[Sidenote: _L"Artiste et le Soldat._]
"The other Ducange," whose patronymic appears to have been Brahain, and who perhaps took the name of the great scholar[69] for the sake of contrast, was even more famous for his melodramas[70] than for his fiction, one piece especially, "Trente Ans, ou La Vie d"un Joueur,"
having been among the triumphs of the Porte-Saint-Martin and of Frederick Lemaitre. As a novelist he did not write for children like Ducray-Duminil, and one of his novels contains a boastful preface scoffing at and glorying in the accusations of impropriety brought against him. I have found nothing very shocking in those books of his which I have read, and I certainly have not thought it necessary to extend my acquaintance in search of it. He seems to have been a quarrelsome sort of person, for he got into trouble not only with the moralists, not only with the Restoration government, but with the Academy, which he attacked; and he is rather fond of "scratchy"
references such as "On peut meriter encore quelque interet sans etre un Amadis, un Vic-van-Vor [poor Fergus!], un Han, ou un Vampire." But his intrinsic merit as a novelist did not at first seem to me great. A book worse _charpente_ than that just quoted from, _L"Artiste et le Soldat_, I have seldom read. The first of its five volumes is entirely occupied with the story (not badly, though much too voluminously told) of a captain who has lost his leg at Waterloo, and though tended by a pretty and charming daughter, is in great straits till helped by a mysterious Black Nun, who loves _les militaires_, and has been entrusted with money to help them by the Empress Josephine. The second, "without with your leave or by your leave" of any kind,[71] jumps back to give us, under a different name for a long time, the early history of this captain, which occupies two whole volumes and part of a third (the fourth of the book).
Then another abrupt shift introduces us to the "artist," the younger brother, who bears a _third_ name, itself explained by another jump back of great length. Then a lover turns up for Suzanne, the captain"s daughter, and we end the fifth volume with a wedding procession in ten distinct carriages.
[Sidenote: _Ludovica._]
_Ludovica ou Le Testament de Waterloo_, a much later book, was, the author tells us, finished in June 1830 under the fiendish tyranny of "all-powerful bigots, implacable Jesuits, and restored marquises"; but the glorious days of July came; a new dynasty, "jeune, forte, sincere"
(Louis Philippe "young and sincere"!), was on the throne; the ship of state entered the vast sea of liberty; France revived; all Europe seemed to start from its shroud--and _Ludovica_ got published. But the author"s joy was a little dashed by the sense that, unlike its half-score of forerunners, the book had not to battle with the bigots and the Jesuits and the "restored marquises"--the last a phrase which has considerable charms of suggestion.
All this, of course, has its absurd side; but it shows, by way of redemption, that Ducange, in one of the many agreeable phrases of his country, "did not go to it with a dead hand." He seems, indeed, to have been a thoroughly "live" person, if not a very wise one: and _Ludovica_ begins with a rousing situation--a crowd and block in the streets of Paris, brought about by n.o.body quite knows what, but ending in a pistol-shot, a dead body, the flight of the a.s.sa.s.sin, the dispersal of the crowd by the _gendarmes_, and finally the discovery by a young painter, who has just returned from seeing his mother at Versailles, of a very youthful, very pretty, and very terrified girl, speaking an unknown tongue, and not understanding French, who has fled for refuge into a dark alley ending in a flight of cellar-steps. It is to the point that among the confused cries attending the disturbance have been some about a girl being carried off.
It must be admitted that this is not unpromising, and I really think _Ludovica_ (with a caution as to the excessive prolixity of its kind and time) might be recommended to lovers of the detective novel, of which it is a rather early sample. I have confessed, in a later chapter, that this particular "wanity" is not my favourite; but I found myself getting through M. Victor Ducange"s six volumes--burdened rather than ballasted as they are by political outbursts, rather "thorn-crackling" attempts at humour, and the like--with considerably less effort than has sometimes attended similar excursions. If they had been three instead of six I hardly think I should have felt the collar at all. The superiority to _L"Artiste et le Soldat_ is remarkable. When honest Jules Janin attributed to Ducange "une erudition peu commune," he must either have been confusing Victor with Charles, or, which is more probable, exhibiting his own lack of the quality he refers to. Ducange does quote tags of Latin: but erudition which makes Proserpine the daughter of _Cybele_, though certainly _peu commune_ in one sense, is not so in the other. The purposes and the jokes, as has been said, may bore; and though the style is better than Ducray"s, it would not of itself "over-stimulate." But the man is really almost prodigal of incident, and does not manage it badly.
