Montaigne: What is a Classic?

Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve Tr. E. Lee

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, the foremost French critic of the nineteenth century, and, in
the view of many, the greatest literary critic of the world, was born at Boulogne-sur-Mer,
December 23, 1804. He studied medicine, but soon abandoned it for literature; and before he
gave himself up to criticism he made some mediocre attempts in poetry and fiction. He
became professor at the College de France and the Ecole Normale and was appointed Senator
in 1865. A course of lectures given at Lausanne in 1837 resulted in his great "Histoire de
Port-Royal" and another given at Liege in his "Chateaubriand et son groupe litteraire." But
his most famous productions were his critical essays published periodically in the
"Constitutionnel" the "Moniteur" and the "Temps" later collected in sets under the names of
"Critiques et Portraits Litteraires" "Portraits Contemporains" "Causeries du Lundi" and
"Nouveaux Lundis." At the height of his vogue, these Monday essays were events of European
importance. He died in 1869.

Sainte-Beuve's work was much more than literary criticism as that type of writing had been
generally conceived before his time. In place of the mere classification of books and the
passing of a judgment upon them as good or bad, he sought to illuminate and explain by
throwing light on a literary work from a study of the life, circumstances, and aim of the writer,
and by a comparison with the literature of other times and countries. Thus his work was
historical, psychological, and ethical, as well as esthetic, and demanded vast learning and a
literary outlook of unparalleled breadth. In addition to this equipment he had fine taste and
an admirable style; and by his universality, penetration, and balance he raised to a new level
the profession of critic.
MONTAIGNE

While the good ship France is taking a somewhat haphazard course, getting into unknown
seas, and preparing to double what the pilots (if there is a pilot) call the Stormy Cape, while
the look-out at the mast-head thinks he sees the spectre of the giant Adamastor rising on the
horizon, many honourable and peaceable men continue their work and studies all the same,
and follow out to the end, or as far as they can, their favourite hobbies. I know, at the present
time, a learned man who is collating more carefully than has ever yet been done the different
early editions of Rabelais—editions, mark you, of which only one copy remains, of which a
second is not to be found: from the careful collation of the texts some literary and maybe
philosophical result will be derived with regard to the genius of the French Lucian-
Aristophanes. I know another scholar whose devotion and worship is given to a very different
man—to Bossuet: he is preparing a complete, exact, detailed history of the life and works of
the great bishop. And as tastes differ, and "human fancy is cut into a thousand shapes"
(Montaigne said that), Montaigne also has his devotees, he who, himself, was so little of one:
a sect is formed round him. In his lifetime he had Mademoiselle de Gournay, his daughter of
alliance, who was solemnly devoted to him; and his disciple, Charron, followed him closely,
step by step, only striving to arrange his thoughts with more order and method. In our time
amateurs, intelligent men, practice the religion under another form: they devote themselves
to collecting the smallest traces of the author of the Essays, to gathering up the slightest
relics, and Dr. Payen may be justly placed at the head of the group. For years he has been
preparing a book on Montaigne, of which the title will be—"Michel de Montaigne, a
collection of unedited or little known facts about the author of the Essays, his book, and his
other writings, about his family, his friends, his admirers, his detractors."

While awaiting the conclusion of the book, the occupation and amusement of a lifetime, Dr.
Payen keeps us informed in short pamphlets of the various works and discoveries made about
Montaigne.

If we separate the discoveries made during the last five or six years from the jumble of
quarrels, disputes, cavilling, quackery, and law-suits (for there have been all those), they
consist in this- -
In 1846 M. Mace found in the (then) Royal Library, amongst the

"Collection Du Puys," a letter of Montaigne, addressed to the king,

Henri IV., September 2, 1590.

In 1847 M. Payen printed a letter, or a fragment of a letter of Montaigne of February 16,

1588, a letter corrupt and incomplete, coming from the collection of the Comtesse Boni de
Castellane.

But, most important of all, in 1848, M. Horace de Viel-Castel found in London, at the British
Museum, a remarkable letter of Montaigne, May 22, 1585, when Mayor of Bordeaux,
addressed to M. de Matignon, the king's lieutenant in the town. The great interest of the
letter is that it shows Montaigne for the first time in the full discharge of his office with all the
energy and vigilance of which he was capable. The pretended idler was at need much more
active than he was ready to own.

M. Detcheverry, keeper of the records to the mayoralty of Bordeaux, found and published
(1850) a letter of Montaigne, while mayor, to the Jurats, or aldermen of the town, July 30,
1585.

M. Achille Jubinal found among the manuscripts of the National

Library, and published (1850), a long, remarkable letter from

Montaigne to the king, Henri IV., January 18, 1590, which happily

coincides with that already found by M. Mace.

Lastly, to omit nothing and do justice to all, in a "Visit to Montaigne's Chateau in Perigord,"
of which the account appeared in 1850, M. Bertrand de Saint-Germain described the place
and pointed out the various Greek and Latin inscriptions that may still be read in
Montaigne's tower in the third-storey chamber (the ground floor counting as the first), which
the philosopher made his library and study.

