (1779-1869) is still more celebrated as a military historian; while that of Lenormant (1801-1859) | holds a not dissimilar position in archæology. With the publications devoted to physical science proper we do not attempt to meddle. Philology, however, demands a brief notice. In classical studies France has not recently occupied the position which might be expected of the country of Scaliger and Casaubon. She has, however, produced some considerable Orientalists, such as Champollion the younger, Burnouf, Silvestre de Sacy, and Stanislas Julien. In attention to the antiquities of their own country the French have been at last stimulated by the example of Germany. The foundation of Romance philology was due, indeed, to the foreigners Wolf and Diez. But early in the century the curiosity as to the older literature of France created by Barboran, Tressan, and others continued to extend. Méon published many unprinted fabliaux, gave the whole of the French Renart cycle, with the exception of Renart le Contrefait, and edited the Roman de la Rose. Fauriel and Raynouard dealt elaborately with Provençal poetry as well as partially with that of the trouvères; and the latter produced his comprehensive Lexique Romane. These examples were followed by many other writers, who edited inanuscript works and commented on them, always with zeal and sometimes with discretion. Foremost among these must be mentioned M. Paulin Paris, who for fifty years has served the cause of old French literature with untiring energy, great literary taste, and a pleasant and facile pen. His selections from manuscripts, his Romancero Français, his editions of Garin le Loherain and Berte aux Grans Piés, and his Romans de la Table Ronde may especially be mentioned. Soon, too, the Benedictine Histoire Littéraire, so long interrupted, was resumed under M. Paris's general management, and has proceeded nearly to the end of the 14th century. Among its contents M. Paris's dissertations on the later chansons de gestes and the early song writers, M. Victor Le Clerc's on the fabliaux, and M. Littré's on the romans d'aventures may be specially noticed. For some time indeed the work of French editors was chargeable with a certain lack of critical and philological accuracy. This reproach, however, has recently been wiped off by the efforts of a band of young scholars, chiefly pupils of the Ecole des Chartes, with MM. Gaston Paris and Paul Meyer at their head. The Société des Anciens Textes Français has also been formed for the purpose of publishing scholarly editions of inedited works. Yet France has as yet produced no lexicon of her older tongue to complete the admirable dictionary in which M. Littré (b. 1801), at the cost of a life's labour, has embodied the whole vocabulary of the classical French language. Meanwhile the period between the Middle Ages proper and the 17th century has not lacked its share of this revival of attention. To the literature between Villon and Regnier especial attention was paid by the early romantics, and Sainte-Beuve's Tableau Historique et Critique de la Poésie et du Théatre au Seizième Siècle was one of the manifestoes of the school. Since the appearance of that work in 1828 editions with oritical comments of the literature of this period have con

stantly multiplied, aided by the great fancy for tastefully produced works which exists among the richer classes in France; and there are probably now few countries in which works of old authors, whether in cheap reprints or in édi tions de luxe can be more readily procured.

