LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 aass jV^lM 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
THE AESTHETIC DOCTRINE 
 OF MONTESQUIEU 
 
 ITS APPLICATION IN HIS WRITINGS 
 
 DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS 
 
 UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWIN PRESTON DARGAN 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 J. H. FURST COMPANY 
 
 1907 
 
s 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/aestheticdoctrinOOdargrich 
 
THE AESTHETIC DOCTRINE 
 OF MONTESQUIEU 
 
 ITS APPLICATION IN HIS WRITINGS 
 
 DISSEBTATION SUBMITTED TO THE BOABD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS 
 
 UNIVERSITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWIN PRESTON DARGAN 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 J. H. FURST COMPANY 
 
 1907 
 
r^f(^^ 
 
TO 
 
 E. H. W. 
 
 — *' Ore ai trovet po que tani avons quisJ* 
 
 175691 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The present study was undertaken from a desire to acquire 
 familiarity with the writings of a great Frenchman, and with the 
 purpose of discovering his artistic ideas, of determining his strictly 
 literary value. The desire has been satisfied, but the purpose 
 remains only partly fulfilled. It was hoped that his Aesthetic 
 Doctrine could be made the kernel of a treatment which would 
 include a thorough study of Montesquieu's style, of his setting, of 
 his precursors and influence. Especially was it hoped that there 
 would be opportunity to engage in the fecund criticism of his 
 general ideas. 
 
 The writer has not abandoned all hopes of completing this 
 treatment, for which much material has been already collected. 
 During two years, Montesquieu has been the thing most 
 prominently before him ; one does not quit a great thinker so 
 easily. At present, however, in view of the specific demands 
 of dissertation-writing and other circumstances, it has seemed 
 best to submit only what may prove, it is trusted, a tolerably 
 exhaustive and rounded presentation of the Doctrine. A final 
 chapter on application has been added, to point, at least, along 
 other paths. 
 
 Thanks are due for courteous assistance to the officials of the 
 Library of Congress, of the British Museum and of the Biblio- 
 theque Nationale. More especially would the writer speak in 
 grateful acknowledgment of the encouragement given and the 
 allowances made by his two very considerate referees. 
 
 E. P. D. 
 
 (April, 1906.) 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 BOOK I. 
 PKOLEGOMENA. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Chapter I. Bibliography 1-7 
 
 11. Introductory 8-13 
 
 III. The Material 14-19 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 AESTHETIC DOCTRINE— PKINCIPLES. 
 
 Chapter IV. Art — Description and Divisions 20-21 
 
 V. Art— Object, Origin, Value and Relations 22-34 
 
 VI. Art — Qualities and Properties 35-43 
 
 VII. Art— Criterion— Taste 44-47 
 
 VIII. Schools — Classicism versus Individualism 48-54 
 
 BOOK III. 
 
 FORMS OF ART. 
 
 Chapter IX. Montesquieu and the Fine Arts — General View 55-59 
 
 X. Painting — Raphael and Michelangelo 60-65 
 
 XL Sculpture 66-68 
 
 XII. Architecture— The Gothic 69-73 
 
 XIII. Music and Dancing 74-77 
 
 XIV. Landscape-Gardening 78-79 
 
 XV. Literature 80-160 
 
 1. General View — Definition, Value, and Qualities.. 80-87 
 
 2. Relations — Influence of the Salon and Woman — 
 
 E^rit 87-92 
 
 3. Books and Authors 93-99 
 
 4. Scholarship and Cognate Fields 99-106 
 
 5. Genres — Poetry, Fiction, Drama, History, Satire, 
 
 and Criticism 106-124 
 
 6. Ancients and Modems 124-129 
 
 7. Individual Authors 129-153 
 
 8. Technique— Style 153-160 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 DISCUSSION OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 Chapter XVI. Criticism of Doctrine 161-183 
 
 XVII. Application of Doctrine — Conclusions 1 84-204 
 
ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 A. and I. = Arsace et Ismdnie. 
 