M. Payen, collecting together and criticising in his last pamphlet the various notices and
discoveries, not all of equal importance, allowed himself to be drawn into some little
exaggeration of praise; but we cannot blame him. Admiration, when applied to such noble,
perfectly innocent, and disinterested subjects, is truly a spark of the sacred fire: it produces
research that a less ardent zeal would quickly leave aside, and sometimes leads to valuable
results. However, it would be well for those who, following M. Payen's example, intelligently
understand and greatly admire Montaigne, to remember, even in their ardour, the advice of
the wise man and the master. "There is more to do," said he, speaking of the commentators of
his time, "in interpreting the interpretations than in interpreting the things themselves; and
more bdoks about books than on any other subject. We do nothing, but everything swarms
with commentators; of authors there is a great rarity." Authors are of great price and very
scared at all times—that is to say, authors who really increase the sum of human knowledge. I
should like all who write on Montaigne, and give us the details of their researches and
discoveries, to imagine one thing,—Montaigne himself reading and criticising them. "What
would he think of me and the manner in which I am going to speak of him to the public?" If
such a question was put, how greatly it would suppress useless phrases and shorten idle
discussions! M. Payen's last pamphlet was dedicated to a man who deserves equally well of
Montaigne—M. Gustave Brunet, of Bordeaux. He, speaking of M. Payen, in a work in which
he pointed out interesting and various corrections of Montaigne's text, said: "May he soon
decide to publish the fruits of his researches: he will have left nothing for future
Montaignologues" Montaignologues! Great Heaven! what would Montaigne say of such a
word coined in his honour? You who occupy yourselves so meritoriously with him, but who
have, I think, no claim to appropriate him to yourselves, in the name of him whom you love,
and whom we all love by a greater or lesser title, never, I beg of you, use such words; they
smack of the brotherhood and the sect, of pedantry and of the chatter of the schools—things
utterly repugnant to Montaigne.
Montaigne had a simple, natural, affable mind, and a very happy disposition. Sprung from an
excellent father, who, though of no great education, entered with real enthusiasm into the
movement of the Renaissance and all the liberal novelties of his time, the son corrected the
excessive enthusiasm, vivacity, and tenderness he inherited by a great refinement and justness
of reflection; but he did not abjure the original groundwork. It is scarcely more than thirty
years ago that whenever the sixteenth century was mentioned it was spoken of as a barbarous
epoch, Montaigne only excepted: therein lay error and ignorance. The sixteenth century was
a great century, fertile, powerful, learned, refined in parts, although in some aspects it was
rough, violent, and seemingly coarse. What it particularly lacked was taste, if by taste is meant
the faculty of clear and perfect selection, the extrication of the elements of the beautiful. But
in the succeeding centuries taste quickly became distaste. If, however, in literature it was
crude, in the arts properly so-called, in those of the hand and the chisel, the sixteenth century,
even in France, is, in the quality of taste, far greater than the two succeeding centuries: it is
neither meagre nor massive, heavy nor distorted. In art its taste is rich and of fine quality,—at
once unrestrained and complex, ancient and modern, special to itself and original. In the
region of morals it is unequal and mixed. It was an age of contrasts, of contrasts in all their
crudity, an age of philosophy and fanaticism, of scepticism and strong faith. Everything was at
strife and in collision; nothing was blended and united. Everything was in ferment; it was a
period of chaos; every ray of light caused a storm. It was not a gentle age, or one we can call
an age of light, but an age of struggle and combat. What distinguished Montaigne and made a
phenomenon of him was, that in such an age he should have possessed moderation, caution,
and order.

Born on the last day of February, 1533, taught the ancient languages as a game while still a
child, waked even in his cradle by the sound of musical instruments, he seemed less fitted for
a rude and violent epoch than for the commerce and sanctuary of the muses. His rare good
sense corrected what was too ideal and poetical in his early education; but he preserved the
happy faculty of saying everything with freshness and wit. Married, when past thirty, to an
estimable woman who was his companion for twenty-eight years, he seems to have put
passion only into friendship. He immortalised his love for Etienne de la Boetie, whom he lost
after four years of the sweetest and closest intimacy. For some time counsellor in the
Parliament of Bordeaux, Montaigne, before he was forty, retired from public life, and flung
away ambition to live in his tower of Montaigne, enjoying his own society and his own
intellect, entirely given up to his own observations and thoughts, and to the busy idleness of
which we know all the sports and fancies. The first edition of the Essays appeared in 1580,
consisting of only two books, and in a form representing only the first rough draft of what we
have in the later editions. The same year Montaigne set out on a voyage to Switzerland and
Italy. It was during that voyage that the aldermen of Bordeaux elected him mayor of their
town. At first he refused and excused himself, but warned that it would be well to accept, and
enjoined by the king, he took the office, "the more beautiful," he said, "that there was neither
renunciation nor gain other than the honour of its performance." He filled the office for four
years, from July 1582 to July 1586, being re-elected after the first two years. Thus Montaigne,
at the age of fifty, and a little against his will, re- entered public life when the country was on
the eve of civil disturbances which, quieted and lulled to sleep for a while, broke out more
violently at the cry of the League. Although, as a rule, lessons serve for nothing, since the art
of wisdom and happiness cannot be taught, let us not deny ourselves the pleasure of listening
to Montaigne; let us look on his wisdom and happiness; let him speak of public affairs, of
revolutions and disturbances, and of his way of conducting himself with regard to them. We
do not put forward a model, but we offer our readers an agreeable recreation.

Although Montaigne lived in so agitated and stormy a time, a period that a man who had lived
through the Terror (M. Daunou) called the most tragic century in all history, he by no means
regarded his age as the worst of ages. He was not of those prejudiced and afflicted persons,
who, measuring everything by their visual horizon, valuing everything according to their
present sensations, alway declare that the disease they suffer from is worse than any ever
before experienced by a human being. He was like Socrates, who did not consider himself a
citizen of one city but of the world; with his broad and full imagination he embraced the
universality of countries and of ages; he even judged more equitably the very evils of which he
was witness and victim. "Who is it," he said, "that, seeing the bloody havoc of these civil wars
of ours, does not cry out that the machine of the world is near dissolution, and that the day of
judgment is at hand, without considering that many worse revolutions have been seen, and
that, in the mean time, people are being merry in a thousand other parts of the earth for all
this? For my part, considering the license and impunity that always attend such commotions,
I admire they are so moderate, and that there is not more mischief done. To him who feels the
hailstones patter about his ears, the whole hemisphere appears to be in storm and tempest."
And raising his thoughts higher and higher, reducing his own suffering to what it was in the
immensity of nature, seeing there not only himself but whole kingdoms as mere specks in the
infinite, he added in words which foreshadowed Pascal, in words whose outline and salient
points Pascal did not disdain to borrow: "But whoever shall represent to his fancy, as in a
picture, that great image of our mother nature, portrayed in her full majesty and lustre,
whoever in her face shall read so general and so constant a variety, whoever shall observe
himself in that figure, and not himself but a whole kingdom, no bigger than the least touch or
prick of a pencil in comparison of the whole, that man alone is able to value things according
to their true estimate and grandeur."

Thus Montaigne gives us a lesson, a useless lesson, but I state it all the same, because among
the many unprofitable ones that have been written down, it is perhaps of greater worth than
most. I do not mean to underrate the gravity of the circumstances in which France is just now
involved, for I believe there is pressing need to bring together all the energy, prudence, and
courage she possesses in order that the country may come out with honour [Footnote: This
essay appeared April 28, 1851]. However, let us reflect, and remember that, leaving aside the
Empire, which as regards internal affairs was a period of calm, and before 1812 of prosperity,
we who utter such loud complaints, lived in peace from 1815 to 1830, fifteen long years; that
the three days of July only inaugurated another order of things that for eighteen years
guaranteed peace and in dustrial prosperity; in all, thirty-two years of repose. Stormy days
came; tempests burst, and will doubtless burst again. Let us learn how to live through them,
but do not let us cry out every day, as we are disposed to do, that never under the sun were
such storms known as we are enduring. To get away from the present state of feeling, to
restore lucidity and proportion to our judgments, let us read every evening a page of
Montaigne.

