Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 9.djvu/692

 656 FRANCE [LITERATURE. more deserve, to DC read only oy those to whom those Amyot. originals are sealed, Jacques Amyot (1513-1591), bishop of Auxerre, takes rank as a French classic by his transla tions of Plutarch, Longus, and Heliodorus. The admiration which Amyot excited in his own time was immense. Montaigne declares that it was thanks to Mm that his con temporaries knew how to speak and to write, and the Academy in the next age, though not too much inclined to honour its predecessors, ranked him as a model. His Plutarch which had an enormous influence at the time, and coloured perhaps more than any classic the thoughts and writings of the 16th century, both in French and English, was then considered his masterpiece. Now-a days per haps, and from the purely literary standpoint, that position would be assigned to his exquisite version of the exquisite story of Daphnis and Chloe. It is needless to say that absolute fidelity and exact scholarship are not the pre eminent merits of these versions. They are not philo logical exercises, but works of art. We have already had occasion to mention Jean le Maire des Beiges. His Illustra tions des Gaules is an antiquarian rather than an historical work, which assembles or invents a mass of fables about the origin of Franks and Gauls, and a group of antiquarian writers of the history of different provinces followed his lead. On the other hand, Claude Fauchet, in two anti quarian works, Antiquites Gauloises et Francoises and I! Origins de la Lanyue et de la Poesie Francaise, displays a remarkable critical faculty in sweeping away these fables. Fauchet had the (for his time) wonderful habit of consulting manuscripts, and we owe to him literary notices of many of the trouveres. At the same time La Croix du Maine and Duverdier founded the study of bibliography in France. Pasquier s Recherches, already alluded to, carries out the principles of Fauchet independently, and besides treating the history of the past in a true critical spirit, supplies us with voluminous and invaluable information on contem porary politics and literature. He has, moreover, the merit which Fauchet had not, of being an excellent writer. Henri Etienne also deserves notice in this place, both for certain treatises on the French language, full of critical crotchets, and also for his curious Apolocjie pour Ilerodote, a remarkable book not particularly easy to class. It consists partly of a defence of its nominal subject, partly of satirical polemics on the Protestant side, and is filled almost equally with erudition and with the buffoonery and fatrasie of the time. The book, indeed, was much too Rabelaisian to suit the tastes of those in whose defence it was composed. The IGth century is somewhat too early for us to speak of science, and such science as was then composed falls for the most part outside French literature. The famous potter, Palissy (1510-1589), however, was not much less skilful as a fashioner of words than as a fashioner of pots, and his description of the difficulties of his experiments in enamelling, which lasted sixteen years, is well known. The great surgeon Ambrose Pare (1510-1590) was also a writer, and his descriptions of his military experiences at Turin, Metz, and elsewhere have all the charm of the IGth century memoir. The only other writer^ who requires special men tion is Olivier de^Serres ( 1 539-1 6 19), an author who treated on agriculture, and composed, under the title of Theatre d Agriculture, a complete treatise on the various operations of rural economy, which became extremely popular, and was frequently reprinted up to the present century. 17^/i Century Poetry. It is not always easy or possible to make the end or the beginning of a literary epoch synchronize exactly with historical dates. It happens, however, that for once the beginning of the 17th century coincides almost exactly with an entire revolution in French literature. The change of direction and of critical standard given by Malherbe (1556-1628) to poetry was to last for two whole centuries, and to determine, not merely the language and complexion, but also the form of French verse during the whole of that time. Accidentally, or as a matter of logical consequence (it would not be proper here to at tempt to decide the question), poetry became almost synony mous with drama. It is true, as we shall have to point out, that there were, in the early part of the Nth century at least, poets, properly so called, of no contemptible merit. But their merit, in itself respectable, sank in comparison with the far greater merit of their dramatic rivals. Theo- phile de Yiau and Racan, Voiture and St Amand, cannot for a moment be mentioned in the same rank with Rotrou, still less with Corneille. It is certainly curious, if it is not something more than curious, that this decline in poetry proper should have coincided with the so-called reforms of Malherbe. The tradition of respect for this elder and Ma] more gifted Boileau was at one time all-powerful in France, and, notwithstanding the romantic movement, is still strong. In rejecting a large number of the importations of the Ronsarclists, he certainly did good service. But it is difficult to avoid ascribing in great measure to his influence the origin of the chief faults of modern French poetry, and modern French in general, as compared with the older language. Like Pope, he sacrificed everything to &quot;correct ness,&quot; and, unluckily for French, the sacrifice was made at a time when no writer of an absolutely supreme order had yet appeared in the language. With Shakespeare and Milton, not to mention scores of writers only inferior to them, safely garnered, Pope and his followers could do us little harm. Corneille and Moliere unfortunately came after Malherbe. Yet it would be unfair to this writer, however badly we may think of his influence, to deny him talent, and even a certain amount of poetical inspiration. He had not felt his own influence, and the very influences which he despised and proscribed produced in him much tolerable and some admirable verse, though he is not to be named as a poet with Regnier, who had the courage, the sense, and the good taste to oppose and ridicule his innova tions. Of Malherbe s school, which was numerous, Racan (1589-1670) and Maynard (1582-1646) were the most re markable. The former was a true poet, though not a very fitrong one. Like his master, he is best when he follows the models whom that master contemned. Perhaps more than any other poet, he set the example of the classical alex andrine, the smooth and melodious but monotonous and rather effeminate measure which Racine was to bring to the highest perfection, and which his successors, while they could not improve its smoothness, w r ere to make more and more monotonous until the genius of Victor Hugo once more broke up its facile polish, suppled its stiff uniformity, and introduced vigour, variety, colour, and distinctness in the place of its feeble sameness and its pale indecision. But the vigour, not to say the licence, of the IGth century could not thus die all at once. In Theophile de Viau (1590- 1626) the early years of the 17th century had their Villon. The later poet was almost as unfortunate as the earlier, and almost as disreputable, but he had a great share of poetical power. The etoile cnrayee xmder which he complains that he was born, was at least kind to him in this respect : and his readers, after he had been forgotten for two centuries, have once more done him justice. Racan and Theophile were followed in the second quarter of the century by two schools which sufficiently well represented the tendencies of each. The first was that of Voiture (1598-1648), Benser- ade (1612-1691), and other poets who were connected more or less with the famous literary coterie of the Hotel de Rambouillet. Theophile was less worthily succeeded by a class, it can hardly be called a school, of poets, some of whom, like St Amand (1594-1660), chiefly wrote drinking songs and such like productions; others, like Scarron