 C. de L. = Causeries du Lundi. 
 
 E. L. = Esprit des Lois. 
 
 G. D. R. = Considerations sur les Causes de la Grandeur et de la Decadence 
 
 des Romains. 
 Hist. V^rit. = Histoire Veritable. 
 L. P. = Lettres persanes. 
 M. or Mont. = Montesquieu. 
 M^l. in. = Melanges In^dites. 
 P. and F. = Pensees et Fragments. 
 S. and E. = Sylla et Eucrate. 
 T. G. = Temple de Gnide. 
 V. ^ P. = Voyage h Paphos. 
 Voy. —Voyages de Montesquieu. 
 
BOOK I. 
 PEOLEGOMEIfA. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 The edition used is certainly the best, and the one which at 
 present is considered definitive — that of Edouard Laboulaye, 
 7 vols., Paris, Gamier, 1875-9. (For contents of this, see at 
 end of Bibliography.) 
 
 The present list includes only those works actually quoted or 
 referred to in the following pages. ^ Among these, the criticisms 
 of Sainte-Beuve, Bruneti^re, Faguet, the biographies of Vian and 
 Sorel, the more recent studies of Doumic, Lanson, Barckhausen, 
 and Saintsbury, aud the great work of Taine, have been found of 
 special service. 
 
 Anon. Revue Historique, Lix, 129. (Review of Melanges and 
 
 Voyages.) 
 Auger. Vie de Montesquieu, in Lef^vre ed. of the Oeuvres, 
 
 Paris, 1816. 6 vols. 
 Barckhausen. Grandeur et Decadence des Roma ins. Edition 
 
 revue et annot^e d'apr^s les manuscrits du Chateau de la 
 
 BrMe (Imprim^e pour FExposition Universelle de 1900), 
 
 Paris, 1900. 
 Lettres Persanes. Edition revue, etc. Paris, 1897. 
 
 * An elaborate and up-to-date bibliography, which, it is hoped, may also prove 
 exhaustive, has been compiled. This includes about five hundred titles, and deals 
 with every phase of Montesquieu. The writer hopes to publish it, some time in 
 the future, as a general bibliography of the subject, 
 
 I 
 
2 The Aeslhetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 Barckhausen. Montesquieu, FEsprit des Lois, et les archives 
 de la BrMe. Bordeaux, 1904. 
 
 Le D§sordre dans 1' Esprit des Lois, in Revue du Droit 
 
 Publique et de la Science Politique, ix, 31-40. 
 
 (Prefaces and Introductions to the Collection Bordelaise * — 
 
 q.v,) 
 
 Bemadau. Annales politiques, litt^raires, et statistiques de Bor- 
 deaux. Bordeaux, 1803. 
 
 Tableaux de Bordeaux. Bordeaux, 1810. 
 
 Besenval Memoires. Editors Berville and Barri^re, 2 vols. 
 
 Paris, 1821. 
 Beudant. Le Droit Individuel et TEtat. Second edition, Paris, 
 
 1891. 
 Bolingbroke. Lettres. Tr. Grimoard, 3 vols. Paris, 1808. 
 Bonnefon. Voyages de Montesquieu, in Revue d'Hist. litt. de la 
 
 France, Vols, ii and iv, 1895, 1897. 
 Brosses. Lettres Famili^res, 2 vols. Paris, 1885. 
 Brunet. Library of Montesquieu, in Migne, Troisi^me Encyclo- 
 
 pMie Th6ologique, Tom. XLiii, Cols. 344-6. Paris, 1860. 
 
 Idem. (Fuller), In Bulletin de T Alliance des Arts, 1845. 
 
 Vol. IV, 33-6. 
 
 Bruneti^re. Etudes Critiques sur la Litt^rature Fran^aise, iv, 
 Paris, 1894. 
 
 Evolution des Genres. — I. Evolution de la Critique, 2*"® 
 
 6d., Paris, 1892. 
 
 Manuel de THistoire de la Litt. Fr., Paris, 1898. 
 
 Revue des Deux Mondes, xxxiii, 219-29. 
 
 Buffon, Nadault de. Correspondence Inedite de Buffon, 2 vols. 
 
 Paris, 1860. 
 Cant^. Montesquieu in Italia, in Nuova Antologia, 3rd Series, 
 
 Liv, 561-72. 
 Castel. L'Homme Morale oppos6 k THomme Physique de M. R. 
 