A criticism of Montaigne on the men of his day struck me, and it bears equally well on those
of ours. Our philosopher says somewhere that he knows a fair number of men possessing
various good qualities—one, intelligence; another, heart; another, address, conscience or
knowledge, or skill in languages, each has his share: "but of a great man as a whole, having so
many good qualities together, or one with such a degree of excellence that we ought to admire
him, or compare him with those we honour in the past, my fortune has never shown me one."
He afterwards made an exception in favour of his friend Etienne de la Boetie, but he belonged
to the company of great men dead before attaining maturity, and showing promise without
having time to fulfil it. Montaigne's criticism called up a smile. He did not see a true and
wholly great man in his time, the age of L'Hopital, Coligny, and the Guises. Well! how does
ours seem to you? We have as many great men as in Montaigne's time, one distinguished for
his intellect, another for his heart, a third for skill, some (a rare thing) for conscience, many
for knowledge and language. But we too lack the perfect man, and he is greatly to be desired.
One of the most intelligent observers of our day recognised and proclaimed it some years ago:
"Our age," said M. de Remusat, "is wanting in great men." [Footnote: Essais de Philosophie,
vol. i, p. 22]

How did Montaigne conduct himself in his duties as first magistrate of a great city? If we take
him literally and on a hasty first glance we should believe he discharged them slackly and
languidly. Did not Horace, doing the honours to himself, say that in war he one day let his
shield fall (relicta non bene parmula)? We must not be in too great a hurry to take too literally
the men of taste who have a horror of over-estimating themselves. Minds of a fine quality are
more given to vigilance and to action than they are apt to confess. The man who boasts and
makes a great noise, will, I am almost sure, be less brave in the combat than Horace, and less
vigilant at the council board than Montaigne.

On entering office Montaigne was careful to warn the aldermen of Bordeaux not to expect to
find in him more than there really was; he presented himself to them without affectation. "I
represented to them faithfully and conscientiously all that I felt myself to be,—a man without
memory, without vigilance, without experience, and without energy; but also, without hate,
without ambition, without avarice, and without violence." He should be sorry, while taking
the affairs of the town in hand, that his feelings should be so strongly affected as those of his
worthy father had been, who in the end had lost his place and health. The eager and ardent
pledge to satisfy an impetuous desire was not his method. His opinion was "that you must
lend yourself to others, and only give yourself to yourself." And repeating his thought,
according to his custom in all kinds of metaphors and picturesque forms, he said again that if
he some times allowed himself to be urged to the management of other men's affairs, he
promised to take them in hand, not "into my lungs and liver." We are thus forewarned, we
know what to expect. The mayor and Montaigne were two distinct persons; under his role
and office he reserved to himself a certain freedom and secret security. He continued to judge
things in his own fashion and impartially, although acting loyally for the cause confided to
him. He was far from approving or even excusing all he saw in his party, and he could judge
his adversaries and say of them: "He did that thing wickedly, and this virtuously." "I would
have," he added, "matters go well on our side; but if they do not, I shall not run mad. I am
heartily for the right party; but I do not affect to be taken notice of for an especial enemy to
others." And he entered into some details and applications which at that time were piquant.
Let us remark, however, in order to explain and justify his somewhat extensive profession of
impartiality, that the chiefs of the party then in evidence, the three Henris, were famous and
considerable men on several counts: Henri, Duke of Guise, head of the League; Henri, King
of Navarre, leader of the Opposition; and the King Henri III. in whose name Montaigne was
mayor, who wavered between the two. When parties have neither chief nor head, when they
are known by the body only, that is to say, in their hideous and brutal reality, it is more
difficult and also more hazardous to be just towards them and to assign to each its share of
action.

The principle which guided him in his administration was to look only at the fact, at the
result, and to grant nothing to noise and outward show: "How much more a good effect makes
a noise, so much I abate of the goodness of it." For it is always to be feared that it was more
performed for the sake of the noise than upon the account of goodness: "Being exposed upon
the stall, 'tis half sold." That was not Montaigne's way: he made no show; he managed men
and affairs as quietly as he could; he employed in a manner useful to all alike the gifts of
sincerity and conciliation; the personal attraction with which nature endowed him was a
quality of the highest value in the management of men. He preferred to warn men of evil
rather than to take on himself the honour of repressing it: "Is there any one who desires to be
sick that he may see his physician's practice? And would not that physician deserve to be
whipped who should wish the plague amongst us that he might put his art into practice?" Far
from desiring that trouble and disorder in the affairs of the city should rouse and honour his
govern ment, he had ever willingly, he said, contributed all he could to their tranquillity and
ease. He is not of those whom municipal honours intoxicate and elate, those "dignities of
office" as he called them, and of which all the noise "goes from one cross-road to another." If
he was a man desirous of fame, he recognised that it was of a kind greater than that. I do not
know, however, if even in a vaster field he would have changed his method and manner of
proceed ing. To do good for the public imperceptibly would always seem to him the ideal of
skill and the culminating point of happiness. "He who will not thank me," he said, "for the
order and quiet calm that has accompanied my administration, cannot, however, deprive me
of the share that belongs to me by the title of my good fortune." And he is inexhaustible in
describing in lively and graceful expressions the kinds of effective and imperceptible services
he believed he had rendered—services greatly superior to noisy and glorious deeds: "Actions
which come from the workman's hand carelessly and noiselessly have most charm, that some
honest man chooses later and brings from their obscurity to thrust them into the light for
their own sake." Thus fortune served Montaigne to perfection, and even in his administration
of affairs, in difficult conjunctures, he never had to belie his maxim, nor to step very far out of
the way of life he had planned: "For my part I commend a gliding, solitary, and silent life." He
reached the end of his magistracy almost satisfied with himself, having accomplished what he
had promised himself, and much more than he had promised others.

The letter lately discovered by M. Horace de Viel-Castel corroborates the chapter in which
Montaigne exhibits and criticises himself in the period of his public life. "That letter," says M.
Payen, "is entirely on affairs. Montaigne is mayor; Bordeaux, lately disturbed, seems
threatened by fresh agitations; the king's lieutenant is away. It is Wednesday, May 22, 1585; it
is night, Montaigne is wakeful, and writes to the governor of the province." The letter, which
is of too special and local an interest to be inserted here, may be summed up in these
words:—Montaigne regretted the absence of Marshal de Matignon, and feared the
consequences of its prolongation; he was keeping, and would continue to keep, him
acquainted with all that was going on, and begged him to return as soon as his circumstances
would permit. "We are looking after our gates and guards, and a little more carefully in your
absence. . . . If anything important and fresh occurs, I shall send you a messenger
immediately, so that if you hear no news from me, you may consider that nothing has
happened." He begs M. de Matignon to remember, however, that he might not have time to
warn him, "entreating you to consider that such movements are usually so sudden, that if they
do occur they will take me by the throat without any warning." Besides, he will do everything
to ascertain the march of events beforehand. "I will do what I can to hear news from all parts,
and to that end shall visit and observe the inclinations of all sorts of men." Lastly, after
keeping the marshal informed of everything, of the least rumours abroad in the city, he
pressed him to return, assuring him "that we spare neither our care, nor, if need be, our lives
to preserve everything in obedience to the king." Montaigne was never prodigal of
protestations and praises, and what with others was a mere form of speech, was with him a
real undertaking and the truth.