Here, you have Ludovica"s father and mother (the former of whom has been crimped to perform a marriage under the impression that he is a priest, whereas he is really a colonel of dragoons) escaping through a hole at the back of a picture from a skylighted billiard-room. There, an enterprising young man, "sitting out" at a ball, to attend which he has disguised himself, kisses his partner,[72] and by that pleasing operation dislodges half his borrowed moustache. It falls, alas! on her hand, she takes it for a spider, screams, and so attracts an unwelcome public. Later in the same evening he finds himself shut up in the young lady"s bedroom, and hears her and her mother talking secrets which very nearly concern him. The carrying off of Ludovica from Poland to Paris is very smartly managed (I am not sure that the great Alexander or one of his "young men" did not borrow some details from it for the arrest of D"Artagnan and Porthos after their return from England), and the way in which she and a double of hers, Trinette van Poupenheim, are mixed up is really clever. So is the general cross-purposing. Cabmen turn up just when they should; and though letters dropped out of pockets are as common as blackberries, I know few better excuses for such carelessness than the fact that you have pulled the letter out with a silk wrapper, which you proceed to fold tenderly round the beautiful neck of a damsel in a cab somewhere about midnight. A holograph will made on the eve of Waterloo and preserved for fifteen years by the faithful depositary; a good doctor, of course; many bad Jesuits, of course; another, and this time virtuous, though very impudent, carrying-off of the _other_ young woman from the clutches of the hated _congreganistes_;[73] a boghei;[74]
a jokei; a third _enlevement_ of the real Ludovica, who escapes by a cellar-trap; and many other agreeable things, end in the complete defeat of the wicked and the marriage of the good to the tune of _four_ couples, the thing being thus done to the last in Ducange"s usual handsome manner.[75] I do not know whether _Ludovica_ was melodramatised. _Le Jesuite_ of the same year by Ducange and the great Pixerecourt looks rather like it; and so does _Il y a Seize Ans_ of a year later, which he seems to have written alone. But if it was not it ought to have been. The half-moustache-spider-kissing-screaming scene, and the brilliant youth retreating through the laughing crowd with the other half of his decoration, might have reconciled even me to the theatre.
[Sidenote: Auguste Ricard--_L"Ouvreuse de Loges_.]
A short account of the last novel (except _Le Solitaire_) mentioned above must stand for sample, not merely of the dozen other works of its author, Auguste Ricard, but for many more advertised on the fly-leaves of this time, and long since made "alms for oblivion." Their t.i.tles, _Le Portier_, _La Grisette_, _Le Marchand de Coco_, by Ricard himself, on one side, _L"Homme des Ruines_, _Bleack-_ (sic) _Beard_, _La Chambre Rouge_ (by a certain Dinocourt) on the other, almost tell their whole story--the story of a range (to use English terms once more) between the cheap followers of Anne Radcliffe and G. W. M. Reynolds. _L"Ouvreuse de Loges_, through which I have conscientiously worked, inclines to the latter kind, being anti-monarchic, anti-clerical, anti-aristocratic (though it admits that these aristocrats are terrible fellows for behaving in a way which the _roturier_ cannot imitate, however hard he tries), and anti-things-in-general. Its t.i.tle-heroine is a bad old woman, who "keeps the door" in the Elizabethan sense as well as theatrically. Its real hero is a _ci-devant_ duke; malversator under the Republic; supposed but not real victim of the Septembriseurs; atheist; winner and loser of several fortunes; and at last _particulier_ of Paris under a feigned name, with an apartment full of _bric-a-brac_, a drawer full of little packets of money, after the expenditure of the last of which he proposes to blow his brains out; tall man of stature and of his hands, etc., etc. The book is in a way one of purpose, inculcating the danger of wooing opera-girls, and instancing it with three very weak young men, another duke, a rich young _parvenu_, and a musician. Of these the first and the last are, with their wives, rather arbitrarily saved from the clutches into which they have fallen, by the mysterious "M. Luc," while the other comes to a very bad end. The novel, which is in five volumes, is, like most of those mentioned in this section, not of the kind that one would read by preference. But it is a very fair specimen of the "below stairs" romance which sometimes prepares the way for others, fit to take their places above stairs. And so it has its place here.[76]
[Sidenote: The importance of these minors not inconsiderable.]