 (Rousseau), Toulouse, 1756. 
 Collins. Montesquieu in England, in Quarterly Review, 
 
 cxcvii, 331-63. 
 
 ^ With the collaboration of MM. Celeste and D^zeiindris. 
 
The Aesthetia Doctrine of Montesquieu, 3 
 
 Collection Bordelaise. Edited by the Barons de Montesquieu, and 
 published at Bordeaux, under the auspices of the Soci^te des 
 Bibliophiles de Guyenne. Consists of: 
 
 Deux Opuscules de Montesquieu, 1891. 
 
 Melanges InMites de Montesquieu, 1892. 
 
 Voyages de Montesquieu, 2 vols., 1894-6. 
 
 Pens6es et Fragments In^dits, 2 vols., 1899-1901. 
 
 D'Alembert. Eloge de Montesquieu, in M's. Oeuvres, London, 
 
 1767, I, i-xxxiv. 
 Dareste. L'Histoire Romaine dans Montesquieu, Paris (1866). 
 Delacroix. Montesquieu consid^re dans une Republique. Paris, 
 
 An VI. 
 Doumic. Voyages de Montesquieu, in Revue des Deux Mondes, 
 
 cxLii, 924-35 (1897). 
 Duparcq. Notes sur Machiavel, Montesquieu, et Ferrari. Paris, 
 
 1879. 
 Faguet. Etudes Litt^raires — xviiime Siecle. Paris, 1901. 
 Feller. Dictionaire Historique, Fifth ed. Tom. ix, Paris, 1822. 
 Fortage. Editor, Histoire Veritable, Bordeaux, 1902. 
 Fournier de Flaix. Voyages de Montesquieu, Paris, 1897. 
 Fr^ron. Remarques sur le livre de L'Esprit des Lois, in Opus- 
 cules de Freron, Tom. iii, Amsterdam (Paris), 1753. 
 Fuzier-Herman. La Separation des Pouvoirs, Paris, 1880. 
 Gerard. Essai sur le Gotit, Paris, 1766. 
 
 Hardy. Memoirs of the Earl of Charlemont, 1812. i, 160-73. 
 Helvetius. Notes sur L'Esprit des Lois, in M's. Oeuvres, Ed. 
 
 Didot, Paris, 1795. 
 H^mon. Cours de Litterature, xv, Montesquieu, Paris, 1900. 
 Hennequin. Etude sur Montesquieu, Paris, 1840. 
 Hettner. Literaturgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts ; ii 
 
 Theil: Die franzosische Literatur, 5th ed. Brunswick, 1894. 
 Janet. Editor Esprit des Lois, Livres lav, Paris, 1887. 
 
 Journal des Savants, 1892, 717-33 ; 1893, 142-57. 
 
 Janssen. Montesquieus Theorie von der Dreitheilung der Gewal- 
 
 ten im Staate auf ihre Quelle zuriickgefiihrt. Gotha, 1878. 
 Koch. Montesquieus Verfassungstheorie. Halle, 1883 (Diss). 
 
 ^c. 
 
4 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 Labat. Le Chateau de la Br^de, in Recueil des Travaux de la 
 
 Soci6t6 d'Agen. Tom. in, 1834. 
 Lanson. Revue Universitaire, ii, i, 385-95. (April, 1893.) 
 Malet. Discours de Reception h Montesquieu, in OeuvreSy ed. 
 
 1760, London, Tom. vii. 
 Meyer. Com. des Lettres Persanes, Paris, 1841. 
 Montglave. Notices, in Lettres Persanes, ed. Dauthereau, Paris, 
 
 1828. 
 Oncken. Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen, i Bd., Berlin, 1881. 
 Petit de Julleville. Hist, de la Langue et de la Litt. Fr., Tome 
 
 VI, Paris, 1898. 
 Picot. Voyages de Montesquieu, in Compte rendu de I'Acad^mie 
 
 des Sciences Morales et Politiques. CXLVI, 42-51. 
 Pietsch. Ueber das Verhaltnis der Politischen Theorie Locke's 
 
 zu Montesquieu's Lehre von der Theilung der Gewalten. 
 
 Breslau, 1887. (Berlin Diss.) 
 Riaux. Notice sur Montesquieu, Paris, 1849. 
 Sainte-Beuve. Causeries du Lundi, passim, esp. Tom. vii. 
 