Things, however, became worse and worse: civil war broke out; friendly or hostile parties (the
difference was not great) infested the country. Montaigne, who went to his country house as
often as he could, whenever the duties of his office, which was drawing near its term, did not
oblige him to be in Bordeaux, was exposed to every sort of insult and outrage. "I underwent,"
he said, "the inconveniences that moderation brings along with it in such a disease. I was
pitied on all hands; to the Ghibelline I was a Guelph, and to the Guelph a Ghibelline." In the
midst of his personal grievances he could disengage and raise his thoughts to reflections on
the public misfortunes and on the degradation of men's characters. Considering closely the
disorder of parties, and all the abject and wretched things which developed so quickly, he was
ashamed to see leaders of renown stoop and debase themselves by cowardly complacency; for
in those circumstances we know, like him, "that in the word of command to march, draw up,
wheel, and the like, we obey him indeed; but all the rest is dissolute and free." "It pleases me,"
said Montaigne ironically, "to observe how much pusillanimity and cowardice there is in
ambition; by how abject and servile ways it must arrive at its end." Despising ambition as he
did, he was not sorry to see it unmasked by such practices and degraded in his sight.
However, his goodness of heart overcoming his pride and contempt, he adds sadly, "it
displeases me to see good and generous natures, and that are capable of justice, every day
corrupted in the management and command of this confusion. . . . We had ill-contrived souls
enough without spoiling those that were generous and good." He rather sought in that
misfortune an opportunity and motive for fortifying and strengthening himself. Attacked one
by one by many disagreeables and evils, which he would have endured more cheerfully in a
heap—that is to say, all at once- -pursued by war, disease, by all the plagues (July 1585), in
the course things were taking, he already asked himself to whom he and his could have
recourse, of whom he could ask shelter and subsistence for his old age; and having looked and
searched thoroughly all around, he found himself actually destitute and RUINED. For, "to let
a man's self fall plumb down, and from so great a height, it ought to be in the arms of a solid,
vigorous, and fortunate friendship. They are very rare, if there be any." Speaking in such a
manner, we perceive that La Boetie had been some time dead. Then he felt that he must after
all rely on himself in his distress, and must gain strength; now or never was the time to put
into practice the lofty lessons he spent his life in collecting from the books of the
philosophers. He took heart again, and attained all the height of his virtue: "In an ordinary
and quiet time, a man prepares himself for moderate and common accidents; but in the
confusion wherein we have been for these thirty years, every Frenchman, whether in
particular or in general, sees himself every hour upon the point of the total ruin and
overthrow of his fortune." And far from being discouraged and cursing fate for causing him to
be born in so stormy an age, he suddenly congratulated himself: "Let us thank fortune that
has not made us live in an effeminate, idle and languishing age." Since the curiosity of wise
men seeks the past for disturbances in states in order to learn the secrets of history, and, as
we should say, the whole physiology of the body social, "so does my curiosity," he declares,
"make me in some sort please myself with seeing with my own eyes this notable spectacle of
our public death, its forms and symptoms; and, seeing I could not hinder it, am content to be
destined to assist in it, and thereby to instruct myself." I shall not suggest a consolation of that
sort to most people; the greater part of mankind does not possess the heroic and eager
curiosity of Empedocles and the elder Pliny, the two intrepid men who went straight to the
volcanoes and the disturbances of nature to examine them at close quarters, at the risk of
destruction and death. But to a man of Montaigne's nature, the thought of that stoical
observation gave him consolation even amid real evils. Considering the condition of false
peace and doubtful truce, the regime of dull and profound corruption which had preceded the
last disturbances, he almost congratulated himself on seeing their cessation; for "it was," he
said of the regime of Henri III., "an universal juncture of particular members, rotten to
emulation of one another, and the most of them with inveterate ulcers, that neither required
nor admitted of any cure. This conclusion therefore did really more animate than depress
me." Note that his health, usually delicate, is here raised to the level of his morality, although
what it had suffered through the various disturbances might have been enough to undermine
it. He had the satisfaction of feeling that he had some hold against fortune, and that it would
take a greater shock still to crush him.

Another consideration, humbler and more humane, upheld him in his troubles, the
consolation arising from a common misfortune, a misfortune shared by all, and the sight of
the courage of others. The people, especially the real people, they who are victims and not
robbers, the peasants of his district, moved him by the manner in which they endured the
same, or even worse, troubles than his. The disease or plague which raged at that time in the
country pressed chiefly on the poor; Montaigne learned from them resignation and the
practice of philosophy. "Let us look down upon the poor people that we see scattered upon
the face of the earth, prone and intent upon their business, that neither know Aristotle nor
Cato, example nor precept. Even from these does nature every day extract effects of
constancy and patience, more pure and manly than those we so inquisitively study in the
schools." And he goes on to describe them working to the bitter end, even in their grief, even
in disease, until their strength failed them. "He that is now digging in my garden has this
morning buried his father, or his son. . . . They never keep their beds but to die." The whole
chapter is fine, pathetic, to the point, evincing noble, stoical elevation of mind, and also the
cheerful and affable disposition which Montaigne said, with truth, was his by inheritance, and
in which he had been nourished. There could be nothing better as regards "consolation in
public calamities," except a chapter of some not more human, but of some truly divine book,
in which the hand of God should be everywhere visible, not perfunctorily, as with Montaigne,
but actually and lovingly present. In fact, the consolation Montaigne gives himself and others
is perhaps as lofty and beautiful as human consolation without prayer can be.

He wrote the chapter, the twelfth of the third book, in the midst of the evils described, and
before they were ended. He concluded it in his graceful and poetical way with a collection of
examples, "a heap of foreign flowers," to which he furnished only the thread for fastening
them together.
There is Montaigne to the life; no matter how seriously he spoke, it was always with the
utmost charm. To form an opinion on his style you have only to open him indifferently at any
page and listen to his talk on any subject; there is none that he did not enliven and make
suggestive. In the chapter "Of Liars," for instance, after enlarging on his lack of memory and
giving a list of reasons by which he might console himself, he suddenly added this fresh and
delightful reason, that, thanks to his faculty for forgetting, "the places I revisit, and the books
I read over again, always smile upon me with a fresh novelty." It is thus that on every subject
he touched he was continually new, and created sources of freshness.

