Explore the full ebook collection and download it now at textbookfull.

com

Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests Writing

Results Sections and Creating Tables and Figures
1st Edition Amanda Ross

https://textbookfull.com/product/basic-and-advanced-
statistical-tests-writing-results-sections-and-creating-
tables-and-figures-1st-edition-amanda-ross/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Browse and Get More Ebook Downloads Instantly at https://textbookfull.com

Click here to visit textbookfull.com and download textbook now
 Your digital treasures (PDF, ePub, MOBI) await
Download instantly and pick your perfect format...

Read anywhere, anytime, on any device!

Basic Chemical Concepts and Tables 1st Edition Steven L.

Hoenig

https://textbookfull.com/product/basic-chemical-concepts-and-
tables-1st-edition-steven-l-hoenig/

textbookfull.com

Statistical analysis of contingency tables 1st Edition

Fagerland

https://textbookfull.com/product/statistical-analysis-of-contingency-
tables-1st-edition-fagerland/

textbookfull.com

Basic Chemical Concepts and Tables, 2nd Edition Steven L.

Hoenig

https://textbookfull.com/product/basic-chemical-concepts-and-
tables-2nd-edition-steven-l-hoenig/

textbookfull.com

Spock Up and Running Writing Expressive Tests in Java and

Groovy 1st Edition Fletcher

https://textbookfull.com/product/spock-up-and-running-writing-
expressive-tests-in-java-and-groovy-1st-edition-fletcher/

textbookfull.com
Simple Statistical Tests for Geography 1st Edition Danny
Mccarroll

https://textbookfull.com/product/simple-statistical-tests-for-
geography-1st-edition-danny-mccarroll/

textbookfull.com

Statistical Methods An Introduction to Basic Statistical

Concepts and Analysis 2nd Edition Cheryl Ann Willard

https://textbookfull.com/product/statistical-methods-an-introduction-
to-basic-statistical-concepts-and-analysis-2nd-edition-cheryl-ann-
willard/
textbookfull.com

Decode Mathematics Advanced Topic Tests 1st Edition

Thushan Hettige

https://textbookfull.com/product/decode-mathematics-advanced-topic-
tests-1st-edition-thushan-hettige/

textbookfull.com

Linear and Nonlinear Circuits Basic and Advanced Concepts

Mauro Parodi

https://textbookfull.com/product/linear-and-nonlinear-circuits-basic-
and-advanced-concepts-mauro-parodi/

textbookfull.com

Analysis in Nutrition Research: Principles of Statistical

Methodology and Interpretation of the Results 1st Edition
George Pounis
https://textbookfull.com/product/analysis-in-nutrition-research-
principles-of-statistical-methodology-and-interpretation-of-the-
results-1st-edition-george-pounis/
textbookfull.com
Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests
Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests
Writing Results Sections and Creating Tables and Figures

Amanda Ross
A. A. Ross Consulting and Research, USA
and
Victor L. Willson
Texas A&M University, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6351-084-4 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6351-085-1 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6351-086-8 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

For many of our analyses, the authors used the BASC data set, Results of Dataset
Analysis from the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2).
Copyright © 2004 NCS Pearson, Inc. Analysis included with permission. All rights
reserved.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2017 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ix

Part I: Basic Statistical Tests

Chapter 1: Descriptive Statistics 3

Brief Description 3
Writing a Results Section 5
Results Section Write-up 6

Chapter 2: One-Sample T-Test 9

Brief Description 9
Writing a Results Section 11
Results Section Write-up 12

Chapter 3: Independent Samples T-Test 13

Brief Description 13
Writing a Results Section 15
Results Section Write-up 16

Chapter 4: Paired Samples T-Test 17

Brief Description 17
Writing a Results Section 18
Results Section Write-up 19

Chapter 5: One-Way ANOVA 21

Brief Description 21
Writing a Results Section 23
Results Section Write-up 24

Chapter 6: Factorial ANOVA 25

Brief Description 25
Writing a Results Section 28
Results Section Write-up 29

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 7: MANOVA31
Brief Description 31
Writing a Results Section 35
Results Section Write-up 37

Chapter 8: Linear Regression 39

Brief Description 39
Writing a Results Section 43
Results Section Write-up 46

Chapter 9: Multiple Regression 49

Brief Description 49
Writing a Results Section 57
Results Section Write-up 58

Part II: Advanced Statistical Tests

Chapter 10: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Using at Least

Two Sets of Variables (in Two Blocks) 61
Brief Description 61
Writing a Results Section 65
Results Section Write-up 68
Results Section Write-up 73

Chapter 11: Multiple Regression with Two Continuous Predictors

and the Interactions between Them: Data Centered 75
Brief Description 75
Writing a Results Section 81
Results Section Write-up and Table 86
Chapter 12: Two or Three Factor Crossed ANOVA87
Brief Description 87
Post Hoc Tests 92
Writing a Results Section 102
Post Hoc Tests 108
Post Hoc Tests 114
Results Section Write-up 119

Chapter 13: ATI Analysis (ANCOVA with Interaction) 121

Brief Description 121
Writing a Results Section 131
Results Section Write-up 143

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 14: Multiple Regression with at Least Three Predictors: Use NORM
to Impute Missing Data 145
Brief Description 145
Writing a Results Section 149
Results Section Write-up 159

Chapter 15: Structural Equation Model Analysis with at Least One

Indirect Path 161
Brief Description 161
Model Fit Summary 165
Writing a Results Section 167
Results Section Write-up 179

Chapter 16: MANOVA and Follow-up Discriminant Analysis with at

Least Three Groups and Four Independent Variables 183
Brief Description 183
Writing a Results Section 205
Post Hoc Tests 212
Results Section Write-up219

vii
 INTRODUCTION

Many researchers have difficulty knowing how to properly write a results section for
a scholarly work. They may comb through countless journals, trying to find tables
and/or figures that match the statistical test used in their design. Statistics courses do
a fine job of teaching graduate students how to run various basic and advanced tests.
However, students are often left to their own devices to determine how to write the
results section and create the appropriate tables and/or figures in APA format.
This book presents a concise look at basic and advanced statistical tests, providing
a brief description of each and examples of research problems that yield themselves
to each particular test. Revealing the core strength of each chapter, a sample scenario
and results section write-up are provided. Depending upon the test and need, a
sample table and/or figure may be provided.
This book serves as a reference manual for all professionals in the psychology,
sociology and education fields. Actually, this book can assist professional researchers
in any field, including medical research. By providing specific examples of situations
aligned with each type of test, the reader can become adept at understanding what
different variables (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) look like in real-world
problem situations.
While other books provide an in-depth examination of each test, how to run each
test, and ways to interpret results, this book provides the missing piece in the literature
out there. Graduate students, teachers, faculty, social workers, psychologists, and
other professional researchers now have access to a guide that includes the name of
the test, a brief description (without all of the technical jargon), examples, a sample
scenario, a sample results section write-up, and accompanying tables and/or figures!
When having difficulty knowing which information to extract from the output,
simply turn to each results section. If you aren’t sure which information to place in
the write-up and which to place in a table, simply look at the examples!
We do hope this book/reference manual is helpful to you. As a graduate student
researcher, this sort of book would have helped me immensely throughout my
research endeavors. It provides us great pleasure to share this reference with you.
Good luck with all your current and future research studies!

For many of our analyses, we used the BASC data set, Results of Dataset analysis
from the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2).
Copyright © 2004 NCS Pearson, Inc. Analysis included with permission. All rights
reserved.

ix
 PART I
BASIC STATISTICAL TESTS
 CHAPTER 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The field of statistics can be divided into the categories of descriptive statistics and
inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics are used to characterize a sample and
include computations that do not require any inference about a population, such
as frequencies, percentages, median, mean, mode, standard deviation, z-scores,
variance, range, and interquartile range. Such statistics prove very useful when
sample sizes are not large enough to warrant other tests.
Frequencies and percentages are low-level quantitative approaches that simply report
either a count or a ratio. They can be easily represented, using bar graphs or histograms.
Scores are often grouped, such as into fourths, termed quartiles, or tenths, termed deciles.
Measures of the center of a distribution of data include the median, mean, and
mode. The median represents the middle value (or average of the two central values)
of the data, when data are arranged in ascending order. The median is not affected
by extreme scores and should be used as the measure of center when data includes
extreme outliers or is not approximately normally distributed. The mean is equal to
the ratio of the sum of all scores to the total number of scores. The mean is affected
by extreme scores. The mean is appropriate when data is normally or symmetrically
distributed. The mode is simply the data point that occurs most often in a data
set. The mode is often considered the least useful measure of center, due to the
possibility that the most frequent score occurs well away from the center and is not
very representative of most scores.
Measures of deviation or spread of scores include standard deviation, variance,
range, and interquartile range. The standard deviation of a set of scores is related to
the typical deviation of a score from the mean, somewhat analogous to an average
distance from the mean. The variance of a set of scores is simply the square of
the standard deviation. The range is equal to the difference between the maximum
and minimum score. The interquartile range is the difference between the score
representing the third quartile, and the score representing the first quartile. The first
quartile score represents the median of the lower half of the scores, while the third
quartile score represents the median of the upper half of the scores.
Z-scores are standardized scores, with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.
Z-scores may be useful when comparing an individual score to a population mean,
or when comparing a sample mean to a population mean, when given the population
standard deviation. They can be used with any set of scores, often to interpret or
compare two scores computed using different metrics. For example, a student might

3
CHAPTER 1

have a mean of 88 on one test and 83 on another. However, the mean for the first test
was 74, standard deviation 12, while the mean of the second test was 66, standard
deviation 15. The respective z-scores are 1.17 and 1.13, virtually identical in relation
to their means, even though it was not obvious from the original data.
Note. For a normal distribution in a population, a z-distribution based on the
normal curve, may be used whenever the population standard deviation is known.
A z-score may be interpreted as the number of standard deviations a value falls
above or below a mean. For example, suppose a student’s score on a statistics exam
shows a z-score of −1.5. This z-score reveals that the student’s score is 1.5 standard
deviations below the class mean for the exam.
X −m
The formula, z = , may be used to compare an individual score to
s
a population mean, where X represents the individual score, μ represents the
population mean, and σ represents the population standard deviation. Note. If only
a sample mean and population standard deviation are available, the sample mean
may be substituted for the population mean, in the formula shown above. However,
if the population standard deviation is not known, and only the sample mean and
sample standard deviation are available, a t-distribution should be used, instead. This
distribution is a bit wider and flatter than the normal or “bell” curve since it accounts
for the uncertainty in the standard deviation.
X −m
When comparing a sample mean to a population mean, the formula, z = , may
s
n
be used, where X represents the sample mean and n represents the sample size.
Let’s look at a couple of examples, where descriptive statistics may be used.