 Paris, 1852 ff. 
 Saint-Girons. Essai sur la Separation des Pouvoirs. Paris, 1881. 
 Saintsbury. History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe. 
 
 Vol. II. New York, 1902. 
 Sakmann. Voltaire als Kritiker Montesquieus, in Archiv fiir 
 
 das Studium der Neueren Sprachen, cxiii, 374 ff. 
 Sayous. Le Dixhuiti^me Si^cle a PEtranger. 2 vols. Paris, 
 
 1871. 
 Sch^rer. Comment il faut lire Montesquieu, in Etudes sur la 
 
 Litterature Contemporaine. Paris, 1889. Tom. ix, 238-54. 
 Solignac. Eloge Historique de M. le President de Montesquieu. 
 
 Nancy, 1759. 
 Sorel. Montesquieu. 2nd ed. Paris, 1889. (Gr. Ecr. Fr.) 
 Taine. Les Origines de la France Contemporaine : L'Ancien 
 
 Regime, 6th ed. Paris, 1891. 
 Thomas. Vieilles Lunes d'un Avocat. Premier Quartier. Paris, 
 
 1863. 
 Vian, Histoire de Montesquieu. Paris, 1878. 
 
The Aesthetic Doetrine of Montesquieu, 5 
 
 Villate. Essai Historique et Philosophique sur le Goiit. 
 
 Amsterdam and Paris, 1736. 
 Villemain. Eloge de Montesquieu, Paris, 1816. 
 Tableau de la Litterature au xviiime Siecle. Tom. v, 
 
 Paris, 1854. 
 Voltaire. Ed. Didot, 13 vols. Paris, 1874. (Tom. ii, Diction- 
 
 naire Philosophique ; Tom. v, Commentaire sur L'Esprit 
 
 des Lois ; Tom. vi, Dialogues d' A, B, C.) 
 Walckanaer. Montesquieu, in Bibliographie Universelle of 
 
 Michaud. Tom. xxix. 
 Z^vort. Montesquieu. Paris, 1887. (Coll. des clas. pop.) 
 
 Contents of Laboulaye — Oeuvres Compl^jtes. 
 
 (The references in the present study are to the volumes and 
 pages of this edition ; consequently, by glancing at the following 
 table, it may readily be seen just what work of Montesquieu or of 
 his commentators is quoted.) 
 
 Montesquieu's own writings are italicized. 
 I. i-vii, " Avertissement." 
 
 1-26, Eloge by Maupertuis. 
 27-45, " Preface de Fediteur.'^ 
 47-49, Quelques Reflexions sur les Lettres persanes. 
 51—490, Lettres persanes. {L. P.) 
 II. 1-8, ^^ Preface de TMiteur." 
 
 9—11, Preface du traducteur. 
 15-54, Le Temple de Gnide. {T. G.) 
 57—59, C^phise et F Amour. 
 63-100, " Le Temple de Gnide mis en ver par L^nard." 
 103-113, " Preface de Tediteur.'' 
 115—326, Considerations sur les causes de la Grandeur des 
 
 Romains et de leur Decadence. (G. D. R.) 
 329-332, " Avertissement de TMiteur.'' 
 333-342, Dialogue de Sylla et d^Eucrate. 
 351—355, Lysimaque. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctnne of Montesquieu, 
 
 359-374, 
 
 377-378, 
 
 381-382, 
 
 383-428, 
 
 III. i-lxix, 
 
 3-62, 
 
 65-80, 
 
 83-88, 
 
 89-383, 
 
 1-474, 
 
 1-498, 
 
 1-93, 
 
 97-100, 
 
 101-113, 
 
 115-137, 
 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 141-203, 
 205-208, 
 209-237, 
 239-243, 
 
 245-246, 
 249-312, 
 
 313-322, 
 323-330, 
 331-333, 
 
 335-505, 
 
 i— iii, 
 
 1-95, 
 
 96-112, 
 
 113-114, 
 
 115-147, 
 
 Dissertation sur la politique des Romains dans la 
 
 religion. 
 Tihb-e et Louis XL 
 " Avis de TMiteur." 
 Arsace et Lsm^ie. Histoire Orientale, 
 " Introduction k PEsprit des Lois." 
 "Analyse raisonn^e de TEsprit des Lois," by 
 