Montesquieu, in a memorable exclamation, said: "The four great poets, Plato, Malebranche,
Shaftesbury, Montaigne!" How true it is of Montaigne! No French writer, including the poets
proper, had so lofty an idea of poetry as he had. "From my earliest childhood," he said, "poetry
had power over me to transport and transpierce me." He considered, and therein shows
penetration, that "we have more poets than judges and interpreters of poetry. It is easier to
write than to understand." In itself and its pure beauty his poetry defies definition; whoever
desired to recognise it at a glance and discern of what it actually consisted would see no more
than "the brilliance of a flash of lightning." In the constitution and continuity of his style,
Montaigne is a writer very rich in animated, bold similes, naturally fertile in metaphors that
are never detached from the thought, but that seize it in its very centre, in its interior, that
join and bind it. In that respect, fully obeying his own genius, he has gone beyond and some
times exceeded the genius of language. His concise, vigorous and always forcible style, by its
poignancy, emphasises and repeats the meaning. It may be said of his style that it is a
continual epigram, or an ever-renewed metaphor, a style that has only been successfully
employed by the French once, by Montaigne himself. If we wanted to imitate him, supposing
we had the power and were naturally fitted for it—if we desired to write with his severity,
exact proportion, and diverse continuity of figures and turns—it would be necessary to force
our language to be more powerful, and poetically more complete, than is usually our custom.
Style a la Montaigne, consistent, varied in the series and assortment of the metaphors, exacts
the creation of a portion of the tissue itself to hold them. It is absolutely necessary that in
places the woof should be enlarged and extended, in order to weave into it the metaphor; but
in defining him I come almost to write like him. The French language, French prose, which in
fact always savours more or less of conversation, does not, naturally, possess the resources
and the extent of canvas necessary for a continued picture: by the side of an animated
metaphor it will often exhibit a sudden lacuna and some weak places. In filling this by
boldness and invention as Montaigne did, in creating, in imagining the expression and
locution that is wanting, our prose should appear equally finished. Style a la Montaigne
would, in many respects, be openly at war with that of Voltaire. It could only come into being
and flourish in the full freedom of the sixteenth century, in a frank, ingenious, jovial, keen,
brave, and refined mind, of an unique stamp, that even for that time, seemed free and
somewhat licentious, and that was inspired and emboldened, but not intoxicated by the pure
and direct spirit of ancient sources.

Such as he is, Montaigne is the French Horace; he is Horatian in the groundwork, often in the
form and expression, although in that he sometimes approaches Seneca. His book is a
treasure-house of moral observations and of experience; at whatever page it is opened, and in
what ever condition of mind, some wise thought expressed in a striking and enduring fashion
is certain to be found. It will at once detach itself and engrave itself on the mind, a beautiful
meaning in full and forcible words, in one vigorous line, familiar or great. The whole of his
book, said Etienne Pasquier, is a real seminary of beautiful and remarkable sentences, and
they come in so much the better that they run and hasten on without thrusting them selves
into notice. There is something for every age, for every hour of life: you cannot read in it for
any time without having the mind filled and lined as it were, or, to put it better, fully armed
and clothed. We have just seen how much useful counsel and actual consolation it contains
for an honourable man, born for private life, and fallen on times of disturbance and
revolution. To this I shall add the counsel he gave those who, like myself and many men of my
acquaintance, suffer from political disturbances without in any way provoking them, or
believing ourselves capable of averting them. Montaigne, as Horace would have done,
counsels them, while apprehending everything from afar off, not to be too much preoccupied
with such matters in advance; to take advantage to the end of pleasant moments and bright
intervals. Stroke on stroke come his piquant and wise similes, and he concludes, to my
thinking, with the most delightful one of all, and one, besides, entirely appropriate and
seasonable: it is folly and fret, he said, "to take out your furred gown at Saint John because
you will want it at Christmas."
WHAT IS A CLASSIC?

A delicate question, to which somewhat diverse solutions might be given according to times
and seasons. An intelligent man suggests it to me, and I intend to try, if not to solve it, at least
to examine and discuss it face to face with my readers, were it only to persuade them to
answer it for themselves, and, if I can, to make their opinion and mine on the point clear. And
why, in criticism, should we not, from time to time, venture to treat some of those subjects
which are not personal, in which we no longer speak of some one but of some thing? Our
neighbours, the English, have well succeeded in making of it a special division of literature
under the modest title of "Essays." It is true that in writing of such subjects, always slightly
abstract and moral, it is advisable to speak of them in a season of quiet, to make sure of our
own attention and of that of others, to seize one of those moments of calm moderation and
leisure seldom granted our amiable France; even when she is desirous of being wise and is not
making revolutions, her brilliant genius can scarcely tolerate them.

A classic, according to the usual definition, is an old author canonised by admiration, and an
authority in his particular style. The word classic was first used in this sense by the Romans.
With them not all the citizens of the different classes were properly called classici, but only
those of the chief class, those who possessed an income of a certain fixed sum. Those who
possessed a smaller income were described by the term infra classem, below the preeminent
class. The word classicus was used in a figurative sense by Aulus Gellius, and applied to
writers: a writer of worth and distinction, classicus assiduusque scriptor, a writer who is of
account, has real property, and is not lost in the proletariate crowd. Such an expression
implies an age sufficiently advanced to have already made some sort of valuation and
classification of literature.

At first the only true classics for the moderns were the ancients. The Greeks, by peculiar good
fortune and natural enlightenment of mind, had no classics but themselves. They were at first
the only classical authors for the Romans, who strove and contrived to imitate them. After the
great periods of Roman literature, after Cicero and Virgil, the Romans in their turn had their
classics, who became almost exclusively the classical authors of the centuries which followed.
The middle ages, which were less ignorant of Latin antiquity than is believed, but which
lacked proportion and taste, confused the ranks and orders. Ovid was placed above Homer,
and Boetius seemed a classic equal to Plato. The revival of learning in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries helped to bring this long chaos to order, and then only was admiration
rightly proportioned. Thenceforth the true classical authors of Greek and Latin antiquity
stood out in a luminous background, and were harmoniously grouped on their two heights.

Meanwhile modern literatures were born, and some of the more precocious, like the Italian,
already possessed the style of antiquity. Dante appeared, and, from the very first, posterity
greeted him as a classic. Italian poetry has since shrunk into far narrower bounds; but,
whenever it desired to do so, it always found again and preserved the impulse and echo of its
lofty origin. It is no indifferent matter for a poetry to derive its point of departure and
classical source in high places; for example, to spring from Dante rather than to issue
laboriously from Malherbe.