Example 1

You want to compare the number of articles that are mixed methods to those that
are not mixed methods. You decide to compute frequencies and then calculate
percentages from those frequencies.
# articles mixed = 12
# articles not mixed = 34
% mixed = 12/(12 + 34) ≈ 0.26

Example 2

You want to determine the deviation of math test scores from the class mean. You
decide to calculate the mean, standard deviation, variance, and z-score.
Scores: 44, 47, 58, 63, 74, 77, 79, 83, 84, 88, 91, 93, 96, 97
Average = (44 + 47 + 58 + 63 + 74 + 77 + 79 + 83 + 84 + 88 + 91 + 93 + 96 + 97)/14

4
 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

= 1074/14 ≈ 76.71
Variance = [ (44 – 76.71)2 + (47 – 76.71)2 + … + (97 – 76.71)2 ] / (14 – 1)
   = (3976.86) / 13 ≈ 305.91
Standard deviation = square root(Variance) ≈ 17.5
z-scores for Scores:
–1.87, –1.70, –1.07, –0.78, –0.15, 0.02, 0.13, 0.36, 0.42, 0.65, 0.82, 0.93, 1.10, 1.16
So, the score of 44 is 1.87 standard deviations below the mean.
Note. Since we calculated the mean that we used for the variance calculation, the
averaging used to get the variance is reduced by 1 unit, corresponding to the information
we already accounted for by calculating the mean. This is called degrees of freedom,
corresponding to the amount of information we started with, in this case 14 scores.

WRITING A RESULTS SECTION

Scenario Used
We examined descriptive statistics for the variable of attitude to school.

Let’s now look at a sample results section write-up for reporting descriptive statistics,
using the scenario described above.
The steps we used in SPSS were:
Analyze
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptives
Options
Check Descriptives options you need (includes options of skewness and kurtosis)
Manually calculate the z-scores, which show the number of standard deviations
a score is above or below the mean. (We could have also calculated the interquartile
range, standard deviation, and variance, as we did for Example 2.)
We calculated the z-scores for the median, minimum score, and maximum score.
These were calculated as:

X − m 49 − 49.72
z= = ≈ −0.07
s 9.819

X − m 38 − 49.72
z= = ≈ −1.19
s 9.819

X − m 74 − 49.72
z= = ≈ 2.47
s 9.819

5
CHAPTER 1

The SPSS frequency output is shown below:

RESULTS SECTION WRITE-UP

The mean score for attitude to school was 49.72, with a standard deviation of
approximately 9.82 points. The minimum and maximum attitude to school scores
were 38 and 74, respectively. The mode is both 38 and 45. Since the mean is greater
than the median, and the mean is pulled towards the tail of a distribution, this
distribution is positively skewed. Refer to Figure 1.1 to see the histogram of the data.
The skewness is 0.731, with standard error of skewness of 0.123. The kurtosis
is −0.307, with standard error of kurtosis of 0.246. Skewness and kurtosis values
between ±2 indicate that the distribution may be considered to be approximately
normal. In other words, it isn’t too skewed in either direction and has an approximately
normal shape. Since the skewness and kurtosis are in the acceptable range of values,
it makes sense that the standard errors would be small. Figure 1.2 shows the overlay
of the normal curve on this distribution.
The median of 49 is approximately 0.07 standard deviations below the mean. The
minimum score of 38 is approximately 1.19 standard deviations below the mean.
The maximum score of 74 is approximately 2.47 standard deviations above the
mean. Therefore, the median is located within 68% of the scores, the minimum score
is located within 95% of the scores, and the maximum score is located within 99.7%
of the scores. In other words, the maximum score is in the interval that contains only
5% of the scores. Stated another way, this value is significantly different from the
mean of 49.72, if using 0.05 as the alpha level.

6
 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Figure 1.1. Attitude to school histogram

Figure 1.2. Attitude to school histogram with normal curve overlay

7
 CHAPTER 2

ONE-SAMPLE T-TEST

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A one-sample t-test compares the mean of a sample to an a priori score (or

population mean). The test uses either a known population standard deviation or a
sample standard deviation. The test analyzes interval scores. Normal distribution is
not required but if data are badly skewed, a nonparametric test is preferred, such as
a binomial test with each case scored as above (1) or below (0) the a priori mean.
Note. When only a sample standard deviation is known, a t-test should be used, or if
a population standard deviation can be specified, a z-test should be used.
X −m
A t-value may be determined using the formula, t = , where s represents the
s
n
sample standard deviation. The resulting t-value may then be compared to the critical
t-value, found in the t-distribution table, for the appropriate degrees of freedom
(number of cases minus 1) and desired level of significance. If the calculated t-value
is less than the critical t-value, the null hypothesis (hypothesis of no difference)
should not be rejected, with no significant difference between the sample mean
and population mean declared. However, if the calculated t-value is larger than the
critical t-value, the null hypothesis should be rejected, with a significant difference
in means declared.
For the population standard deviation-known situation, s in the formula above is
replaced with σ, the known value, and t is replaced by z, the normal curve statistic.
Then, the normal distribution is referenced to compare the observed significance of
the z-statistic with the desired level.
A graphing calculator, excel spreadsheet, SPSS, or other software package, may
be used to calculate the t-value and determine significance. These tools may also be
used to calculate a p-value, which represents the significance of the difference. If the
p-value is less than the level of significance, which is determined by the researcher,
a significant difference may be declared (and the null hypothesis rejected). Often, a
level of 0.05 is used. Recall that .05 is the probability that we might get an unusual
sample that actually came from the distribution with the hypothesized mean m but
it was atypical and produced an extreme mean. This could happen in 5% of the
samples we drew randomly from the population.
Let’s look at a couple of examples.

9
CHAPTER 2

Example 1

You want to know if algebra exam scores of a fall freshman class are different from
a mean of 70. You will use a two-tailed test, for a 0.05 level of significance.
Scores: 42, 57, 58, 59, 59, 68, 69, 69, 72, 81, 87, 87, 93, 96, 98
Sample mean: 73
Sample standard deviation: 16.7
73 − 70
The t-value may be calculated by writing: t = , where t ≈ 0.7 .
16.7
15
The critical t-value is 2.145. (Since there are 15 scores, the number of degrees of
freedom equals 14, i.e. ( n −1 ).) Since the calculated t-value is not larger than the
critical t-value, no significant difference between the sample exam scores and score
of 70 should be declared.
A graphing calculator or software package may be used to verify the calculated
t-value, as well as to determine the p-value. The p-value is approximately 0.5. The
p-value being greater than 0.05 (the level of significance) is further evidence that the
null hypothesis should not be rejected and no significant difference declared.
In Excel, one can type into a cell the function ‘=T.DIST(0.7,14,TRUE)’, which
will return the probability .752302. Thus, .25 is the proportion of random cases that
will occur about the t-statistic. For the two-tailed test, we double this to about .5,
which gives us the probability of a difference as large as 3 points either above or
below 70. This is the cumulative probability that a t-statistic of 0.7 or smaller would
be computed from a distribution with a mean of 70 given the calculated standard
deviation and 14 degrees of freedom. For the two-tailed test at the .05 level, the
probability would have needed either to be less than .025 or greater than .975 for
significance.

Example 2

You want to compare the salaries of employees at a start-up instructional design

company to the average employee salary of employees at an established company,
which is recorded as $45,000. A 0.05 level of significance will be used.
Salaries of sample: $28,000; $30,300; $31,400; $33,600; $34,100; $40,200;
$41,800; $43,600; $44,900; $45,200; $48,300; $52,000
Mean of sample: $39,450
Standard deviation of sample: $7,771.57

39, 450 − 45, 000

t-value: t = or t ≈ −2.47
7, 771.57
12

10
 ONE-SAMPLE T-TEST

critical t-value: 2.201

p-value: p ≈ 0.03
Since the calculated t-value has an absolute value that is greater than the critical
t-value, we will reject the null hypothesis. Thus, a significant difference should
be declared. Also, the p-value of 0.03, which is less than 0.05, also shows that
a significant difference should be declared. In other words, there is a significant
difference between the salaries of employees at the startup and the average annual
salary, recorded for the established company.

WRITING A RESULTS SECTION

Scenario Used
We compared the mean of a sample of depression scores to a population mean.

Let’s now look at a sample results section write-up for analysis of the scenario
described above.
First, let’s look at the data analysis.
The steps we used in SPSS were:
Analyze
Compare Means
One-Sample T Test
Select Test Variable (depression)
Enter Test Value in Test Value box (population mean of 58)
OK

The one-sample statistics table above shows descriptive statistics for the
depression variable.

The One-Sample Test table above shows us the p-value (highlighted above) and
gives us the calculated t-value and degrees of freedom, which are needed, if a t-table
is used to determine significance, in lieu of the Sig. column.

11
CHAPTER 2

RESULTS SECTION WRITE-UP

The sample mean for depression scores was 49.86, with a standard deviation of
9.643. There is a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) between the sample
mean and the population mean of 58. The critical t-value is 1.96 for a two-tailed test,
alpha of 0.05, and degrees of freedom of 391. The calculated t-value is −16.703.
The absolute value of the calculated t-value is greater than the critical t-value, so we
will reject the null hypothesis of no difference and declare a statistically significant
difference.

12
 CHAPTER 3

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

An independent samples t-test compares the means of two groups. The data are
interval for the groups. There is not an assumption of normal distribution (if the
distribution of one or both groups is really unusual, the t-test will not give good
results with unequal sample sizes), but there is an assumption that the two standard
deviations are equal. If the sample sizes are equal or very similar in size, even that
assumption is not critical.
X − X2
The general formula for the t-value may be written as: t = 1 .
sX − X
1 2

When the sample sizes are the same, the following formula may be used:
X1 − X 2
t= .
s12 s2 2
+
n1 n2
However, when the sample sizes are not the same, a pooled variance estimate is
X1 − X 2
used, giving the formula: t = .
2 1 1
sp  + 
 n1 n2 
A reasonable rule of thumb for deciding whether or not the standard deviations
are equal is if the ratio of the larger standard deviation to the smaller standard
deviation is less than 2. If sample sizes are equal it won’t matter, but if sample
sizes are unequal, there is a problem in interpreting the t-test if the larger standard
deviation occurs with the smaller sample size. In that case, the significance level
can be quite different from what you expect, so the researcher alpha level should be
made very small, say .001, to overcome the violation of the requirement.
Luckily, a graphing calculator or software package may be used to calculate this
t-value.
Let’s look at a couple of examples that include two independent samples and
require an independent samples t-test.