 Bertolini. 
 " Analyse de I'Esprit des Lois," by D'Alembert. 
 Preface — Avertissement de Fauteur, 
 r Esprit des Lois {E, X.), Books i-x. 
 V Esprit des Lois, Books xi-xxi. 
 V Esprit des Lois, Books xxii-xxx. 
 V Esprit des Lois, Book xxxi. 
 " Preface de P§diteur." 
 " Lettre au P. B. J." 
 "Exaraen critique de PEsprit des Lois." 
 
 (Nouvelles EcclSsiastiques.) 
 Defense de V Esprit des Lois, 
 Eclaircissements sur P Esprit des Lois. 
 " R^ponse h la Defense de FEsprit des Lois." 
 " Remerciement sincere a un homme charitable." 
 
 (Voltaire.) 
 " L' Esprit des Lois en vers." (Bonneval.) 
 "Suite de la Defense de TEsprit des Lois." 
 
 (La Beaumelle.) 
 " Lettres d'Helvetius." 
 " Montesquieu et la censure." 
 "Note sur Fouvrage in^dit de Montesquieu 
 
 intitule sur les Finances de VEspagne.^^ 
 " Table analytique et alphab^tique." 
 " Preface de Fediteur." 
 Discours AcadSmiques, 
 Eloge de Berwick. 
 " Avertissement de Fediteur." 
 Essai sur le Gout. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 149-181, Pens^es Diver ses, 
 
 183-196, Notes sur V Angleterre. 
 
 197-204, Poesies, 
 
 205-208, " Preface de TMiteur/' 
 
 209-210, "Avis de T^diteur de 1767." 
 
 2 1 1-456, Lettres famili^res. 
 
 457-458, " Preface de Fediteur." 
 
 459-488, Voyage d Paphos. ( F. a P.) 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Modem criticism justly demands some account of a writer's 
 artistic ideas, before proceeding to a determination of his literary 
 worth. That is partly in fairness to the author's aims, partly in 
 elucidation of his individual expression. From either point of 
 view, or else from its historical interest, more perhaps than from 
 its intrinsic value, a study of Montesquieu's Aesthetic Doctrine 
 may prove worth while. 
 
 No such study has been undertaken — indeed hardly a complete 
 successful attempt has been made to discuss Montesquieu's import- 
 ance and raulc strictly as a litterateur} Much has been written 
 on him from the standpoints of jurisprudence, of political science, 
 and of philosophical history. We have biographies, commentaries, 
 polemical treatises. But we have only general essays and chapters 
 on his unique position in French letters, his occupation of the 
 debatable lands between the literature of knowledge and the 
 literature of power. It will be part of our task to indicate that 
 position, while rendering more precise that distinction. 
 
 By way of prelude, some setting forth of the capital points in 
 regard to the man and his mind, his period and his precursors, 
 seems indispensable. There are certain well attested facts and 
 generally accepted theories that may give a warranted a pHori 
 conception of his doctrine. 
 
 It will be well to bear in mind on the one hand, such names as 
 
 * The word is used here designedly in a linaited sense. The admirable work of 
 M. Sorel (Grands Ecrivains series) comes as near as any to the standpoint that I 
 have in mind. But that naturally, besides its brevity, is more general and 
 biographical. The tendency has been to regard our author as still greater in the 
 field of European thought than in that of French Literature. (Brunetiere, Et. 
 OriL, IV, p. 265. ) 
 