Modern Italy had her classical authors, and Spain had every right to believe that she also had
hers at a time when France was yet seeking hers. A few talented writers en dowed with
originality and exceptional animation, a few brilliant efforts, isolated, without following,
interrupted and recommenced, did not suffice to endow a nation with a solid and imposing
basis of literary wealth. The idea of a classic implies something that has continuance and
consistence, and which produces unity and tradition fashions and transmits itself, and
endures. It was only after the glorious years of Louis XIV. that the nation felt with tremor and
pride that such good fortune had happened to her. Every voice in formed Louis XIV. of it with
flattery, exaggeration, and emphasis, yet with a certain sentiment of truth. Then arose a
singular and striking contradiction: those men of whom Perrauit was the chief, the men who
were most smitten with the marvels of the age of Louis the Great, who even went the length
of sacrificing the ancients to the moderns, aimed at exalting and canonising even those whom
they regarded as inveterate opponents and adversaries. Boileau avenged and angrily upheld
the ancients against Perrault, who extolled the moderns—that is to say, Corneille, Moliere,
Pascal, and the eminent men of his age, Boileau, one of the first, included. Kindly La
Fontaine, taking part in the dispute in behalf of the learned Huet, did not perceive that, in
spite of his defects, he was in his turn on the point of being held as a classic himself.
Example is the best definition. From the time France possessed her age of Louis XIV. and
could contemplate it at a little distance, she knew, better than by any arguments, what to be
classical meant. The eighteenth century, even in its medley of things, strengthened this idea
through some fine works, due to its four great men. Read Voltaire's Age of Louis XIV.,
Montesquieu's Greatness and Fall of the Romans, Buffon's Epochs of Nature, the beautiful
pages of reverie and natural description of Rousseau's Savoyard Vicar, and say if the
eighteenth century, in these memorable works, did not understand how to reconcile tradition
with freedom of development and independence. But at the be ginning of the present century
and under the Empire, in sight of the first attempts of a decidedly new and somewhat
adventurous literature, the idea of a classic in a few resist ing minds, more sorrowful than
severe, was strangely nar rowed and contracted. The first Dictionary of the Academy (1694)
merely defined a classical author as "a much-approved ancient writer, who is an authority as
regards the subject he treats." The Dictionary of the Academy of 1835 narrows that definition
still more, and gives precision and even limit to its rather vague form. It describes classical
authors as those "who have become models in any language whatever," and in all the articles
which follow, the expressions, models, fixed rules for composition and style, strict rules of art
to which men must conform, continually recur. That definition of classic was evidently made
by the respectable Academicians, our predecessors, in face and sight of what was then called
romantic—that is to say, in sight of the enemy. It seems to me time to renounce those timid
and restrictive definitions and to free our mind of them. A true classic, as I should like to hear
it defined, is an author who has enriched the human mind, increased its treasure, and caused
it to advance a step; who has discovered some moral and not equivocal truth, or revealed
some eternal passion in that heart where all seemed known and discovered; who has
expressed his thought, observation, or invention, in no matter what form, only provided it be
broad and great, refined and sensible, sane and beautiful in itself; who has spoken to all in his
own peculiar style, a style which is found to be also that of the whole world, a style new
without neologism, new and old, easily contemporary with all time.
Such a classic may for a moment have been revolutionary; it may at least have seemed so, but
it is not; it only lashed and subverted whatever prevented the restoration of the balance of
order and beauty.

If it is desired, names may be applied to this definition which I wish to make purposely
majestic and fluctuating, or in a word, all- embracing. I should first put there Corneille of the
Polyeucte, Cinna, and Horaces. I should put Moliere there, the fullest and most complete
poetic genius we have ever had in France. Goethe, the king of critics, said:—

"Moliere is so great that he astonishes us afresh every time we read him. He is a man apart;
his plays border on the tragic, and no one has the courage to try and imitate him. His Avare,
where vice destroys all affection between father and son, is one of the most sublime works,
and dramatic in the highest degree. In a drama every action ought to be important in itself,
and to lead to an action greater still. In this respect Tartuffe is a model. What a piece of
exposition the first scene is! From the beginning everything has an important meaning, and
causes something much more important to be foreseen. The exposition in a certain play of
Lessing that might be mentioned is very fine, but the world only sees that of Tartuffe once. It
is the finest of the kind we possess. Every year I read a play of Moliere, just as from time to
time I contemplate some engraving after the great Italian masters."

I do not conceal from myself that the definition of the classic I have just given somewhat
exceeds the notion usually ascribed to the term. It should, above all, include conditions of
uniformity, wisdom, moderation, and reason, which dominate and contain all the others.
Having to praise M. Royer-Collard, M. de Remusat said—"If he derives purity of taste,
propriety of terms, variety of expression, attentive care in suiting the diction to the thought,
from our classics, he owes to himself alone the distinctive character he gives it all." It is here
evident that the part allotted to classical qualities seems mostly to depend on harmony and
nuances of expression, on graceful and temperate style: such is also the most general opinion.
In this sense the pre-eminent classics would be writers of a middling order, exact, sensible,
elegant, always clear, yet of noble feeling and airily veiled strength. Marie-Joseph Chenier has
described the poetics of those temperate and accomplished writers in lines where he shows
himself their happy disciple:—

"It is good sense, reason which does all,—virtue, genius, soul, talent, and taste.—What is
virtue? reason put in practice;—talent? reason expressed with brilliance;—soul? reason
delicately put forth;—and genius is sublime reason."

While writing those lines he was evidently thinking of Pope, Boileau, and Horace, the master
of them all. The peculiar characteristic of the theory which subordinated imagination and
feeling itself to reason, of which Scaliger perhaps gave the first sign among the moderns, is,
properly speaking, the Latin theory, and for a long time it was also by preference the French
theory. If it is used appositely, if the term reason is not abused, that theory possesses some
truth; but it is evident that it is abused, and that if, for instance, reason can be confounded
with poetic genius and make one with it in a moral epistle, it cannot be the same thing as the
genius, so varied and so diversely creative in its expression of the passions, of the drama or
the epic. Where will you find reason in the fourth book of the AEneid and the transports of
Dido? Be that as it may, the spirit which prompted the theory, caused writers who ruled their
inspiration, rather than those who abandoned themselves to it, to be placed in the first rank of
classics; to put Virgil there more surely than Homer, Racine in preference to Corneille. The
masterpiece to which the theory likes to point, which in fact brings together all conditions of
prudence, strength, tempered boldness, moral elevation, and grandeur, is Athalie. Turenne in
his two last campaigns and Racine in Athalie are the great examples of what wise and prudent
men are capable of when they reach the maturity of their genius and attain their supremest
boldness.

Buffon, in his Discourse on Style, insisting on the unity of design, arrangement, and
execution, which are the stamps of true classical works, said:—"Every subject is one, and
however vast it is, it can be comprised in a single treatise. Interruptions, pauses, sub-
divisions should only be used when many subjects are treated, when, having to speak of great,
intricate, and dissimilar things, the march of genius is interrupted by the multiplicity of
obstacles, and contracted by the necessity of circumstances: otherwise, far from making a
work more solid, a great number of divisions destroys the unity of its parts; the book appears
clearer to the view, but the author's design remains obscure." And he continues his criticism,
having in view Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, an excellent book at bottom, but sub-divided:
the famous author, worn out before the end, was unable to infuse inspiration into all his ideas,
and to arrange all his matter. However, I can scarcely believe that Buffon was not also
thinking, by way of contrast, of Bossuet's Discourse on Universal History, a subject vast
indeed, and yet of such an unity that the great orator was able to comprise it in a single
treatise. When we open the first edition, that of 1681, before the division into chapters, which
was introduced later, passed from the margin into the text, very thing is developed in a single
series, almost in one breath. It might be said that the orator has here acted like the nature of
which Buffon speaks, that "he has worked on an eternal plan from which he has nowhere
departed," so deeply does he seem to have entered into the familiar counsels and designs of
providence.