It has been pointed out more than once that though neglect of such books as these may be perfectly natural and probable in the average reader, such neglect--and still more any contempt of them--is, though it may not be unnatural, utterly unscholarly and uncritical from the point of view of history. Their authors themselves learnt something from their own mistaken experiments, and their successors learnt a good deal more.
They found that "sculduddery" was not a necessary attraction. Ducray does not avail himself of it, and Ducange seems to have left it off.
They did not give up, but they came less and less to depend upon, extravagant incident, violent peripeteias, cheap supernaturalities, etc.
But the most important thing about them perhaps is the evidence they give of learning what has been called their "business." Already, to a great extent if not wholly, that earliest obsession and preoccupation of the novelist--the idle anxiety to answer the question, "How do you know all these things?"--has begun to disappear. This is rather less the case with another foolish fancy--the belief that it is necessary to account not merely for what we call the consequents, but for the antecedents of all the characters (at least those of any importance) that you introduce. There can be no doubt that this was one of the objects, as it was part of the original cause, of the mistaken _Histoire_ system, which made you, when or soon after you introduced a personage, "tell us all about it," as the children say, in a separate inset tale. You did not now do this, but you made, as in the capital instance of Victor Ducange, huge diversions, retrospects, episodes, in the body of the story itself.
This method, being much less skippable than the inset by those who did not want it, was not likely to continue, and so applied the cure to its own ill. And yet further, as novels multiplied, the supposed necessity of very great length tended to disappear. The seven or eight volumes of the eighteenth century, which had replaced the twelves and twenties of the seventeenth, shrank to six (_Ludovica_), five (_L"Artiste et Le Soldat_ and _l"Ouvreuse de Loges_), four (_Le Pet.i.t Carillonneur_), and then three or two, though later the historical kind swelled again, and the almost invariable single volume did not establish itself till the middle of the century. As a consequence again of this, the enormous delay over single situations tended, though very slowly, to disappear.
It is one of the merits of Pigault-Lebrun that he is not a great sinner in verbosity and prolixity: his contemporary minors of this volume are far more peccant in this kind.
[Sidenote: The Vicomte d"Arlincourt--_Le Solitaire_.]
_Le Solitaire_ is a book which I have been "going to read" for some fifty years, but by some accident did not till the present occasion. I knew it generally as one of the vedettes of Romanticism, and as extremely popular in its own day: also as having been, with its author"s other work in poem and play and prose fiction, the subject of some ridicule. But till I read it, and some things about it, I never knew how well it deserved that ridicule and yet how very popular it was, and how really important is its position in the history of the Romantic movement, and so of the French novel and French literature generally. It was published at the end of January 1821, and at the end of November a seventh edition appeared, with an elaborate _Io Triumphe!_ from the publisher. Not only had there been those seven editions (which, it must be remembered in fairness, represent at least seventy at the other end of the century[77]), but it had been translated into four foreign languages; _fourteen_ dramas had been based on it, some half of which had been at least conditionally accepted for performance; painters of distinction were at work on subjects from it; it had reached the stages of Madrid and of London (where one critic had called it "a very beautiful composition"), while French approval had been practically unanimous. Nay, a game had been founded thereon, and--crowning, but perhaps rather ominous honour--somebody had actually published a burlesque imitation.
I have seldom read greater rubbish than _Le Solitaire_. It is a historical-romantic story (the idolatrous preface refers both to Scott and to Byron), and bears also strong, if sometimes distinctly unfortunate, resemblances to Mrs. Radcliffe, the Germans, and Chateaubriand. The scene is that of Charles the Bold"s defeat at Morat: and the "Solitary" is Charles himself--the identification of his body after the decisive overthrow at Nancy _was_ a little doubtful--who has hidden there partly to expiate, by good deeds, his crime of ma.s.sacring the monks of the adjoining Abbey of Underlach, and partly to avail himself of a local tradition as to a _Fantome Sanglant_, who haunts the neighbourhood, and can be conveniently played by the aid of a crimson mantle. The slaughter of the monks, however, is not the only event or circ.u.mstance which links Underlach to the crimes of Charles, for it is now inhabited by a Baron d"Herstall (whose daughter, seduced by the Duke, has died early) and his niece, Elodie de Saint-Maur, whose father, a former favourite of the Burgundian, that prince has killed in one of his fits of rage. Throw in a local priest, Anselm, and you have what may be called the chief characters; but a good Count Ecbert de Norindall, a wicked Prince of Palzo, and divers others figure. Everybody, including the mysterious Bleeding-Phantom-Solitary-Duke himself, falls in love with Elodie,[78] and she is literally "carried off" (that is to say, shouldered) several times, once by the alarming person in the crimson shroud, but always rescued, till it is time for her to die and be followed by him. There are endless "alarums and excursions"; some of the _not_ explained supernatural; woods, caves, ruins, underground pa.s.sages--entirely at discretion. Catherine Morland would have been perfectly happy with it.