Example 1

You want to compare the statistics test scores of males and females in a freshman-
level statistics class.
13
CHAPTER 3

Male scores: 56, 58, 59, 77, 81, 88, 89, 91, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 96
Female scores: 62, 63, 64, 67, 67, 68, 77, 81, 87, 87, 93, 93

X 1 ≈ 83.7

sx1 ≈ 14.5

n1 = 15

X 2 = 75.75

sx 2 ≈ 12

n2 = 12

Note that the standard deviations are quite similar, less than the ratio of 2 discussed
above, and the sample sizes are also similar, supporting use of the t-test.
Substituting these values into a graphing calculator, for a 2SampTTest, gives the
following summary:

t ≈ 1.5
p ≈ 0.14
df = 25

Note. For this example, the alternate hypothesis used was m1 ≠ m2 . The variance
was pooled.
Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we may declare that there is not a significant
difference in male and female statistics test scores. The t-value of approximately
1.5 is also less than the critical t-value of 2.06, revealing the same conclusion of
failing to reject the null hypothesis. For the excel version discussed in Chapter 2,
‘=T.DIST(1.5,25,TRUE)’, the probability returned was .926931, less than the .975
we would require for two-tailed significance at .05.

Example 2

You want to compare the number of articles submitted per year by assistant professors
and associate professors at a particular university.
Number of articles submitted by assistant professors: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6
Number of articles submitted by associate professors: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 8

14
 INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST

X 1 = 3.2

sx1 ≈ 1.7

n1 = 10

X 2 = 4.875

sx 2 ≈ 2.5

n2 = 8

Substituting these values into a graphing calculator, for a 2SampTTest, gives the
following summary:

t ≈ −1.7
p ≈ 0.11
df = 16

Note. For this example, the alternate hypothesis used was m1 ≠ m2 . The variance
was pooled.
Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we may declare that there is not a significant
difference in number of articles submitted by assistant and associate professors. The
absolute value of the t-value of approximately −1.7 is also less than the critical
t-value of 2.12, revealing the same conclusion of failing to reject the null hypothesis.

WRITING A RESULTS SECTION

Scenario Used
We compared the means of males and females for the variable of somaticization.

Let’s now look at a sample results section write-up for the scenario described above.
First, let’s look at the data analysis.
The steps we used in SPSS were:
Analyze
Compare Means
Independent-Samples T Test
Enter Test Variable(s) (Somaticization)

15
CHAPTER 3

Enter Grouping Variable (sex)

Define Groups (Males and Females: used 1 and 2)
OK

The Group Statistics table above gives means of somaticization scores for males
and females, along with sample size, standard deviation, and standard error mean.

The Independent Samples Test table above shows a significant difference between
the means, so the equal variances not assumed row is used. This row shows a p-value
of .001, which indicates a significant difference between males and females for
somaticization scores.

RESULTS SECTION WRITE-UP

Levene’s test for equality of variances showed a significant difference, so we have

to look at the equal variances not assumed information (unequal variances). We have
p = 0.001, t = 3.198, and df = 375.838. So, we have that there is a statistically
significant difference, according to alpha of 0.05, between the two samples, with
males (M = 51.38) having a statistically significantly higher somaticization score
than females (M = 48.33).

16
 CHAPTER 4

PAIRED SAMPLES T-TEST

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A paired-samples t-test compares the mean of two matched groups of people or

cases, or compares the mean of a single group, examined at two different points in
time. If the same group is tested again, on the same measure, the t-test is called a
repeated measures t-test.
As with the independent-samples t-test, the data is assumed interval for nominal
groups. The assumption of normal distribution is required for a standard t-test, although
evidence suggests nonnormality is not a problem unless skewness and kurtosis are
extreme, say over ±3 in magnitude.
Possible paired samples include husbands and wives, twins, the same group of
students in two classes, the same cadre of teachers evaluated fall and spring, the
same group of professionals at different points in their career, a group of students
taking both a pretest and a posttest, or a group of subjects taking a body mass index
assessment before and after an exercise regime.
Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Example 1

You want to compare the salaries of a group of college graduates, one year after
graduation and again five years after graduation.
One Year After: 23000, 24500, 25000, 28000, 30500, 32000, 34000, 36000,
38500, 39000, 42000, 45000
Five Years After: 24000, 25000, 26500, 29000, 31000, 33700, 36200, 38500,
40200, 40000, 43750, 48000
Using Excel, the test, “t-test: Paired Two Sample for Means” may be used to
perform the two-sample t-test.
In order to perform this test, using a TI-83, enter the salaries into lists 1 and 2,
and then highlight list 3 (L3) and enter L2 – L1. (This is done by selecting the lists
from the Edit menu.) L3 will now show all of the differences in salaries from one
year after graduation to five years after graduation. Next, choose the t-test function,
but choose “Data” for the input type. The null hypothesis ( m0 ) should be 0. The list
should show “L3.” Since the salaries are expected to increase, a one-tailed test may
be used. Thus, choose “ > m0 ,” for the type of hypothesis to test. Click “Calculate.”
Note. SPSS may also be used to compute a paired-samples t-test using the Analyze
dropdown tab with Compare Means option, Paired Samples T Test.

17
CHAPTER 4

The summary statistics are shown below:

t ≈ 6.8
p < 0.001
Since the p-value is less than 0.05 (< 0.001, in this case), we may declare there
is a significant difference in the salaries of this group, for the times of one year, and
five years, after graduation.

Example 2

You want to compare the final exam scores of a freshman class for the subjects of
U.S. History and Calculus.
U.S. History scores: 94, 67, 95, 65, 72, 60, 85, 86, 78, 76, 62, 85, 98, 72, 68, 81,
91, 92, 86, 93
Calculus scores: 100, 64, 95, 89, 75, 84, 90, 82, 79, 100, 88, 73, 83, 75, 86, 76,
83, 98, 75, 73
The summary statistics are shown below:
t ≈ 0.999
p > 0.05
Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we may declare there is not a significant
difference in final exam scores for the two subjects, for this freshman class.

WRITING A RESULTS SECTION

Scenario Used
We compared the means of males (same group) for scores on interpersonal relations
and social stress.

Let’s now look at a sample results section write-up for the scenario described above.
First, let’s look at the data analysis.
The steps we used in SPSS were:
Analyze
Compare Means
Paired-Samples T Test
Enter paired variables (interpersonal relations and social stress)
Filter for just 1 for sex to get only males

18
 paired samples t-test

The Paired Samples Statistics table above shows descriptive statistics for the pair
of variables.

The Paired Samples Correlations table above indicates whether or not a

significant correlation exists between the variables. In this case, there is a significant
correlation, p < .01, The nonzero correlation adjusts the degrees of freedom and
standard deviation downward.

The Paired Samples Test table above shows the calculated t-value, degrees of
freedom, and p-value for the test. Since p > .05, a significant difference does not
exist for males across the variables of interpersonal relations and social stress.

RESULTS SECTION WRITE-UP

A paired samples t-test was calculated, comparing the mean scores for interpersonal
relations and social stress, for the same group of males. The paired samples
correlations table shows that a significant correlation exists between the variables
of interpersonal relations and social stress. In other words, how someone scores on
social stress is likely to be similar to how they will score on interpersonal relations.
The paired differences table shows a t-value of 0.326, df = 228, and p-value of .745.
Since p > .05, we can declare that there is not a statistically significant difference
between the means for the males for scores on interpersonal relations and social
stress.

19
 CHAPTER 5

ONE-WAY ANOVA

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

A one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) compares the means of two or more groups
for one dependent variable. A one-way ANOVA is required when the study includes
more than two groups. (In other words, a t-test cannot be used.) As with t-tests,
there is one independent variable and one dependent variable. Interval dependent
variables for nominal groups are required. The assumption of normal distribution is
not required.
When performing a one-way ANOVA, a minimum sample size of 30 is desired,
but equal numbers per group is not required. ANOVA compares the variation within
a group (on average) to the equivalent variation based on group means’ variation.
Typically, the ratio of between-group variation to within-group variation should be
greater than 3 or 4, although smaller values will be significant for large sample sizes.
Having a sample size greater than or equal to 30 reduces the risk of making a Type
II error (failing to reject the null hypothesis, when it should be rejected, or failing
to declare a statistically significant difference, when you should have.) In order to
reduce the risk of making a Type I error, the researcher may choose to lower the
alpha level, or level of significance.
Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Example 1

You want to compare the final math averages of students who are taught using a
teacher-directed, student-centered, or combination approach.
The Excel spreadsheet below shows the data:

21
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 back in niches to form fountains, and all of the fountains depicted some
of the various effects of the power of love. In the grotto arose a tomb-
like monument ornamented with images representing divers objects, all
formed of coloured marble, and trimmed with pictures; wherever such an
effect was possible, the trees were pruned to take the appearance of
some other object or objects.

Thus the laborious and unrestrained intervention of man evoked a factitious

type of nature as far from precious as the false Précieuses. By the unreserved
admiration of its florid descriptions Astrée had consecrated the artificial mode.
Nature demanded Lenôtre to strip her gardens of their ridiculous decorations,
and to redeem them by simplicity, but when Lenôtre accomplished the work of
regeneration the public taste was wounded; the people had become
accustomed to the sight of parks decorated like the stage of the theatre, and
the simplicity of nature shocked them. La Grande Mademoiselle considered
Chenonceaux incomplete; she complained that it "looked unfinished"; her
artificially nourished taste missed something, because the owners of
Chenonceaux had respected the work of God, and left their park just as they
had received it from the hand of its Creator; she wondered why Provence was
called beautiful—to her it seemed "ugly enough." She lived at the gate of the
Pyrenees thirty days and never entered the country, yet she delighted in the
pretentious trinkets with which the landscape-gardeners of the Italian school
decorated French woods and gardens. Honoré d'Urfé was responsible for her
ignorance. Many of d'Urfé's tastes[39] were noble, and Astrée was a work of
excellent purpose—almost a great work; but it lacked the one thing
demanded by true art,—love of nature in its simplicity.
D'Urfé's artificial taste was more regrettable because his successors, they who
continued his work, accentuated his faults, as, generally speaking, the
disciples of all innovators accentuate the faults of their masters. Few among
the Précieuses knew how to sift the chaff from the wheat when the time came
to take or to leave the varied gifts of their inheritance. The true Précieuses
precipitated the revolution of which d'Urfé had been the prophet; they alone
consummated the moral transformation which, according to his light, he had
prepared.
During the changing years of half a century the Précieuses "kept the school"
of manners and fine language, laying on the ferule whenever they found
pupils as recalcitrant as the damsel whose story I am attempting to relate.
They did not try—far from it!—to train the public taste, to correct it, or to
guide it aright; they urged France into the tortuous by-paths of false ethics
and superficial art; but, taken all in all, their influence was good. La Grande
Mademoiselle, the abrupt cavalier-maiden, proved its virtue. To the Hôtel de
Rambouillet she owed it that she did not end as she began—a dragoon in
petticoats, and she recognised the fact, and was grateful for the benefits that
she had received.