The Romantic Movement.-It is time, however, to return to the literary revolution itself, and its more purely literary results. At the accession of Charles X. France possessed three writers, and perhaps only three, of already remarkable eminence, if we except Chateaubriand, who was already of a past generation. These three were Béranger (1780-1857), Lamartine (1790-1869), and Lamennais (1782-1854). The first belongs definitely in manner, despite his striking originality of nuance, to the past. He has remnants of the old periphrases, the cumbrous mythological allusions, the poetical properties of French verse. He has also the older and somewhat narrow limitations of a French poet; foreigners are for him mere barbarians. At the same time his extraordinary lyrical faculty, his excellent wit, which makes him a descendant of Rabelais and La Fontaine, and his occasional touches of pathos made him deserve and obtain something more than successes of occasion. Béranger, moreover, was very far from being the mere improvisatore which those who cling to the inspirationist theory of poetry would fain see in him. His studies in style and composition were persistent, and it was long before he attained the firm and brilliant manner which distinguishes him. Béranger's talent, however, was still too much a matter of individual genius to have great literary influence, and he formed no school. It was different with Lamartine, who was, nevertheless, like Béranger, a typical Frenchman. The Meditations and the Harmonies exhibit a remarkable transition between the old school and the new. In going direct to nature, in borrowing from her striking outlines, vivid and contrasted tints, harmony, and variety of sound, the new poet showed himself an innovator of the best class. In using romantic and religious associations, and expressing them in affecting language, he was the Chateaubriand of verse. But with all this he retained some of the vices of the classical school. His versification, harmonious as it is, is monotonous, and he does not venture into the bold lyrical forms which true poetry loves, and with which the alexandrine of Boileau could not unite itself He has still the horror of the mot propre; he is always spiritualizing and idealizing, and his style and thought have a double portion of the feminine and almost flaccid softness which had come to pass for grace in French. Nevertheless the Lac is a poem such as had not been written in France for 200 years. The last of the trio, Lamennais, represents an altogether bolder and rougher genius. Strongly influenced by the Catholic reaction, Lamennais also shows the strongest possible influence of the revolutionary spirit. His earliest work, the Essai sur l'Indifférence en Matière de Religion, was a defence of the church on curiously unecclesiastical lines. It was written in an ardent style, full of illustrations, and extremely ambitious in character. The plan was partly critical and partly constructive. The first part disposed of the 18th century; the second, adopting the theory of papal absolutism which De Maistre had already advocated, proceeded to base it on a supposed universal consent, which the Church of Rome was very far from accepting as a contribution to its defence. The after history of Lamennais was perhaps not an unnatural recoil from this; but with this after history we are not concerned; it is sufficient to point out that in his prose, especially as afterwards developed in the apocalyptic Paroles d'un Croyant, are to be discerned many of the tendencies of the romantic school, particularly its hardy and picturesque choice of language, and the disdain of established and accepted methods which it professed. The signs of the revolution itself were, as was natural. first given in

periodical literature. The feudalist affectations of Chateau- | briand and the legitimists excited a sort of æsthetic affection for Gothicism, and Walter Scott became one of the most favourite authors in France. Soon was started the periodical La Muse Française, in which the names of Hugo, De Vigny, Deschamps, and Madame de Girardin appear. Almost all the writers in this periodical were eager royalists, and for some time the battle was still fought on political grounds There could, however, be no special connexion between classical drama and liberalism; and the liberal journal, the Globe, with no less a person than Sainte-Beuve among its contributors, declared definite war against classi cism in the drama Soon the question became purely literary, and the romantic school proper was born in the famous cénacle or clique in which Hugo was chief poet, Sainte-Beuve chief critic, and Gautier, Gerard de Nerval, Émile and Antony Deschamps, Petrus Borel, and others were officers. Alfred de Vigny and Alfred de Musset stand somewhat apart, and so does Charles Nodier (1783–1844), | a versatile and voluminous writer, the very variety and number of whose works have somewhat prevented the individual excellence of any of them from having justice done to it. The objects of the school, which was at first violently opposed, so much so that certain Academicians actually petitioned the king to forbid the admission of any romantic piece at the Théâtre Français, were, briefly stated, the burning of everything which had been adored, and the adoring of everything which had been burnt. They would have no unities, no arbitrary selection of subjects, no restraints on variety of versification, no academically limited vocabulary, no considerations of artificial beauty, and, above all, no periphrastic expression. The mot propre, the calling of a spade a spade, was the great commandment of romanticism; but it must be allowed that what was taken away in periphrase was made up in adjectives. De Musset, who was very much of a free-lance in the contest, maintained indeed that the differentia of the romantic was the copious use of this part of speech. All sorts of epithets were invented to distinguish the two parties, of which Flamboyant and Grisûtre are perhaps the most accurate and expressive pair, the former serving to denote the gorgeous tints and bold attempts of the new school, the latter the grey colour and monotonous outlines of the old. The representation of Hernani in 1830 was the culmination of the struggle, and during great part of the reign of Louis Philippe almost all the younger men of letters in France were romantics. The representation of the Lucrèce of Ponsard (1814-1867) in 1846 is often quoted as the herald or sign of a classical reaction. But this was only apparent, and signified, if it signified anything, merely that the more juvenile excesses of the romantics were out of date. For forty years all the greatest men of letters of France have been on the innovating side, and all without exception, whether intentionally or not, have had their work coloured by the results of the

movement.