It is not, however, because it contains these things that it has been called "rubbish." A book might contain them all--Mrs. Radcliffe"s own do, with the aggravation of the explained wonders--and not be that. It is because of the extraordinary silliness of the style and sentiments. I should imagine that M. d"Arlincourt was trying to write like his brother viscount, the author of _Les Martyrs_, and a pretty mess he has made of it. "Le char de la nuit roulait silencieux sur les plaines du ciel" (p.
3). "L"entree du jour venait de s"elancer radieuse du palais de l"Aurore." "L"amante de l"erebe et la mere des Songes[79] avait acheve la moitie de sa course tenebreuse," etc., etc. The historic present is constantly battling with the more ordinary tenses--the very same sentence sometimes contains both. And this half-blown bladder of a style conveys sentiments as feebly pompous as itself. The actual story, though no great thing, is, if you could strip it of its froth and fustian, not so very bad: as told it is deplorable.
At the same time its mere existence--much more the fury of acceptance which for the moment greeted it--shows what that moment wanted. It wanted Romance, and in default of better it took _Le Solitaire_.
An occasional contrast of an almost violent kind may be permitted in a work requiring something more than merely catalogue-composition. It can hardly be found more appropriately than by concluding this chapter, which began with the account of Paul de k.o.c.k, by one of Charles Nodier.
[Sidenote: Nodier.]
To the student and lover of literature there is scarcely a more interesting figure in French literary history, though there are many greater. Except a few sc.r.a.ps (which, by one of the odd ways of the book-world, actually do not appear in some editions of his _Oeuvres Choisies_), he did nothing which had the quality of positive greatness in it. But he was a considerable influence: and even more of a "sign."
Younger than Chateaubriand and Madame de Stael, but far older than any of the men of 1830 proper, he may be said in a way to have, in his single person, played in France that part of schoolmaster to Romanticism, which had been distributed over two generations and many personalities in England; and which Germany, after a fashion, did without, at the cost of a few undisciplined and quickly overbloomed master-years. Although he was born in 1780, nine years before the Revolution itself, he underwent German and English influences early, "took" Wertherism, Terrorism,[80] and other maladies of that _fin de siecle_ with the utmost facility, and produced divers ultra-Romantic things long before 1830 itself. But he had any number of literary and other avocations or distractions. He was a kind of entomologist and botanist, a kind of philologist (one is a little astonished to find that rather curious and very charlatanish person and parson Sir Herbert Croft, whose secretary Nodier was for a time, dignified in French books by the name of "_philologue_ Anglais"), a good deal more than a kind of bibliographer (he spent the last twenty years of his life as Librarian of the a.r.s.enal), and an enthusiastic and stimulating, though not exactly trustworthy, critic. But he concerns us here, of course, for his prose fiction, which, if not very bulky, is numerous in its individual examples, and is animated in the best of them by a spirit almost new in French and, though often not sufficiently caught and concentrated, present to almost the highest degrees in at least three examples--the last part of _La Fee aux Miettes_, _La Legende de Soeur Beatrix_, and, above all, _Ines de las Sierras_.
For those who delight in literary filiations and genealogies, the kind of story in which Nodier excelled (and in which, though some of his own were written after 1830, he may truly be considered as "schoolmaster" to Merimee and Gautier and Gerard de Nerval and all their fellows), may be, without violence or exaggeration, said to be a new form of the French fairy-tale, divested of common form, and readjusted with the help of the German _Marchen_ and fantasy-pieces. _Le Diable Amoureux_ had, no doubt, set the fashion of this kind earlier; but that story, charming as it is, is still scarcely "Romantic." Nodier is so wholly; and it is fair to remember that Hoffmann himself was rather a contemporary of his, and subject to the same influences, than a predecessor.[81]
[Sidenote: His short stories.]