THE ABBEY OF ST. GERMAIN DES-PRES IN THE 16TH CENTURY

FROM AN OLD PRINT
It has been asked: Was the Society of the Précieuses a result of the influence
of Astrée? With the exception noted, it is probable that d'Urfé made no
attempt to form new intellectual or sentimental currents; he confined himself
to the observation of the thoughts and the feelings at work in the depths of
human souls within his own view; he was a close student of character, his
book was a study, and his influence reformed opinions and manners; but as
the Society of the Précieuses was in process of incubation before Astrée
appeared, it must have taken shape had d'Urfé never written his book. The
world of fashion had long deemed it witty to ridicule the Précieuses; from too
much handling, jests upon that subject had lost their effervescence, and in
time it was considered more original to find virtue in the delicate mannerisms
of the refined ladies than to adhere to the old fashion of mocking them. Their
exaggerations were numerous and pronounced, but their civility was in
pleasant contrast with the abrupt indelicacies of the Béarnais; and even now,
looking back to them across the separating centuries, we can find few causes
for reproach. They subjected their literature to the yoke of the Spanish and
Italian schools, but they could hardly have done less at a time when the Court
was Italian, and when Spanish influences were entering by all the frontiers.
Aside from their submission to foreign influences, the Précieuses were sturdy
champions of the right, and unless we are prepared to falsify more than thirty
years of our history of morals, and of literature, we must admit that they
rendered us services which cannot be forgotten or misunderstood.
They were women of the world, important after the fashion of their day, and
by the power of their worldly influence they freed literature from the pedantry
with which Ronsard—and Montaigne, also, to a certain extent—had entangled
it. They forced the writers to brush the dust from their bookshelves; they
imposed upon them some of the exigencies of their own sex, and by the bare
fact of their influence literature which had been almost wholly erudite
acquired a quality assimilating it to the usages of the world, and an air of
decency and of civility which it had always lacked. The Précieuses compelled
men to grant them the respect due to all women under civilisation, and to
count them as members of the body politic; they exacted concessions to their
modesty; they purified language; they obliged "all honest men" to select their
topics of conversation; they habituated people to discern the delicate shades
of thought and to dissect ideas and find the hidden meanings of words; they
made demands for concessions to the rights of precocity, and, as a result,
propriety of verbal expression and closely attentive analyses entered
conversation hand in hand. Many and eminent were the services rendered
unto France by the amiable band of worldly reformers; theirs was a mighty
enterprise; we cannot measure the transformation wrought by the influence
of women in the indecent manners of that day unless we make a minute
examination of the subject. Before the advent of the Précieuses, exterior
elegance and a graceful bearing had been a cloak covering the words and the
conduct of barbarians. Proofs of this fact abound in the records of that day. La
Grande Mademoiselle was of the second generation of the Précieuses; her wit,
her love of wit, and her intellect, gave her rank in the Livré d'Or[40]; but the
habits of youth are difficult to overcome, and when she first visited the Hôtel
de Rambouillet she used the words and the gestures of a pandour, her
squared shoulders and out-thrust chest bore evidences of the natural
investiture of the Cossack. Speaking of that epoch, her most impartial critic
tells us that she "voiced a thousand imprecations."[41] In one of her attacks of
indignation she threatened the Maréchal de l'Hôpital: "I will tear your beard
out with my own hands!" she cried fiercely, and the marshal took fright and
ran away. Several ladies of Mademoiselle's society were known to possess
brisk and heavy hands, and feet of the same alert and virile character. Their
people and their lovers knew something of their "manuals and pedals," and
bore visible tokens of the efficacy of those phenomenal members on their own
persons,—and in all the colours of the rainbow. Madame de Vervins, who
assisted with La Grande Mademoiselle at the fêtes given in honour of
Mademoiselle de Hautefort, "basted her lackeys and other servants at will,"
and she did it with no slack hand. One of the subjects on whom she plied her
dexterity died under the operation, and the people of Paris avenged his death
by sacking her palace.[42] Following is the record:

On brisa vitré, on rompit porte, ...

Bref: si fort s'accrut le tumulte
Que de peur de plus grande insulte,
Cette dame s'enfuit exprès,
Et se sauva par le marais.

But if the ladies were not lambs, the gentlemen were not sheep. They were
no laggards in war. When they turned the flank of the enemy they did not
mince matters, and upon occasion they drew the first blood. Once upon a
time, at a dance, Comte de Brégis, having received a slap from his partner,
turned upon her and pulled her hair down in the midst of the banquet. At a
supper, in the presence of a great and joyous company, the Marquis de la
Case snatched a leg of mutton from a trencher and buffeted his neighbour in
her face, smearing her with gravy. As she was a lady of an even temper, she
laughed heartily,[43] and the incident was closed. Malherbe confessed to
Madame de Rambouillet that he had "cuffed the ears of the Viscountess
d'Auchy until she had cried for aid." As he was a jealous man, his action was
not without cause, and in that day to flog a woman was a thing that any
gentleman felt free to do.
The regenerating Précieuses had not arrived too soon. Ignoble jests and
obscenities too foul to recount were accepted as conversation by both sexes.
The father of the great Condé, who was president of a "social" club whose
rules compelled members to imitate every movement made by their leader,
ate, and forced his fellow members (including the ladies) to eat—I dare not
say what; do not try to guess—you could never do it!
The modest and timid Louis XIII. could—when he set about it—give his Court
very unappetising examples. In a book of Edification, bearing date 1658, we
read that "the late King, seeing a young woman among the crowds admitted
to his palace so that they might see the King eat, said nothing, and gave no
immediate evidence that he had seen her; but, as he raised his glass for the
last sup, before rising from the table, he filled his mouth with wine, and
having held it thus sanctuaried for an instant, launched it forth into the
uncovered chest of the watchful lady," who had been too eager to witness the
mastications of royalty.
Aristocratic traditions exacted that the nobles should flog their inferiors, and
the nobles conformed to the traditional exactions freely. Men and women
were flogged for "failures" of the least importance, and knowing those antique
customs as we do, we may be permitted to wonder that we have so few
records of the music of that eventful day.
Richelieu "drubbed his people," he drubbed his officers, he drubbed (so it was
said) his ministers. The celebrated Duke d'Épernon, the last of the great
Seigniors after Saint Simon, was "as mild-mannered a man as ever cut a
throat or scuttled a ship"; one day when he was discussing some official
question with his Eminence, the Archbishop of Bordeaux, he gave the exalted
prelate "three clips of his fist full in the archiepiscopal face and breast,
supplementing them by several cuts of the end of his cane in the pit of the
stomach." We are not told how the priest received his medicine, but history
records that "this done, Monsieur the Duke bore witness to his Lordship (the
Archbishop) that had it not been for the respect due to his character, he (the
Duke) should have tipped him over on the pavement." One day when the
feelings of the Maréchal de Mauny were outraged because a farmer had kept
the de Mauny servitors waiting for their butter and eggs, he (the Maréchal)
rushed from his palace like a madman, fell upon the first peasants who
crossed his path, and with sword-thrusts and with pistol-shots wounded two
of the "aggressors" mortally. This last event occurred in Burgundy; it was
merely an incident. In Anjou, Comte de Montsoreau maintained a private
money-coining establishment in the wood near, or on, his property, halted the
travellers on the highways, obliged them to pay their ransom, and, at the
head of a band of twenty men, all being brigands of his own species, swept
over the country, pillaging in all directions. The daily occurring duels
accustomed men to look lightly upon death, and contempt for human life
prevailed. When the Chevalier d'Andrieux was thirty years old, he had killed
seventy-two men. In such cases edicts were worthless; the national need
demanded a radical change of morals. Nine years after the death of Louis
XIII., Maréchal de Grammont said in one of his letters: "Since the beginning of
the Regency, according to the estimate made, nine hundred and forty
gentlemen have been killed in duels." That was an official estimate, and it did
not include the deaths which, though they were attributed to other causes,
were the direct and immediate results of honourable encounters; the dead
thus enumerated having been killed on the spot.[44]
At that time the duel was not attended by ceremonies; it was a hand-to-hand
encounter between barbarians. The contestants fought with any weapons that
came to hand, and in the way most convenient to their needs. All means were
considered proper for the killing of men, though it was generally conceded
that for killing well the different means were, or might be made, more or less
courteous. This being the case, the duel was in more or less good or bad
taste, according to the means used in its execution, and according to the
regularity, or the lack of regularity, employed in their use.
In 1612, Balagny and Puymorin alighted from their horses and drew swords in
the rue des Petits Champs. While they were fighting, a valet took a pitchfork
and planted it in Balagny from the back. Balagny died of the wound inflicted
by the valet, and Puymorin also died; he had been wounded when the valet
interfered. Still another lackey killed Villepreau in the duel between Beaupré
and Villepreau. That duel also was fought in the street (rue Saint Honoré.)
When young Louvigny[45] fought with d'Hocquincourt, he said: "Let us take
our swords!" As the other bent to comply with the suggestion, Louvigny gave
a great sword-thrust, which, running his adversary through and through, put
him to death. Tallemant des Reaux qualified the act as "appalling," but it bore
no consequences for Louvigny.
Maréchal de Marillac (who was beheaded in 1632) killed his adversary before
the latter had time to draw his sword. We should have called it an
assassination, but our forefathers saw no harm in such duelling. They
reserved their criticisms for the timidly peaceable who objected to a fight.
The salon, with its ultra-refinement and its delicacy, followed close upon the
heels of these remnants of barbarity. The salon gave form to the civility which
forbade a man to pierce the fleshy part of the back of an adversary with a
pitchfork. Polite courtesy also restrained gentlemen from forcing ladies to
swallow all uncleanness under the pretence of indulging in a merry jest. As
good manners make for morality, let us thank the Précieuses for the reform
they accomplished when they moulded men for courteous intercourse with
their fellow-men; and to Madame de Rambouillet, among others, let thanks be
given, for she made the achievement possible by opening the way and
beginning at the beginning. Womanly tact, a decorous keeping of her house,
love of order and of beauty inspired her with the thought that the
arrangements made in the old hotels of Paris for the people of ancient days
were not fitted for the use of the enlightened age of the Précieuses. There
were no salons in the old hotels; the salon was unknown; therefore there was
no room in which to frame the society then in formation. Tallemant tells us
that the only houses known at that time were built with a hall upon one side,
a room upon the other side, and a staircase in the middle. The salle was a
parade-room, a place to pass through, a corridor where no one lingered.
People received visitors in the room in which they happened to be when the
visitors arrived; at different times they happened to be in different rooms.
Very naturally at eating-time they were in rooms where they could sit at meat.
There were no rooms devoted to the daily meals. The table on which viands
were served was placed in any room large enough to contain the number of
persons who were to be entertained. If there were few guests, the table was
placed in a small room; when the guests were numerous, they were seated in
a large room, or the table, ready served, was carried into any room large
enough to hold the company. It was all a matter of chance. Banquets were
given in the corridor, in the salle, in the ante-room, or in the sleeping-room,
[46] because literary intuition was undeveloped. Madame de Rambouillet was
the first to realise that the spirit of conversation is too rare and too delicate a
plant to thrive under unfavourable conditions, and that in order to establish
conversational groups, a place must be provided in which they who favour
conversation may talk at ease. Every one recognises that fact now, and every
one ought to recognise it. No one—man or woman—is justified in ignoring the
influences of the localities that he or she frequents. It should be generally
known that sympathies will not group, that the current of thought will not
flow freely when a table is unfavourably placed for the seating of society
expected to converse.
Three hundred years ago the creator of the first French salon discovered this
fact, and her discovery marked a date in the history of our social life.
Mme. de Rambouillet owned a dilapidated mansion standing between the
Tuileries and the courtyard of the Louvre, near the site of the now existing
Pavillon de Rohan.[47] She had determined to rebuild the house, and no one
could draw a plan suited to her ideas. Her mind was incessantly busy with her
architectural scheme, and one evening when she had been sitting alone deep
in meditation she cried out! "Quick! A pencil! paper! I have found a way to
build my house."[48] She drew her plan at once, and the arrangement was so
superior to all known architectural designs that houses were built according to
"the plans of Mme. de Rambouillet all over France." Tallemant says:

They learned from Mme. de Rambouillet how to place stairways at the

sides of houses so that they might form great suites of rooms[49] and
 they also learned from her how to raise floors and to make high and
broad windows, placed one opposite another so that the air might
circulate with freedom; this is all so true that when the Queen-mother
ordered the rebuilding of the Luxembourg she sent the architects to glean
ideas from the Hôtel de Rambouillet.

Until that time the interiors of houses had been painted red or tan colour.
Mme. de Rambouillet was the first to adopt another colour and her innovation
gave the "Blue Room" its name. The famous Blue Room in which the
seventeenth century acquired the even and correct tone of conversation was
disposed with a skilful and scientific tact which has survived the rack of three
hundred years of changes, and to-day it stands as the perfect type of a
temple fully adequate to the exigencies of intellectual intercourse.
In it all spaces were measured and the seats were systematically counted and
distributed to the best advantage; there were eighteen seats; neither more
nor less. Screens shut off certain portions of the room and facilitated the
formation of intimately confidential groups; flowers perfumed the air; objects
of art caressed the vision, and, taken all together, so perceptible a spirit of the
sanctuary enshrining thought was present that the habitués of the Salon de
Rambouillet always spoke of it as "the Temple." Even La Grande
Mademoiselle, the irrepressible, felt the subtle influences of that calm retreat
of the mind, and when she entered the Blue Room she repressed her Cossack
gestures and choked back her imprecations. She knew that she could not
evade the restraining influence of the hushed tranquillity which pervaded "the
Temple," and she drooped her sparkling eyes, and accepted her discipline with
the universally prevalent docility. In her own words, Mme. de Rambouillet was
"adorable."

I think [wrote Mademoiselle in 1659], that I can see her now in that
shadowy recess,—which the sun never entered, though the place was
never left in darkness,—surrounded by great crystal vases full of beautiful
spring flowers which were made to bloom at all seasons in the gardens
near her temple, so that she might look upon the things that she loved.
Around her were the pictures of her friends, and the looks that she gave
them called down blessings on the absent. There were many books on
the tables in her grotto and, as one may imagine, they treated of nothing
common. Only two, or at most three persons were permitted to enter
that place at the same time, because confusion displeased her and noise
was adverse to the goddess whose voice was loud only in wrath. Our
goddess was never angry. She was gentleness itself.
According to the inscription on a stone preserved in the Musée Cluny the
Hôtel de Rambouillet was rebuilt in 1618. The mistress of the house
consumed ten industriously filled years constituting, installing, and habituating
the intellectual groups of her salon; but when she had perfected her
arrangements she maintained them in their splendour until the Fronde put an
end to all intellectual effort.
When the Hôtel de Rambouillet was in its apogee La Grande Mademoiselle
was in the flush of early youth. She was born in 1627. Mme. de Sévigné was
Mademoiselle's elder by one year.
When we consider the social and intellectual condition of the times we must
regard many features of the enterprise of "fair Arthénice" as wonderful, but its
most characteristic feature was the opportunity and the advancement it
accorded to men of letters. Whatever "literary" men were elsewhere, they
were received as the equals of the nobility in the Salon de Rambouillet. Such
a sight had never been seen! Superior minds had always been regarded
leniently. They had had their periods of usefulness, when the quality had been
forced to recognise their existence, but the possessors of those minds had
been treated—well, to speak clearly, they had been treated as they had
expected to be treated; for how could the poor fellows have hoped for
anything better when they knew that they passed two thirds of their time with
spines humbly curved and with palms outstretched soliciting equivocal
complaisancies, or inviting écus, or struggling to secure a seat at the lower
end of dinner tables by means of heartrending dedications?
Alack! how many Sarrazins and Costars there were to one Balzac, or to one
d'Urfé! how numerous were the natural parasites, piteous leeches! whose wit
went begging for a discarded bone! How many were condemned by their
vocation to die of hunger;—and there was no help for them! Had their talent
been ten times greater than it was it would have been equally impossible for
them to introduce dignity into their existence. There were no journals, no
reviews where an author could present his stuff or his stories for inspection;
no one had ever heard of authors' rights; and however successful a play, the
end of the dramatist was the same; he was allowed no literary property. How
then could he live if not by crooked ways and doubtful means? If a certain
amount of respect, not to say honour, were due to his profession, by what
means could he acquire his share of it? Any yeoman—the first country squire
—could, when so it pleased him, have a play stricken from the roll; if so it
pleased him could have the rod laid over the author's back, amidst the
plaudits of the contingent which we should call the claque. Was it any wonder
that authors were pedants to the marrow of their bones when pedantry was
the only paying thing in their profession? Writers who chanted their own
praises did good unto themselves and enjoyed the reputation of the erudite.
They were regarded as professors of mentality, they reflected credit upon the
men who lodged and nourished them. For that reason,—and very logically,—
when a man knew that he was being lodged and nourished for the sake of his
bel esprit if there was any manhood in him he entered heart and soul into his
pretensions; and sleeping or waking, night or day, from head to foot, and
without one hour of respite, played the part of "man of letters"; he mouthed
his words, went about with brows knit, talked from his chest, and, in short,
did everything to prove to the world that he was wise beyond his generation;
his every effort was bent to manifest his ability; and his manners, his
costumes, and his looks, all proved him to be a student of books. And when
this was proven his master—the man who lodged and nourished him—was
able to get his full money's worth and to stand up before the world revealed
in the character of benefactor and protector of Belles Lettres. In our day
things wear a different aspect. The author has reached his pinnacle, and in
some cases it may even be possible that his merits are exaggerated.
Knowing this, it is difficult for us to appreciate the conditions existing when
the Salon of the Hôtel de Rambouillet was opened. We know that there is
nothing essentially admirable in putting black marks on white paper, and we
know that a good shoemaker is a more useful citizen than can be made of an
inferior writer, and knowing these facts, and others of the same sort, we can
hardly realise that only three hundred years ago there were honest boys who
entered upon the career of Letters when they might have earned a living
selling tallow.
The Hôtel de Rambouillet regulated the scale of social values and diminished
the distance between the position accorded to science, intellect, and genius
and the position accorded to birth. For the first time within the memory of
Frenchmen Men of Letters tasted the sweets of consideration; their eloquence
was not forced back, nor was it drawn out by the imperious demands of
hunger; authors were placed on a footing with their fellow-men; they were
still expected to discourse, but as their wit was the result of normal
conditions, it acquired the quality of order and the flavour of nature. In the
Blue Room the weary writers were allowed to rest. They were not called upon
to give proofs of their intellect; they were led gently forward, placed at a
distance that made them appear genial, persuaded to discard their
dogmatism, and by inferences and subtle influences taught to be indulgent
and to distribute their wisdom with the philosophical civility which was then
called "the spirit of the Court,"—and the term was a just one; a great gulf lay
between the incisive rushing expression of the thought of Condé, the pupil of
Mme. de Rambouillet, and the laboured facitiæ of Voiture and the
Academician, Jacques Esprit, although Voiture and Esprit were far in advance
of their predecessors. Under the beneficent treatment of the Hôtel de
Rambouillet the Men of Letters gradually lost their stilted and pedagogic airs.
The fair reformers of "the circle" found many a barrier in their path; the
gratitude of the pedants was not exhilarating, the leopards' spots long
retained their colour,—Trissotin proved that,—but by force of repeated
"dippings" the dye was eventually compelled to take and the stains that it left
upon the fingers of "fair Arthénice" were not disfiguring.
A glance at Racine or at Boileau shows us the long road traversed after the
Salon de Rambouillet instituted the recognition of merit regardless of rank and
fortune. Love of intellectual pleasures, courage, and ambitious determination
had ordered a march resumed after forced halts; and at last, when the ardent
innovators reached the port from which they were to launch their endeavour,
recognition of merit had become a custom, and the first phase of democratic
evolution was an accomplished fact. Our own day shows further progress; the
same evolution in its untrammelled freedom tends to cast suspicion upon
personal merit because it unhinges the idea of equality.