The Aesthetie Doctrine of Montesquieu. 9 
 
 Montaigne, La Bruy^re, Mac^hiavelli, such points as the sway of 
 classicis^i and the influence of philosophers; on the other, to 
 remember the eighteenth century contempt of religion and the 
 eighteenth century fetish of formalism, the predominance of head 
 over heart, of manners over morals, the license of the Regency, 
 the reign of the salon, of woman, of conversation — the popular- 
 ization of knowledge, the beginnings of method, the dawn of 
 cosmopolitanism, the constant appeal to " good sense '^ and " good 
 people/' For his own part, we cannot insist too strongly on his 
 manysidedness. We have in his life, successively and interfused, 
 the libertine, the man of the w^orld, the man of taste ; the observer 
 of manners, i\\Q traveller, the country gentleman ; the student and 
 the thinker ; the legist, the economist, the natural scientist, the 
 historical philosopher. For his ideas, we have a strong tendency 
 towards the positivist and utilitarian point of view, which con- 
 siders religion as a ressort and sentiment a superfluity ; ^ but we 
 have kindly sympathies ^ and charitable impulses.^ There is the 
 desire of order, and the love of liberty — the impartiality which 
 admits despotism ^ or Bayle,^ with the independence which admires 
 genius,^ extols England^ and severely criticises Louis XIV.^ 
 None so quick to rail against esprity^ and none so ready to use it. 
 An enlightened prophecy ^^ wars with the credulity of an arri^L 
 Shrewd common sense ^^ contrasts with the noblest judgments. — 
 Finally, he is an aristocratic humanitarian — which phrase, if any, 
 may give his definition, his limitations, and his faculU maitresse, 
 
 ^ VII, 150-1 — '' J'ai 4t6 dans ma jeunesse assez heureux pour m'attacher a des 
 femmes que j'ai cru qui m'aimaient ; d^s quej'ai cess^ de le croire, je m'en suis 
 d^tache soudain .... n'ayant jamais eu de chagrin qu'une heure de lecture n'ait 
 dissip^." Cf. VII, 152. 
 
 ' VII, 153 — " Je suis amoureux de I'amiti^." 
 
 »Cf. in/., p. 11. 
 
 ^ E. L.J passim, Arsace et Ismenie. 
 
 s V, 125 ; VI, 152-3. «Cf. inf., pp. 53, 81. 
 
 7 IV, 343-356 ; vii, 183-196. ^j, 144-5 ; vii, 166. 
 
 9 = wit, cf. inf., p. 89 f. 
 
 ^•^ vii, 194 — '* je crois que si quelque nation est abandonn^e de ses colonies, cela 
 commencera par la nation anglaise." 
 
 " Disposition of his wine — his law-suits. 
 
10 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 The very moderation of his mind, that tolerance which is 
 perhaps its prime characteristic, blurs his positive traits and 
 causes us to doubt any definite fixed system. As a matter of 
 fact, he has many systems, numerous as his sym])athies.^ Impelled 
 towards a limited monarchy by his admiration for England, by his 
 love of a machine perfect in checks and balances, by his aris- 
 tocratic leanings, he is yet disposed toward democracy by his 
 consideration for the race and his contempt of political liberty. 
 This is a major instance of his magnificent trimming, though it is 
 not the only one. He believed few things absolutely. The best 
 government, he holds, is that which best suits its people ; and laws 
 are relative to occasions and circumstances. 
 
 He was an observer in the field of social and psychological 
 phenomena. He has appreciated the Cartesian method in a 
 striking way, and that same method may have inspired and 
 partly governed his own procedure. Animated by the spirit of 
 intellectual curiosity, that " noble inquietude " ^ which propels 
 towards knowledge, he turned first to the natural sciences and 
 then to the domains of history and politics, in search always of 
 the fruitful fact, leading inductively to the sound principle. He 
 was not sufficiently rigid. Not all of his facts will bear scrutiny — 
 indeed he condemned detail in itself^ — and not all of his general- 
 izations are sufficiently founded, or, again, of the highest import. 
 Where he comes nearest truth is on the comfortable middle ground, 
 equally remote from the highest philosophy and the minutest tech- 
 nical knowledge, but the ground of sane, wise, almost every-day 
 observation and experience, unified into maxims and secondary 
 principles. He chose the better before the best, the opportune 
 and the possible before the remote ideal.* 
 
 His human value, his human instincts are the points on which 
 I must insist. To vary the moty he loved humanity and humanity 
 le lui a bien rendu. This is seen in such things as his opposition 
 
 ^ He has himself furnished another apology for what must often seem at first 
 mere contradiction and inconsistency. (P. & F., ii. 25.) Cf. inf., p. 120. 
 2 VII, 17. 
 