The best collection of Nodier"s short tales contains nine pieces: _Trilby_, _Le Songe d"Or_, _Baptiste Montauban_, _La Fee aux Miettes_, _La Combe de l"Homme mort_, _Ines de las Sierras_, _Smarra_, _La Neuvaine de la Chandeleur_, and _La Legende de Soeur Beatrix_. Of these I believe _Trilby_, _La Fee aux Miettes_, and _Smarra_ have been the greatest favourites, and were pretty certainly the most influential in France. My own special delights are _Le Songe d"Or_, _Ines de las Sierras_, and _Soeur Beatrix_, with part of the _Fee_. But none is without its attractions, and the Preface to the _Fee aux Miettes_, which is almost a separate piece, has something of the quintessential in that curious quality which Nodier possesses almost alone in French or with Gerard de Nerval and Louis Bertrand only. English readers may "perceive a good deal of [Charles] Lamb in it," with touches of Sterne and De Quincey and Poe.
[Sidenote: _Trilby._]
It is much to be feared that more people in England nowadays a.s.sociate the name of "Trilby" with the late Mr. Du Maurier than with Nodier, and that more still a.s.sociate it with the notion of a hat than with either of the men of genius who used it in literature.
So mighty Byron, dead and turned to clay, Gave name to collars for full many a day; And Ramillies, grave of Gallic boasts so big, Found most perpetuation in a wig.[82]
The original story united divers attractions for its first readers in 1822, combining the older fashion of Ossian with the newer one of Scott, infusing the supernatural, which was one great bait of the coming Romanticism, and steeping the whole cake in the tears of the newer rather than the older "Sensibility." "Trilby, le Lutin d"Argal"[83]
(Nodier himself explains that he alters the spelling here with pure phonetic intent, so as to keep the p.r.o.nunciation for French eyes _and_ ears[84]), is a spirit who haunts the cabin of the fisherman Dougal to make a sort of sylph-like love to his wife Jeannie. He means and does no harm, but he is naturally a nuisance to the husband, on whom he plays tricks to keep him away from home, and at length rather frightens the wife. They procure, from a neighbouring monastery, a famous exorcist monk, who, though he cannot directly punish Trilby, lays on him sentence of exclusion from the home of the pair, unless one of them invites him, under penalty of imprisonment for a thousand years. How the story turns to Jeannie"s death and Trilby"s duress can be easily imagined, and may be read with pleasure. I confess that to me it seems pretty, but just a little mawkish.[85] Perhaps I am a brute.
[Sidenote: _Le Songe d"Or._]
_Le Songe d"Or_, on the other hand, though in a way tragic, and capable of being allegorised almost _ad infinitum_ in its sense of some of the riddles of the painful earth, is not in the least sentimental, and is told, till just upon the end, with a certain tender irony. The author called it "Fable Levantine," and the venerable Lo[c]kman is introduced in it. But I have read it several times without caring (perhaps this was reprehensible) to ascertain whether it is in the recognised Lokman bunch or not. All I know is that here Nodier and not Lokman has told it, and that the result is delightful. First a beautiful "kardouon," the prettiest of lizards, all azure and ruby and gold, finds in the desert a heap of gold-pieces. He breaks his teeth on them, but is sure that such nice-looking things must be good to eat--probably slices of a root which some careless person has left too long in the sun--and that, if properly treated, they will make a famous winter provision. So he conveys them with much care and exertion, one by one, to a soft bed of fresh moss, just the thing to catch the dew, under the shadow of a fine old tree.
And, being naturally tired, he goes to sleep beside them. And this is the history of the kardouon.
Now there was in that neighbourhood a poor woodcutter named Xaloun--deformed, and not much more than half-witted, but amiable--who had taken a great fancy to the kardouon as being a beautiful beast, and likely to make a charming friend. But the kardouon, after the manner of shy lizards, had by no means reciprocated this affection, and took shelter behind stones and tree-stumps when advances were made to him. So that the children, and even his own family, including his mother, used to jeer at Xaloun and tell him to go to his friend. On this particular occasion, the day after the kardouon"s _trouvaille_, Xaloun actually found the usually wide-awake animal sleeping. And as the place, with the moss and the great tree-shadow and a running stream close by, was very attractive, Xaloun lay down by the lizard to wait till he should wake.
But as he himself might go to sleep, and the animal, accustomed to the sun, might get a chill in the shade, Xaloun put his own coat over him.
And he too slept, after thinking how nice the kardouon"s friendship would be when they _both_ woke. And this is the history of Xaloun.