"All Paris" of that day filed through the portals of the Hôtel de Rambouillet
and passed in review before the Blue Room. Malherbe was one of the most
faithful attendants of the Salon whose Laureate he remained until he died
(1628). Yet according to Tallemant and to many others he was boorish and
uncivil. He was abrupt in conversation, but he wrote excellent poetry and
never said a word that did not reach its mark. When he visited the Salon he
was very amiable; and his grey beard made him a creditable dean for the
circle of literary companions. He wrote pretty verses in honour of Arthénice,
he was diverting and instructive—in a word, he made himself necessary to the
Salon. But he was too old to change either his character or his appearance,
and his attempts to conform to the fashions of the hour made him ridiculous.
He was "a toothless gallant, always spitting."
He had been in the pay of M. de Bellegarde, from whom he had received a
salary of one thousand livres, table and lodging, and board and lodging for
one lackey and one horse. He drew an income from a pension of five hundred
écus granted by Marie de Médicis; he was in possession of numerous
gratuities, perquisites, and "other species of gifts" which he had secretly
begged by the sweat of his brow. Huet, Archbishop of Avranche, wrote:
"Malherbe is trying his best to increase his fortunes, and his poetry, noble
though it be, is not always nobly employed." M. d'Yveteaux said that Malherbe
"demanded alms sonnet in hand." The greedy poet had one rival at the Hôtel
de Rambouillet; a very brilliant Italian addicted to flattery, whom all the ladies
loved. Women were infatuated by him, as they are always infatuated by any
foreign author—be he good or bad! Marini—in Paris they called him "Marin"—
conversed in long sentences joined by antitheses. In his hours of relaxation
when his thoughts were supposed to be in literary undress, he called the rose
"the eye of the springtide."[50] At the time of which I now speak he was
labouring upon a poem of forty-five thousand verses, entitled Adonis. Every
word written or uttered by him was calculated to produce its effect. "The
Circle," to the disgust of Malherbe, lay at the feet of the Italian pedant,
swooning with ecstasy. "Marin's" influence over the first Salon of France was
deplorable, and a contemporary chronicler recorded his progress with evident
dejection[51]; "In time he relieved the country of his presence; but he had
remained in it long enough to deposit in fruitful soil the germs of his factitious
preciosity."
Chapelain was of other metal. He began active life as a teacher. M. de
Longueville, who was the first to appreciate his merits, granted him his first
pension (two thousand livres). Chapelain was fond of his work, a natural
writer, industrious, and frugal. He went into retirement, lived upon his little
pension, and brought forth La Pucelle. De Longueville was delighted by the
zeal and the talent of his protégé and he added one thousand livres to his
pension. Richelieu also granted Chapelain a pension (one thousand livres) and
when Mazarin came to power he supplemented the gift of his predecessor by
a pension of five hundred écus.
It was not a common thing for authors to make favourable arrangements with
a publisher, but Chapelain had made excellent terms for that epoch. La Pucelle
had sold for three thousand livres. He (Chapelain) was in easy circumstances,
but his unique appearance excited unique criticisms. He was described as
"one of the shabbiest, dirtiest, most shambling, and rumpled of gallows-birds,
and one of the most affectedly literary characters from head to heels who
ever set foot in the Blue Room." It was said he was "a complete caricature of
his idea." Though Mme. de Rambouillet was accustomed to the aspect of Men
of Letters, she was struck dumb when Chapelain first appeared. As his mind
was not visible, she saw nothing but an ugly little man in a pigeon-breast
satin habit of antique date, covered with different kinds of ill-assorted gimp.
His boots were not matched (each being eccentric in its own peculiar way).
On his head was an old wig and over the wig hovered a faded hat. Mme. de
Rambouillet regained her self-command and decided to close her eyes to his
exterior. His conversation pleased her, and before he had left her presence he
had impressed her favourably. In truth Chapelain merited respect and
friendship. He was full of delicacy of feeling, extremely erudite, and
impassioned in his love for things of the mind. His keen, refined, critical
instinct had made him an authority on all subjects. His correspondence
covered all the literary and learned centres of Europe, and he was consulted
as an oracle by the savants of all countries. He was interested in everything.
His mind was singularly broad, modest, frank, and open to conviction; and
while his nature was essentially French, his mental curiosity, with its
innumerable outstretching and receptive channels, made him a representative
of cosmopolitan enlightenment.
Chapelain was one of the pillars of the Salon,—or, to speak better, he was the
pendentive of the Salon's literary architecture. After a time repeated
frequentation of the Salon amended his "exterior" to some extent. He
changed his fanciful attire for the plain black costumes worn by Vadius and by
Trissotin, but his transformation was accomplished invisibly, and during the
transition period he did not cease to be shabby and of a suspiciously
neglected aspect, even for one hour. "I believe," said Tallemant, "that
Chapelain has never had anything absolutely new."
Ménage, another pillar of the Salon de Rambouillet, was one of the rare
literary exceptions to the rule of the solid provincial bourgeoisie. He was the
rara avis of his country, and not only a pedant but the pedant par excellence,
the finished type of the "litterateur" who "sucks ink and bursts with pride at
his achievement." He was always spreading his feathers and bristling like a
turkeycock if he was not appreciated according to his estimate of himself.
From him descended some of the "literary types" still in existence, who cross-
question a man in regard to what he knows of their literary "work." No matter
what people were talking about, Ménage would interrupt them with his
patronising smile and "Do you remember what I said upon that subject?" he
would ask. Naturally no one remembered anything that he had written, and
when they confessed that they had forgotten he would cry out all sorts of
piquancies and coarseness. Every one knew what he was. Molière used him as
a model for Vadius, and the likeness was striking. He was dreaded, and
people loved literature to madness and accepted all its excrescences before
they consented to endure his presence. "I have seen him," said Tallemant, "in
Mme. de Rambouillet's alcove cleaning the insides of his teeth with a very
dirty handkerchief, and that was what he was doing during the whole visit."
He considered his fine manners irresistible. He pursued Mme. de Rambouillet,
bombarding her incessantly with declarations. A pernicious vanity was one of
his chief failings. It was his habit to give people to understand that he was on
intimate terms with women like Mme. de Lafayette and Mme. de Sévigné; but
Mme. de Sévigné did not permit him to carry his boasts to Paradise. One day
after she had heard of his reports she invited him to accompany her alone in
her carriage. She told him that she was "not afraid that any one would gossip
over it." Ménage, whose feelings were outraged by her contempt, burst into a
flood of reproaches. "Get into my carriage at once!" she answered. "If you
anger me I will visit you in your own house!"[52]
People tolerated Ménage because he was extraordinarily wise, and because
his sense of justice impelled him to admirably generous deeds. The Ministers,
Mazarin and Colbert, always sent to him for the names of the people who
were worthy of recompence, and Ménage frequently nominated the men who
had most offended him. Justice was his passion. Under the vulgar motley of
the pedant lay many excellent qualities, among them intense devotion to
friends. Throughout his life he rendered innumerable services and was kind
and helpful to many people. Ménage had a certain amount of money,
nevertheless he gave himself into the hands of Retz, and Retz lodged and
nourished him as he lodged and nourished his own lackey. Ménage lived with
Retz, berating him as he berated every one; and Retz cared for him, endured
his fits of anger, and listened to his scoldings ten years. Ménage "drew
handsome pecuniary benefits from some other source," saved money, set out
for himself, and founded a branch Blue Room in his own house. His
receptions, which were held weekly on Wednesday, were in high esteem. The
people who had free access to good society considered it an honour to be
named as his guests.
Quite another story was "little Voiture," a delicate pigmy who had "passed
forty years of his life at death's door." He was an invalid even in early youth.
When very young he wrote to Mme. de Rambouillet from Nancy:

Since I have not had the honour of seeing you, madame, I have endured
ills which cannot be described. As I traversed Epernay I visited Marechal
Strozzi for your sake, and his tomb appeared so magnificent, and the
place so calculated to give repose, that as I was in such condition and so
fit for burial, I longed to be laid beside him; but as they found that there
was still some warmth in me, they made difficulties about acceding to my
wishes. Then I resolved to have my body carried as far as Nancy, where,
at last, madame, it has arrived, so meagre and so wasted, that I do
assure you that there will be very little for them to lay in the ground.

Ten years later he drew the following sketch of himself:

"My head is handsome enough; I have many grey hairs. My eyes are soft, but
a little distraught.... My expression is stupid, but to counterbalance this
discrepancy, I am the best boy in the world."[53]
Voiture was called "the dwarf king." He was a charming conversationalist; he
was a precursor of the Parisian of the eighteenth century, of whom his winged
wit and foaming gayety made him a fair antetype; he was "the life and the
soul" of the Hôtel de Rambouillet, and when the ponderous minds had left the
Salon, after he had helped the naturally gay ladies to lift the helmet of
Minerva from their heads—and the weights from their heels—he taught them
the light laughter which sits so well on "airy nothings." But he had his defects,
defects so grave that the critics said: "If Voiture were of our condition it would
be impossible to endure him!" He was a dangerous little gossip, constantly
taking liberties and forcing people to recall him to his place. Though he was a
child in size, he was a man of mature years, and the parents and guardians of
young girls were forced to watch him, though it is probable that his intentions
were innocent enough. One day, when he was on a visit, he attempted to
press his lips to the arm of one of the daughters of the house. That time he
"caught it on his fingers"; he begged pardon for his sin; but he did not correct
his faults; vanity forbade him to do that, and vanity made him very jealous
and hot tempered. Mlle. de Scudéry (who was not censorious) called him
"untrustworthy." His literature was like his person and his character.
Everything that he wrote was delicate, coquettish, and very graceful, but
often puerile. His literary taste was not keen; when the Circle sat wrapt in
admiration just after Corneille had read them Polyeucte, Voiture hurried to the
author's side and told him that he "would better go home and lock that drama
up in his bureau drawer."
Toward the end of his life Voiture dyed both hair and beard, and his manner
was just what it had been in his youth; he could not realise that he was not a
boy; it was said that he was "tiresome, because he did not know how to grow
old."
His irritable disposition made him a trying companion, but to his last day he
was the "spoiled child" of Madame de Rambouillet and all the society of the
Salon; he was gay, simple, boyish, and natural, and the Circle loved him
"because he had none of the affected gravity and the importance of the other
men of letters, and because his manners were not precise." More than thirty
years after his death Mme. de Sévigné recalled "his free wit and his charming
ways" with delight. ("So much the worse," she said, "for them who do not
understand such things!"[54])
Voiture might have lived independently and dispensed with the favours and
the benefits which he solicited. His father was a very successful business man
(he dealt in wines), but in those days it was customary for literary men to
depend upon other men, and "little Voiture," thinking that it was a part of his
glory to take his share of the general cake, profited by his social relations, and
stretched his hands out in all directions, receiving such pensions, benefits,
and "offices" as were bestowed upon all prominent men of letters. His income
was large, and as he was nourished and cared for by Madame de Rambouillet,
he had few expenses.
Valentin Conrart, the first perpetual Secretary of the Académie Française, was
the most useful, if not the most brilliant member of the Salon; he was the
common sense of the Blue Room: the wise and discreet friend to whom the
most delicate secrets were fearlessly confided, the unfailing referee to whom
the members of the Circle applied for decisions of all kinds, from the question
of a debated signification to the pronunciation of a word; naturally he was
somewhat pedagogical; incessant correction of the works of others had
impressed him with the instincts and the manners of a teacher; to the
younger members of the Circle he was a most awe-inspiring wiseacre. Conrart
bore the mark of a deep-seated consciousness of Protestantism, and whether
he was speaking, walking, or engaged in his active duties it was evident that
he was absorbed in reflections concerning his religious origin; people who had
seen him when he was asleep affirmed that he wore an alert air of cogitation
when wrapt in slumber, and when he was rhyming his little verses to Alphise
or to Lycoris his aspect was the same. His attitude was logical: he knew that
he was a Protestant; he knew that that fact was a thing that no man could be
expected to forget. In 1647 he wrote to a fellow coreligionist[55]: "As the
world regards it, what a disadvantage it is to be a Huguenot!" The Académie
Française emanated from social meetings held in Conrart's house and the
serious association could not have had a more suitable cradle.
It is a pleasure to think of that easy and independent home, where guests
were met with outstretched hands, where wisdom was dispensed without
thought of recompense. Conrart was generous and just, a loyal and indulgent
friend who did good for the love of goodness. The wife of Conrart was an
excellent and worthy creature, who received dukes and peers and the ladies
of the Court as simply as she received the friends of her youth; she was not a
respecter of persons and she saw no reason for embarrassment when the
Marquise de Rambouillet wished to dine with her. She took pride in
"pastelles," cordials, and other household delicacies, which she made and
offered to her husband's friends with her own hands.
Vaugelas was timid and innocent; misfortune was his habit; he had always
been unfortunate, and no one expected him to be anything else. He was very
poor; he had been stripped of everything (even to the pension given him by
the King) as punishment for following Gaston d'Orléans. Everything that he
did turned against him. One day when he was in great need Mme. de
Carignan told him that she would hire him as tutor; she had two sons whom
she aspired to educate according to the methods of the Hôtel de Rambouillet.
Naturally the impecunious Vaugelas thanked God for his rescue. When his
pupils were presented to him he found that one of them was deaf and dumb,
the other was a phenomenal stutterer, barely able to articulate his name.
Vaugelas had been so uniformly unfortunate that his woes had created a
nervous tension in the minds of the Circle, and every new report of his
afflictions called forth an outburst of hysterical laughter from his
sympathisers. The Hôtel de Rambouillet knew his intrinsic value. Fair
Arthénice and her company essayed to bring him forward, and failed; he was
bashful, an inveterate listener, obstinately silent; in the Salon he sat with head
drooping and with lips half open, eagerly listening to catch the delicately
turned phrases of the quality, or to surprise some noble error; a grammatical
lapsus stung his keen perceptions, and he was frequently seen writhing as if
in agony, no one knew why. In a word he was worthless in a salon,—and the
same must be said of Corneille. Corneille felt that he was not brilliant, and he
never attended the Salon unless he had written something new; he read his
plays to "the Circle" before he offered them to the publishers. Men of genius
are not always creditable adjuncts to a salon; Corneille was known in the fine
world as "that fellow Corneille." As far as his capacity for furnishing the
amount of amusement which all men individually owe it to their fellows to
provide is concerned, it is enough to say that he was one of the
churchwardens in his parochial district; this fact, like the accident of birth,
may pass as a circumstance extenuating his involuntary evil. Speaking of the
Salon la Bruyère wrote: "Corneille, another one who is seen there, is simple,
timid, and—when he talks—a bore; he mistakes one word for another, and
considers his plays good or bad in proportion to the money he gains by them.
He does not know how to recite poetry, and he cannot read his own writing."
In a club of pretty women ten Corneilles would not have been worth one
Antoine Godeau. Godeau was as diminutive in his verse as in his person; but
he was a fiery fellow and a dashing gallant, always in love. When he was
studying philosophy the German students in his boarding-house so attached
themselves to his lively ways that they could not live away from him. The
gravest of the bookworms thought that they could study better in his
presence, and his chambers presented the appearance of a class-room. He sat
enthroned at his table, and the Germans sat cross-legged around him blowing
clouds from their china pipes and roaring with laughter at his sallies. He sang,
he rhymed, he drank; he was always cracking his funny jokes. He was born to
love, and as he was naturally frivolous, his dulcineas were staked out all over
the country awaiting his good pleasure. Presented to the Circle of the Hôtel de
Rambouillet when he was very young, he paled the star of "little Voiture."
When Voiture was at a distance from Paris Mlle. de Rambouillet wrote to him:
"There is a man here now who is a head shorter than you are, and who is, I
swear to you, a thousand times more gallant!"
Godeau was a conqueror; he had "entrapped all the successes." Every one
was amazed when it was discovered that he was a bishop, and they had
barely recovered from their amazement when it was learned that he was not
only a bishop but a good bishop. He had other titles to distinction (of one kind
or another), "and withal he still remained" (as Sainte Beuve said) "the foppish
spark of all that world." The only passport required by the Hôtel de
Rambouillet was intellect. The Circle caressed Sarrazin, despite his baseness,
his knavery, his ignoble marriages, and his ridiculous appearance, because he
was capable of a pleasant repartee when in general conversation. George de
Scudéry, a "species of captain," was protected by the Circle because he was
an author. Scudéry was intolerable! his brain cells were clogged by vanity, he
was humming from morning till night with his head high in the clouds, beating
his ancestors about the ears of any one who would listen to him, and prating
of his "glory," his tragic comedies, and his epic poem Alaric. He was on tiptoe
with delight because he had eclipsed Corneille. The Hôtel de Rambouillet
smiled upon Colletet, the clever drunkard who had taken his three servants to
wife, one after the other, and who had not talent enough to counterbalance
his gipsy squalor. But all passed who could hold a pen. Many a scruple and
many a qualm clamoured in vain for recognition when the fair creator of the
Circle organised the Salon. Nothing can be created—not even a salon—
without some sacrifice, and Mme. de Rambouillet laid a firm hand upon her
predilections and made literary merit the only title to membership in the
Salon. Every one knew the way to the Hôtel de Rambouillet. Every one but
Balzac was seen there. Balzac lived in a distant department (la Charente), so
it is probable that he knew Mme. de Rambouillet only by letter, though he is
named as an attendant of the Salon. Had the Salon existed in this day it is
possible that our moderns, who demand a finer mortar, would have left the
coarser pebbles in the screen, but Mme. de Rambouillet closed her eyes, put
forth her hand, and as blindly as Justice drew authors out of their obscure
corners and placed them on a footing with the fine flower of the Court and
the choice spirits of the city, with all that was gay or witty, with all who were
possessed of curiosity concerning the things of the mind. She forced the
frivolous to habituate themselves to serious things, she compelled the pedants
to toss their caps to the thistles, to cast aside their pretensions and their long-
drawn-out phrases, and to stand forth as men. No one carried the
accoutrements of his authorship into the Blue Room, no one was permitted to
play the part of "pedant pedantising"; all was light, rapid, ephemeral; the
atmosphere was fine and clear, and to add to the tranquil aspect of the scene,
several very youthful ladies (the young daughters of Mme. de Rambouillet and
"la pucelle Priande" among others) were permitted to pass like butterflies
among the thoughtful groups; their presence completed the illusion of
pastoral festivity. Before that time young girls had never mingled freely with
their elders.
As mixed as the gatherings were, and as radical as was the social revolution
of the Salon, the presence of innocent youth imposed the tone of careful
propriety. I am not counting "La Belle Paulet" as an innocent young girl,
though she too was of the Salon. Paulet was called "the lioness" because of
the ardent blonde colour of her hair; she was young enough, and amiable
even to excess, but she had had too much experience. She was "a bit of
driftwood," one of several of her kind whom Mme. de Rambouillet had fished
from the vortex, dried, catechised, absolved, and restored to regular conduct
and consideration. Neither do I class "the worthy Scudéry" among young girls.
She could not have been called "young" at any age. She was (to quote one of
her contemporaries) "a tall, black, meagre person, with a very long face,
prolix in discourse, with a tone of voice like a schoolmaster, which is not at all
agreeable." Although Tallemant drew this picture, its lines are not
exaggerated. It is impossible to regard Mlle. de Scudéry as a young girl. When
I say that there were young girls in the Salon, I have in mind the daughters of
the house, from whom emanated excess of delicacy, precocity, and
decadence, Julie d'Angennes, for whom was created "the garland of Julie,"
who became Mme. Montausier, Angélique de Rambouillet,—the first of de
Grignan's three wives,—and Mlle. de Bourbon, who married de Longueville,
and at a later day was known as the heroine of the Hôtel-de-Ville. We must
not imagine that a reception at the Hôtel de Rambouillet was a convocation
like a seance at the Institute of France. At such an assembly a de Sévigné, a
Paulet, a Lafayette would have been out of place, nor would they have
consented to sit like students in class discussing whether it were better to say
avoine and sarge (the pronunciation given by the Court) or aveine and serge
(the pronunciation used by the grain-handlers in the hay-market). Neither
would it have been worth while to collect such spirits had the sole object been
a discussion of the last new book, or the last new play; but literary and
grammatical questions were rocks in the seas on which the brilliant explorer
of the Blue Room had set sail and on the rocks she had planted her buoys.
She navigated sagaciously, taking the sun, sounding and shaping her course
to avoid danger. "Assaults of eloquence," however important, were cut short
before they resembled the lessons of the schoolroom. Before the innovation of
the Salon, the critics had dealt out discipline with heavy hands. We are
confounded by the solemnity with which Conrart informed Balzac of a
"tournament" between Voiture and Chapelain on the subject of one of
Ariosto's comedies, when "decisions" were rendered with all the precision of
legal sentences by "the hermit of Angoumois."[56] So manifest a waste of
energy proved that it was time for the world's people to interfere, to restrain
the savants from taking to heart things which were not worth their pains.
The authors produced their plays or their poems and carried their manuscripts
to the Hôtel de Rambouillet, where they read them in the presence of the
company, and the Circle listened, approved, criticised, and exchanged
opinions. All of Corneille's masterpieces cleared that port in disguise; their
creator presenting them as the works of a strange author. When he read
Polyeucte the Salon supposed that the drama was the work of a person
unknown to them; all listened intently and criticised freely. No one suspected
the real author, and when the last word was read, Voiture made haste to warn
Corneille that he "would better lock up the play." When the Circle first heard
the Cid they acclaimed it, and declared that it was the work of genius.
Richelieu objected to it, and the Salon defended it against him. Books and
plays were not the only subjects of discussion; in the Blue Room letters from
the absent were read to the company, verses were improvised and declaimed,
plays were enacted, and delicately refined expressions were sought with
which to clothe the sentiment and the passion of love. Great progress was
made in the exercise of wit, and at times the Circle, excited by the clash of
mind with mind, exhibited the effervescent joy of children at play when fun
runs riot in the last moment of recess, before the bell rings to recall them to
the schoolroom. At such a time the members of the Circle were marshalled
back to order and set down before the savants to contemplate the "ologies."
Such was the first period of the reign of the Précieuses, a period whose
history La Bruyère gathered from the recitals of the old men of that day.
Voiture and Sarrazin were born for their century, and they appeared just at
the time when they might have been expected; had they come forward with
less precipitation they would have been too late; it is probable that had they
come in our day they would have been just what they were at their own
epoch. When they came upon the stage the light, sparkling conversations, the
"circles" of meditative and critical groups convened to argue the literary and
æsthetic questions of the day, had vanished, with the finely marked
differences, the spiritual jests, the coquettish meanings hidden amidst the
overshadowing gravity of serious discussion.
The Circle no longer formed little parties admitting only the men who had
proved their title to intellect; but the fame of the first Salon de Rambouillet—
or, to speak better, the fame of the ideal Salon of the world—still clung to its
successor. As children listen to tales told by their grandfathers, the delicate
mind of Voiture listened to the story of those first days; Sarrazin the Gross
might scoff, but Voiture gloried in the thought that it had all been true; the
lights, the music, the merry jests, the spring flowers growing in the autumn,
the flashing lances of the spirit, the gay letters from the absent.... And well
might he glory! there had, in truth, been one supreme moment in the literary
life of France, a moment as rapid, as fleeting as a smile, lost even as it came,
never to appear again until long after the pigmy body which enshrined the
winged soul that loved to dream of it had turned to dust.
The memory of that first Salon was still so vivid that Saint Simon wrote: "The
Hôtel de Rambouillet was the trysting-place of all then existent of knowledge
and of wit; it was a redoubtable tribunal, where the world and the Court were
brought to judgment."