Are Athalie and the Discourse on Universal History the greatest masterpieces that the strict
classical theory can present to its friends as well as to its enemies? In spite of the admirable
simplicity and dignity in the achievement of such unique productions, we should like,
nevertheless, in the interests of art, to expand that theory a little, and to show that it is
possible to enlarge it without relaxing the tension. Goethe, whom I like to quote on such a
subject, said:—

"I call the classical healthy, and the romantic sickly. In my opinion the Nibelungen song is as
much a classic as Homer. Both are healthy and vigorous. The works of the day are romantic,
not because they are new, but because they are weak, ailing, or sickly. Ancient works are
classical not because they are old, but because they are powerful, fresh, and healthy. If we
regarded romantic and classical from those two points of view we should soon all agree."

Indeed, before determining and fixing the opinions on that matter, I should like every
unbiassed mind to take a voyage round the world and devote itself to a survey of different
literatures in their primitive vigour and infinite variety. What would be seen? Chief of all a
Homer, the father of the classical world, less a single distinct individual than the vast living
expression of a whole epoch and a semi-barbarous civilisation. In order to make him a true
classic, it was necessary to attribute to him later a design, a plan, literary invention, qualities
of atticism and urbanity of which he had certainly never dreamed in the luxuriant
development of his natural inspirations. And who appear by his side? August, venerable
ancients, the AEschyluses and the Sophocles, mutilated, it is true, and only there to present
us with a debris of themselves, the survivors of many others as worthy, doubtless, as they to
survive, but who have succumbed to the injuries of time. This thought alone would teach a
man of impartial mind not to look upon the whole of even classical literatures with a too
narrow and restricted view; he would learn that the exact and well-proportioned order which
has since so largely prevailed in our admiration of the past was only the outcome of artificial
circumstances.

And in reaching the modern world, how would it be? The greatest names to be seen at the
beginning of literatures are those which disturb and run counter to certain fixed ideas of what
is beautiful and appropriate in poetry. For example, is Shakespeare a classic? Yes, now, for
England and the world; but in the time of Pope he was not considered so. Pope and his
friends were the only pre-eminent classics; directly after their death they seemed so for ever.
At the present time they are still classics, as they deserve to be, but they are only of the
second order, and are for ever subordinated and relegated to their rightful place by him who
has again come to his own on the height of the horizon.

It is not, however, for me to speak ill of Pope or his great disciples, above all, when they
possess pathos and naturalness like Goldsmith: after the greatest they are perhaps the most
agreeable writers and the poets best fitted to add charm to life. Once when Lord Bolingbroke
was writing to Swift, Pope added a postscript, in which he said—"I think some advantage
would result to our age, if we three spent three years together." Men who, without boasting,
have the right to say such things must never be spoken of lightly: the fortunate ages, when
men of talent could propose such things, then no chimera, are rather to be envied. The ages
called by the name of Louis XIV. or of Queen Anne are, in the dispassionate sense of the
word, the only true classical ages, those which offer protection and a favourable climate to
real talent. We know only to well how in our untrammelled times, through the instability and
storminess of the age, talents are lost and dissipated. Nevertheless, let us acknowledge our
age's part and superiority in greatness. True and sovereign genius triumphs over the very
difficulties that cause others to fail: Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton were able to attain their
height and produce their imperishable works in spite of obstacles, hardships and tempests.
Byron's opinion of Pope has been much discussed, and the explanation of it sought in the
kind of contradiction by which the singer of Don Juan and Childe Harold extolled the purely
classical school and pronounced it the only good one, while himself acting so differently.
Goethe spoke the truth on that point when he remarked that Byron, great by the flow and
source of poetry, feared that Shakespeare was more powerful than himself in the creation and
realisation of his characters. "He would have liked to deny it; the elevation so free from
egoism irritated him; he felt when near it that he could not display himself at ease. He never
denied Pope, because he did not fear him; he knew that Pope was only a low wall by his side."

If, as Byron desired, Pope's school had kept the supremacy and a sort of honorary empire in
the past, Byron would have been the first and only poet in his particular style; the height of
Pope's wall shuts out Shakespeare's great figure from sight, whereas when Shakespeare reigns
and rules in all his greatness, Byron is only second.

In France there was no great classic before the age of Louis XIV.; the Dantes and
Shakespeares, the early authorities to whom, in times of emancipation, men sooner or later
return, were wanting. There were mere sketches of great poets, like Mathurin Regnier, like
Rabelais, without any ideal, without the depth of emotion and the seriousness which
canonises. Montaigne was a kind of premature classic, of the family of Horace, but for want of
worthy surroundings, like a spoiled child, he gave himself up to the unbridled fancies of his
style and humour. Hence it happened that France, less than any other nation, found in her old
authors a right to demand vehemently at a certain time literary liberty and freedom, and that
it was more difficult for her, in enfranchising herself, to remain classical. However, with
Moliere and La Fontaine among her classics of the great period, nothing could justly be
refused to those who possessed courage and ability.
The important point now seems to me to be to uphold, while extending, the idea and belief.
There is no receipt for making classics; this point should be clearly recognised. To believe
that an author will become a classic by imitating certain qualities of purity, moderation,
accuracy, and elegance, independently of the style and inspiration, is to believe that after
Racine the father there is a place for Racine the son; dull and estimable role, the worst in
poetry. Further, it is hazardous to take too quickly and without opposition the place of a
classic in the sight of one's contemporaries; in that case there is a good chance of not
retaining the position with posterity. Fontanes in his day was regarded by his friends as a pure
classic; see how at twenty-five years' distance his star has set. How many of these precocious
classics are there who do not endure, and who are so only for a while! We turn round one
morning and are surprised not to find them standing behind us. Madame de Sevigne would
wittily say they possessed but an evanescent colour. With regard to classics, the least expected
prove the best and greatest: seek them rather in the vigorous genius born immortal and
flourishing for ever. Apparently the least classical of the four great poets of the age of Louis
XIV. was Moliere; he was then applauded far more than he was esteemed; men took delight in
him without understanding his worth. After him, La Fontaine seemed the least classical:
observe after two centuries what is the result for both. Far above Boileau, even above Racine,
are they not now unanimously considered to possess in the highest degree the characteristics
of an all-embracing morality?