 ^ As in the case of his dislike for legal procedure, (vii, 152.) Cf. inf., p. 105. 
 *St.-Girons, Essai, p. 101. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 11 
 
 to slavery and to the cruelties of the penal code.^ Ste-Beuve finds 
 in the Esprit des Lois too much faith in human nature, a tendency 
 towards that ^^defaut radical '' of an easy optimism.^ 
 
 This human touch led him to manifestations of generosity in 
 his life and actions. The trait is sufficiently shown in his help 
 of Piron and of the Marseilles boatman."^ Yet he was "aimable 
 avec secheresse et bienfaisant avec hauteur. '' * 
 
 With feeling, the case is again different. He felt as far as this 
 common humanity called for and no whit further. Of sentiment 
 or sensibility there is hardly more than a trace in his life or his 
 writings. For others he was sympathetic — "je n'ai jamais vu 
 couler de larmes sans en ^tre attendri.^ But for himself, the 
 stoicism which he so admired,^ together with his essential world- 
 liness, forbade the search or the indulgence of the feelings. 
 
 ''Ma machine est si heureusement construite, que je suis frapp^ par tous les 
 objets assez vivement pour qu'ils puissent me donner du plaisir, pas assez pour 
 qu'ils puissent me causer de la peine." ' 
 
 The worldliness and cautiousness, " la peur d'etre dupe," which 
 prevented free expression, appear particularly in the latter part 
 of his life, when he regretted some of his earlier boutadesy sought 
 more for tempered statement, and became generally more of a 
 conservative. But tradition was always a force which he was 
 ready to respect. That is why he clung to classicism, to monar- 
 chism ; and hence his famous recommendation to touch laws only 
 " d'une main tremblante.'' 
 
 His fondness for antiquity, which is the last of his greater traits, 
 springs more or less from the same disposition of mind.^ This 
 antiquity which so enchanted him,^ which inspired him to write 
 
 ^ Beccaria, Tratatto del delitii e delle pene, largely derives from M.'s views on this 
 subject. 
 
 2 a deL., VII, 68, 76. 
 
 ^Cf. Vian, pp. 170, 337-8. An anecdote which has furnished the subject of no 
 less than four plays. 
 
 *Brunetiere, Rev., p. 79. 
 
 ^vii, 153. «v, 130-1. 'VII, 150. 
 
 ^ Doumic would also credit him with a taste for things exotic, with a natural 
 cosmopolitanism. ( Voy. de Mont., p. 927). 
 
 »vn, 158. 
 
12 Tlie Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 his first juvenile work to show that his beloved pagans were not 
 damned, which proved a guiding taste throughout his life, will 
 come in for abundant comment later on.^ 
 
 Such seem the prime characteristics of a nature as complex and 
 manifold as the century itself. It will already be seen what diffi- 
 culties beset our path. If it is no easy task to bring order and 
 derive sure principles from a period so smooth on the surface, so 
 intricate in its depths ; if it seems perilous to evolve leading forces 
 in the career of a writer who touched life at so many points : we 
 may be sure that it is far harder to find and verify a symmetrical 
 system of aesthetics whose component parts are scattered over 
 thousands of pages, usually disjointed, often hasty judgments, not 
 always deducible from his own basic views, and seldom subser- 
 vient to the canons of orthodox and technical criticism. 
 
 To attribute unvarying consistency and immovable order to the 
 author oiV Esprit des Lois would seem futile. Much less can one 
 expect to find these qualities when he writes in a domain not 
 peculiarly his own, to which indeed his one formal contribution ^ 
 in no wise exposes all his theory or constitutes the starting point 
 for all his deductions. At any rate no attempt will be made to 
 create harmony where harmony is non-existent. Whatever of 
 conformity, cohesion or clearness may be found in the following 
 pages will be there as the result not of invention but of arrange- 
 ment and coordination. 
 
 Closely connected with the thinker's claim to be held an artist, 
 and an aesthetician — a claim which must in the end be upheld or 
 dismissed^ — arises the other old question of the definition and 
 boundaries of art itself. We shall see that Montesquieu conceives 
 broadly of the term and vaguely of its limits. If in the course of 
 the discussion it becomes necessary to assume a more precise posi- 
 tion or a better based standpoint, this will be done with due regard 
 to the ranking allowed on his part to art's relatives and subordi- 
 nates. When modern opinions are still bewildered and irrecon- 
 
 ^ Cf. inf., pp. 49, 125. ^Essai mr le GoUL 
 
 ^Cf.m/, pp. 201-3. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 13 
 
 cilable, we cannot look for absoluteness from an eighteenth century 
 philosopher. 
 