Next day again there came a fakir named Abhoc, who was on a pretended pilgrimage, but really on the look-out for what he might get. He saw a windfall at once, was sure that neither of its sleeping guardians could keep it from him, and very piously thanked the Almighty for rewarding his past devotion and self-sacrifice by opening a merry and splendid life to him. But as, with such custodians, the treasure could be "lifted" without the slightest difficulty, he too lay down by it, and went to sleep, dreaming of Schiraz wine in golden cups and a harem peopled with mortal houris. And this is the history of the fakir Abhoc.
A day and a night pa.s.sed, and the morrow came. Again there pa.s.sed a wise doctor of laws, Abhac by name, who was editing a text to which a hundred and thirty-two different interpretations had been given by Eastern c.o.kes and Littletons. He had just hit upon the hundred and thirty-third--of course the true one--when the sight described already struck him and put the discovery quite out of his head, to be lost for ever. As became a jurist, he was rather a more practical person than the woodcutter or the fakir, if not than the lizard. His human predecessors were, evidently, thieves, and must be brought to justice, but it would be well to secure "pieces of conviction." So he began to wrap up the coins in his turban and carry them away. But there were so many, and it was so heavy, that he grew very weary. So he too laid him down and slept. And this is the history of the doctor Abhac.
But on the fifth day there appeared a much more formidable person than the others, and also a much more criminous. This was the "King of the Desert"--bandit and blackmailer of caravans. Being apparently a bandit of letters, he reflected that, though lizards, being, after all, miniature dragons, were immemorial guardians of treasure, they could not have any right in it, but were most inconveniently likely to wake if any noise were made. The others were three to one--too heavy odds by daylight. But if he sat down by them till night came he could stab them one by one while they were asleep, and perhaps breakfast on the kardouon--said to be quite good meat. And he went to sleep himself. And this is the history of the King of the Desert.
But next day again the venerable Lokman pa.s.sed by, and _he_ saw that the tree was a upas tree and the sleepers were dead. And he understood it all, and he pa.s.sed his hand through his beard and fell on his face, and gave glory to G.o.d. And then he buried the three covetous ones in separate graves under the upas itself. But he put Xaloun in a safer place, that his friends might come and do right to him; and he buried the kardouon apart on a little slope facing the sun, such as lizards love, and near Xaloun. And, lastly, having stroked his beard again, he buried the treasure too. But he was very old: and he was very weary when he had finished this, and G.o.d took him.
And on the seventh day there came an angel and promised Xaloun Paradise, and made a mark on his tomb with a feather from his own wing.
And he kissed the forehead of Lokman and made him rise from the dead, and took him to the seventh heaven itself. And this is the history of the angel. It all happened ages ago, and though the name of Lokman has lived always through them, so has the shadow of the upas tree.
And this is the history of the world.
Only a child"s goody-goody tale? Possibly. But for my part I know no better philosophy and, at least as Nodier told it, not much better literature.
[Sidenote: Minors.]
_Baptiste Montauban_ and _La Combe de l"Homme mort_ are, though scarcely shorter than _Le Songe d"Or_, slighter. The first is a pathetic but not quite consummate story of "love and madness" in a much better sense than that in which Nodier"s eccentric employer, Sir Herbert Croft, used the words as his t.i.tle for the history of Parson Hackman and Miss Ray.[86]
The second ("combe," the omission of which from the official French dictionaries Nodier characteristically denounces, is our own "combe"--a deep valley; from, I suppose, the Celtic Cwm; and p.r.o.nounced by Devonshire folk in a manner which no other Englishman, born east of the line between the mouths of the Parret and the Axe, can master) is a good but not supreme _diablerie_ of a not uncommon kind. _La Neuvaine de la Chandeleur_ is longer, and from some points of view the most pathetic of all. A young man, hearing some girls talk of a much-elaborated ceremony like those of Hallowe"en in Scotland and of St. Agnes" Eve in Keats, by which (in this case) _both_ s.e.xes can see their fated lovers, tries it, and discerns, in dream or vision, his ideal as well as his fate. She turns out to be an actual girl whom he has never seen, but whom both his father and her father--old friends--earnestly desire that he should marry. He travels to her home, is enthusiastically greeted, and finds her even more bewitching than her wraith or whatever it is to be called. But she is evidently in bad health, and dies the same night of aneurism. Not guested in the house, but trysted in the morning, he goes there, and seeing preparations in the street for a funeral, asks of some one, being only half alarmed, "_Qui est mort?_" The answer is, "Mademoiselle Cecile Savernier."
Had these words terminated the story it would have been nearly perfect.
Two more pages of the luckless lover"s progress to resignation from despair and projected suicide seem to me to blunt the poignancy.