Drama and Poetry since 1830.—Although the immediate subject on which the battles of classics and romantics arose was dramatic poetry, the dramatic results of the movement have not been those of greatest value or most permanent character. The principal effect in the long run has been the introduction of a species of play called drame, as opposed to regular comedy and tragedy, admitting of much freer treatment than either of these two as previously understood in French, and lending itself in some measure to the lengthy and disjointed action, the multiplicity of personages, and the absence of stock characters which characterized the English stage in its palmy days. All Victor Hugo's dramatic works are of this class, and each, as it was produced or published (Cromwell, Hernani, Marion de l'Orme, Le Roi s'amuse, Lucrèce Borgia, Marie Tudor, Ruy Blas,

and Les Burgraves), was a literary event, and excited the most violent discussion,-the author's usual plan being to prefix a prose preface of a very militant character to his work. A still more melodramatic variety of drame was that chiefly represented by Alexandre Dumas (1803-1874), whose Henri III. and Antony, to which may be added later La Tour de Nesle and Mademoiselle de Belleisle, were almost as much rallying points for the early romantics as the dramas of Hugo, despite their inferior literary value. At the same time Alexandre Soumet (1788-1845), in Norma, Une Fête de Neron, &c., and Casimir Delavigne in Marino Faliero, Louis XI., &c., maintained a somewhat closer adherence to the older models. The classical or semiclassical reaction of the last years of Louis Philippe was represented in tragedy by Ponsard (Lucrèce, Agnes de Méranie, Charlotte Corday, Ulysse, and several comedies), and on the comic side, to a certain exteut, by Emile Augier (b. 1820) in L'Aventurière, Le Gendre de M. Poirier, Le Fils de Giboyer, &c. During almost the whole period Eugène Scribe (1791-1861) poured forth innumerable comedies of the vaudeville order, which, without possessing much literary value, attained immense popularity. For the last twenty years the realist development of romanticism has had the upper hand in dramatic composition, its principal representatives being on the one side Victorien Sardou (b. 1831), who in Nos Intimes, La Famille Benoîton, Rabagas, Dora, &c., has chiefly devoted himself to the satirical treat ment of manners, and Alexandre Dumas fils (b. 1824), who in such pieces as Les Idées de Madame Aubray and L'Étrangère has rather busied himself with morals. Cer tain isolated authors also deserve notice, such as Autran (1813-1877), a poet and Academician having some resem blance to Lamartine, whose Fille d'Eschyle created for him a dramatic reputation which he did not attempt to follow up, and Legouvé (b. 1807), whose Adrienne Lecouvreur was assisted to popularity by the admirable talent of Rachel A special variety of drama of the first literary importance has also been cultivated in this century under the title of scènes or proverbes, slight dramatic sketches, in which the dialogue and style is of even more importance than the ac tion. The best of all of these are those of Alfred de Musset (1810-1857), whose Il faut qu'une porte soit ouverte ou fermée, On ne badine pas aver l'amour, &c., are models of grace and wit. Among his followers may be mentioned especially M. Octave Feuillet (b. 1812).

In poetry proper, as in drama, M. Victor Hugo showed the way, and has never allowed any one since to take the lead from him. In him all the romantic characteristics are expressed and embodied,—disregard of arbitrary critical rules, free choice of subject, variety and vigour of metre, splendour and sonorousness of diction. If the careful attention to form which is also characteristic of the movement is less apparent in him than in some of his followers, it is not because it is absent, but because the enthusiastic conviction with which he attacks every subjcct somewhat diverts atten tion from it. As with the merits so with the defects. A deficient sense of the ludicrous which has characterized many of the romantics is strongly apparent in their leader, as is also an equally representative grandiosity, and a fondness for the introduction of foreign and unfamiliar words, especially proper names, which occasionally produces an effect of burlesque. Victor Hugo's earliest poetical works, his chiefly royalist and political Odes, are cast in the older and accepted forms, but already display astonishing poetical qualities. But it was in the Ballades (for instance, the splendid Pas d'Armes du Roi Jean, written in verses of three syllables) and the Orientales (of which may be taken for a sample the sixth section of Navarin, a perfect torrent of outlandish terms poured forth in the most admirable verse, or Les Djinns, where some of the stanzas have lines