Meanwhile there is no question of sacrificing or depreciating anything. I believe the temple of

taste is to be rebuilt; but its reconstruction is merely a matter of enlargement, so that it may
become the home of all noble human beings, of all who have permanently increased the sum
of the mind's delights and possessions. As for me, who cannot, obviously, in any degree
pretend to be the architect or designer of such a temple, I shall confine myself to expressing a
few earnest wishes, to submit, as it were, my designs for the edifice. Above all I should desire
not to exclude any one among the worthy, each should be in his place there, from
Shakespeare, the freest of creative geniuses, and the greatest of classics without knowing it, to
Andrieux, the last of classics in little. "There is more than one chamber in the mansions of my
Father;" that should be as true of the kingdom of the beautiful here below, as of the kingdom
of Heaven. Homer, as always and everywhere, should be first, likest a god; but behind him,
like the procession of the three wise kings of the East, would be seen the three great poets,
the three Homers, so long ignored by us, who wrote epics for the use of the old peoples of
Asia, the poets Valmiki, Vyasa of the Hindoos, and Firdousi of the Persians: in the domain of
taste it is well to know that such men exist, and not to divide the human race. Our homage
paid to what is recognized as soon as perceived, we must not stray further; the eye should
delight in a thousand pleasing or majestic spectacles, should rejoice in a thousand varied and
surprising combinations, whose apparent confusion would never be without concord and
harmony. The oldest of the wise men and poets, those who put human morality into maxims,
and those who in simple fashion sung it, would converse together in rare and gentle speech,
and would not be surprised at understanding each other's meaning at the very first word.
Solon, Hesiod, Theognis, Job, Solomon, and why not Confucius, would welcome the cleverest
moderns, La Rochefoucauld and La Bruyere, who, when listening to them, would say "they
knew all that we know, and in repeating life's experiences, we have discovered nothing." On
the hill, most easily discernible, and of most accessible ascent, Virgil, surrounded by
Menander, Tibullus, Terence, Fenelon, would occupy himself in discoursing with them with
great charm and divine enchantment: his gentle countenance would shine with an inner light,
and be tinged with modesty; as on the day when entering the theatre at Rome, just as they
finished reciting his verses, he saw the people rise with an unanimous movement and pay to
him the same homage as to Augustus. Not far from him, regretting the separation from so
dear a friend, Horace, in his turn, would preside (as far as so accomplished and wise a poet
could preside) over the group of poets of social life who could talk although they sang,—Pope,
Boileau, the one become less irritable, the other less fault-finding. Montaigne, a true poet,
would be among them, and would give the finishing touch that should deprive that delightful
corner of the air of a literary school. There would La Fontaine forget himself, and becoming
less volatile would wander no more. Voltaire would be attracted by it, but while finding
pleasure in it would not have patience to remain. A little lower down, on the same hill as
Virgil, Xenophon, with simple bearing, looking in no way like a general, but rather resembling
a priest of the Muses, would be seen gathering round him the Attics of every tongue and of
every nation, the Addisons, Pellissons, Vauvenargues—all who feel the value of an easy
persuasiveness, an exquisite simplicity, and a gentle negligence mingled with ornament. In
the centre of the place, in the portico of the principal temple (for there would be several in
the enclosure), three great men would like to meet often, and when they were together, no
fourth, however great, would dream of joining their discourse or their silence. In them would
be seen beauty, proportion in greatness, and that perfect harmony which appears but once in
the full youth of the world. Their three names have become the ideal of art—Plato, Sophocles,
and Demosthenes. Those demi-gods honoured, we see a numerous and familiar company of
choice spirits who follow, the Cervantes and Molieres, practical painters of life, indulgent
friends who are still the first of benefactors, who laughingly embrace all mankind, turn man's
experience to gaiety, and know the powerful workings of a sensible, hearty, and legitimate joy.
I do not wish to make this description, which if complete would fill a volume, any longer. In
the middle ages, believe me, Dante would occupy the sacred heights: at the feet of the singer
of Paradise all Italy would be spread out like a garden; Boccaccio and Ariosto would there
disport themselves, and Tasso would find again the orange groves of Sorrento. Usually a
corner would be reserved for each of the various nations, but the authors would take delight
in leaving it, and in their travels would recognise, where we should least expect it, brothers or
masters. Lucretius, for example, would enjoy discussing the origin of the world and the
reducing of chaos to order with Milton. But both arguing from their own point of view, they
would only agree as regards divine pictures of poetry and nature.

Such are our classics; each individual imagination may finish the sketch and choose the group
preferred. For it is necessary to make a choice, and the first condition of taste, after obtaining
knowledge of all, lies not in continual travel, but in rest and cessation from wandering.
Nothing blunts and destroys taste so much as endless journeyings; the poetic spirit is not the
Wandering Jew. However, when I speak of resting and making choice, my meaning is not that
we are to imitate those who charm us most among our masters in the past. Let us be content
to know them, to penetrate them, to admire them; but let us, the late-comers, endeavour to
be ourselves. Let us have the sincerity and naturalness of our own thoughts, of our own
feelings; so much is always possible. To that let us add what is more difficult, elevation, an
aim, if possible, towards an exalted goal; and while speaking our own language, and
submitting to the conditions of the times in which we live, whence we derive our strength and
our defects, let us ask from time to time, our brows lifted towards the heights and our eyes
fixed on the group of honoured mortals: what would that say of us?
But why speak always of authors and writings? Maybe an age is coming when there will be no
more writing. Happy those who read and read again, those who in their reading can follow
their unrestrained inclination! There comes a time in life when, all our journeys over, our
experiences ended, there is no enjoyment more delightful than to study and thoroughly
examine the things we know, to take pleasure in what we feel, and in seeing and seeing again
the people we love: the pure joys of our maturity. Then it is that the word classic takes its true
meaning, and is defined for every man of taste by an irresistible choice. Then taste is formed,
it is shaped and definite; then good sense, if we are to possess it at all, is perfected in us. We
have neither more time for experiments, nor a desire to go forth in search of pastures newf
We cling to our friends, to those proved by long intercourse. Old wine, old books, old friends.
We say to ourselves with Voltaire in these delightful lines:—"Let us enjoy, let us write, let us
live, my dear Horace!…I have lived longer than you: my verse will not last so long. But on the
brink of the tomb I shall make it my chief care—to follow the lessons of your philosophy—to
despise death in enjoying life—to read your writings full of charm and good sense—as we
drink an old wine which revives our senses."

In fact, be it Horace or another who is the author preferred, who reflects our thoughts in all
the wealth of their maturity, of some one of those excellent and antique minds shall we
request an interview at every moment; of some one of them shall we ask a friendship which
never deceives, which could not fail us; to some one of them shall we appeal for that sensation
of serenity and amenity (we have often need of it) which reconciles us with mankind and with
ourselves.