But the followers of Arthénice did not shrink from mundane pleasures. In the
gracious presence of their hostess the young people danced from love of
action, laughed from love of laughter, and, dressed to represent the heroes
and the heroines of Astrée, or to represent the tradesmen of Paris, went into
the country on picnics, and enacted plays for the amusement of their guests,
playing all the pranks of collegians in vacation. One day when they were all at
the Château de Rambouillet the Comte de Guiche ate a great many
mushrooms. In the night one of the gay party stole into his room and "took
in" all the seams in his garments. In the morning it was impossible for de
Guiche to dress; everything was too narrow to be buttoned; in vain he tugged
at the edges of his garments,—nothing would come together; the Comte was
racked by anxiety. "Can it be," he asked anxiously, "because I ate too many
mushrooms? Can it be possible that I am bloated?" His friends answered that
it might well be possible. "You know," said they, "that you ate till you were fit
to burst." De Guiche hurried to his mirror, and when he saw his apparently
swollen body and the gaps in his clothing, he trembled, and declared that he
was dying; as he was livid and about to swoon, his friends, thinking that the
jest had gone far enough, undeceived him. Mme. de Rambouillet was very
fond of inventing surprises for her friends, but her jests were of a more
gallant character. One day while they were at the Château de Rambouillet she
proposed to the Bishop de Lisieux, who was one of her guests, to walk into
the fields adjoining the château, where there was, as she said, a circle of
natural rocks set among great trees. The Bishop accepted her invitation, and
history tells us that "when he was so near the rocks that he could distinguish
them through the trees, he perceived in various places, as if scattered about—
[I hardly know how to tell it]—objects fairly white and glistening! As he
advanced it seemed to him that he could discern figures of women in the
guise of nymphs. The Marquise insisted that she could not see anything but
trees and rocks, but on advancing to the spot they found—Mlle. de
Rambouillet and the other young ladies of the house arrayed, and very
effectively, as nymphs; they were seated upon the rocks, where they made
the most agreeable of pictures." The good fellow was so charmed with the
pleasantry that thereafter he never saw "fair Arthénice" without speaking of
"the Rocks of Rambouillet."[57] The Bishop de Lisieux was an excellent priest;
decorum did not oppose such surprises, even when the one surprised was a
bishop. One day when the ladies were disguised to represent shepherdesses,
de Richelieu's brother, the Archbishop of Lyons, appeared among them in the
dress of a shepherd.
One of the most agreeable of Voiture's letters (addressed to a cardinal)[58]
contains an account of a trip that he had made into the country with the
Demoiselles de Rambouillet and de Bourbon, chaperoned by "Madame the
Princess," mother of the great Condé; Mlle. Paulet (the bit of driftwood) and
several others were of the party.

We departed from Paris about six o'clock in the evening, [wrote Voiture],
to go to La Barre,[59] where Mme. de Vigean was to give collation to
Madame the Princess.... We arrived at La Barre and entered an audience-
room in which there was nothing but a carpet of roses and of orange
blossoms for us to walk upon. After having admired this magnificence,
Madame the Princess wished to visit the promenade halls while we were
waiting for supper. The sun was setting in a cloud of gold and azure, and
there was only enough of it left to give a soft and misty light. The wind
had gone down, it was cool and pleasant, and it seemed to us that earth
and heaven had met to favour Mme. de Vigean's wish to feast the most
beautiful Princess in the world.

Having passed a large parterre, and great gardens, all full of orange
trees, we arrived at a wood which the sunlight had not entered in more
 than an hundred years, until it entered there (in the person of Madame).
At the foot of an avenue so long that we could not fathom its vista with
our eyes until we had reached the end of it, we found a fountain which
threw out more water than was ever thrown by all the fountains of Tivoli
put together. Around the fountain were ranged twenty-four violinists with
their violins, and their music was hardly able to cover the music of the
fountain. When we drew near them we discovered a niche in the
palisado, and in the niche was a Diana eleven or twelve years old, more
beautiful than any goddess of the forests of Greece or of Thessaly. She
bore her arrows in her eyes, and all the rays of the halo of her brother
surrounded her. In another niche was one of Diana's nymphs, beautiful
and sweet enough to attend Diana. They who doubt fables said that the
two visions were only Mlle. de Bourbon and la Pucelle Priande; and, to
tell the truth, there was some ground for their belief, for even we who
have always put faith in fables, we who knew that we were looking upon
a supernatural vision, recognised a close resemblance. Every one was
standing motionless and speechless, with admiration for all the objects so
astonishing both to ear and to eye, when suddenly the goddess sprang
from her niche and with grace that cannot be described, began a dance
around the fountain which lasted some time, and in which every one
joined.

(Here Voiture, who was under obligations to his correspondent, Cardinal de La

Valette, represents himself as having wept because the Cardinal was not
there. According to Voiture's account he communicated his grief to all the
company.)

... And I should have wept, and, in fact, we all should have mourned too
long, had not the violins quickly played a saraband so gay that every one
sprang up and danced as joyously as if there had been no mourning; and
thus, jumping, dancing, whirling, pirouetting, and capering, we arrived at
the house, where we found a table dressed as delicately as if the faëries
had served it. And now, Monseigneur, I come to a part of the adventure
which cannot be described! Truly, there are no colours nor any figures of
rhetoric to represent the six kinds of luscious soups, all different, which
were first placed before us before anything else was served. And among
other things were twelve different kinds of meats, under the most
unimaginable disguises, such as no one had ever heard of, and of which
not one of us has learned the name to this day! As we were leaving the
table the music of the violins called us quickly up the stairs, and when we
reached the upper floor we found an audience-room turned into a ball-
 room, so well lighted that it seemed to us that the sun, which had
entirely disappeared from earth, had gone around in some unknown way
and climbed up there to shine upon us and to make it as bright as any
daylight ever seen. There the dance began anew, and even more
perfectly than when we had danced around the fountain; and more
magnificent than all else, Monseigneur, is this, that I danced there! Mlle.
de Bourbon said that, truth to tell, I danced badly, but that doubtless I
should make an excellent swordsman, because, at the end of every
cadence, I straightened as if to fall back on guard.

The fête ended in a display of fireworks, after which the company "took the
road" for Paris by the light of twenty flambeaux, singing with all the strength
of their lungs. When they reached the village of La Villette they caught up
with the violinists, who had started for the city as soon as the dance was
ended and before the party left the château. One of the gayest of the
company insisted that the violinists should play, and that they should dance
right there in the street of the village. It was between two and three o'clock in
the morning and Voiture was tired out; he "blessed Heaven" when it was
discovered that the violins had been left at La Barre.

At last [Voiture wrote to the Cardinal] we reached Paris.... Impenetrable

darkness wrapped the city, silence and solitude lay on every hand, the
streets were deserted, and we saw no people, but now and then small
animals, frightened by the glaring flames of our torches, fled before us,
and we saw them hiding on the shadowy corners.

We learn from this letter how the companions of the Hôtel de Rambouillet
passed their evenings.
In Paris and in the distant provinces there were many imitations of the Salon;
the germs of the enterprise had taken root all over France with literary
results, which became the subject of serious study. The political consequences
of the literary and social innovations claimed less attention. The domestication
of the nobility originated in the Salon. When delicacy of manner was
introduced as obligatory, the nobleman was in full possession of the rights of
power; he could hunt and torture animals and inferior men, he could make
war upon his neighbours, he could live in egotistical isolation, enjoying the
luxuries bestowed by his seigniory, while the lower orders died of hunger at
his door, because his rank was manifested by his freedom from rules which
bound classes below his quality. The diversions introduced at the Salon de
Rambouillet exacted sacrifice of self to the convenience of others. In the
abstract this was an excellent thing, but its reaction was felt by the
aristocracy; from restraining their selfishness the gallant courtiers passed on
to the self-renunciation of the ancient Crusaders, and when Louis XIV. saw fit
(for his own reasons) to turn his nobles into peaceful courtiers and grand
barons of the ante-chamber, he found that his work had all been done; it was
not possible to convert his warriors into courtiers, for he had no warriors; all
the warriors had turned to knights of the carpet; their swords were wreathed
with roses, and the ringing notes which had called men to arms had changed
to the sighing murmurs of Durandarte; every man sat in a perfumed bower
busily employed in making "sonnets to his mistress's eyebrows." Louis XIV.
fumed because his Court resembled a salon; the incomparable Arthénice had
given the restless cavaliers a taste for fine conversation and innocent
pleasures, and by doing so she had minced the King's spoonmeat too fine; the
absolute monarch could only modify a transformation accomplished
independent of his will.
 LOUIS XIII., KING OF FRANCE AND OF NAVARRE
FROM AN OLD PRINT
We have now to determine how much of their false exalted sentiment and
their false ambition the princes, the chevaliers of the Fronde, and all the
gallants of the quality owed to the dramatic theatre of their day; that
estimated, we shall have gained a fair idea of the chief elements of the social
body idealised by Corneille,—of all the elements save one, the element of
Religion; that was a thing apart, to be considered especially and in its own
time.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com