 A last reserve must be taken against any universal sincerity of 
 his utterances. The French leaning for epigrams/ well pro- 
 nounced in our author, must at times have led him into exaggera- 
 tions and, once more, inconsistencies. He was not exactly addicted 
 to posing. But he was a lover of vigorous statement ^ and, in his 
 youth, decidedly frondeur. 
 
 Before passing on to the material, it may be well to give two 
 cautions as to the divisions and procedure of this study. The 
 plan, except in broad aspects, cannot be wholly logical, since it 
 must largely follow the material ; and in following the material, 
 in its intricate interrelations, many repetitions of statements and 
 principles have seemed unavoidable for full treatment. Hence a 
 host of cross-references and foot-notes. But the effort has never- 
 theless been made to give each leading principle its special 
 handling in its proper place. 
 
 iCf. inf., p. 118. »Cf. in/., p. 195. 
 
14 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE MATERIAL. 
 
 Several thousand references to things more or less artistic have 
 been collected. These are unequally distributed in the various 
 writings, the bulk of them being found in the Collection Borde- 
 laise, the Letires persanes and the Essai sur le GoUt. In the 
 Romains there is almost nothing, and in V Esprit des Lois much 
 less than one would expect from so catholic a treatise. The 
 character of these works is too well-known to require comment. 
 In his lighter productions — Temple de Gnide, Voyage d Paphos, 
 Arsace et Ismenie^ etc. — the interest centers chiefly on the applica- 
 tion (or extension) of his principles, and accordingly these jeux 
 d^ esprit will more appropriately come in for comment in the final 
 chapter. His Letters ^ help us but little — though evidently what 
 we find here contains most of frankness and brings most convic- 
 tion. The Fensies diverses and the Notes sur V Angleterre, fruitful 
 in many things, contain a respectable quantity of pertinent matter. 
 But it is in the three titles first named that we are to look for the 
 most numerous and probably the most significant and characteristic, 
 expressions on the subject. We may take these in chronological 
 order. 
 
 The Letires persanes are said to have been nine years in the 
 writing ^ and to have been carefully revised four or five times. 
 That their author subsequently regretted their publication,^ that 
 he considered them a sin of his youth,^ is beyond doubt. But it is 
 
 ^"Sa correspondance n' off re qu'un mediocre interet .... n'etait le grand 
 nom qui la signe, il ne vaudrait reellement pas la peine de la lire." — Brune- 
 tiSre, Bev. des 2 mondes, xxxiii, 224. 
 
 2 Vian, p. 53. 
 
 ' Especially when they stood between him and the Academy. 
 
 *Cf. inf., p. 189. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 15 
 
 also beyond doubt that they adequately and frankly express that 
 youth, in all of its liberty and libertinagej its raillery, scepticism 
 and iconoclasm, its contemptuous clear-sighted vision and its power 
 of representation. The book has been held to deepen in thought 
 towards the close/ and it is just in these later letters that much of 
 our matter lies.^ On the whole, one is bound to abide by the 
 Lettres persanes as giving Montesquieu's full and free dicta — not 
 quite * juvenile', but not altogether mature — especially on literary 
 subjects. 
 
 The Essai sur le Gout is proposed for the EncyclopSdie — where 
 in curtailed form it was later published ^ — in a letter to d'Alem- 
 bert of 1753.* 
 
 "L' esprit que j'ai est un moule ; onn'en tire jamais que les memes portraits 
 . . . Ainsi, si vous voulez de moi, laissez a mon esprit le choix de quelque article ; 
 et si vous voulez, ce choix se fera chez Madame du Deffand avec du marasquin • . . 
 moi je ne puis pas me corriger, parce que je chante toujours la mdme chose. II 
 me vient dans 1' esprit que je pourrai prendre peut-etre Gout, et que je prouverai 
 bien que difficile est proprie conimunia dicere.^' 
 
 This is rich in suggestion. It would seem, first, that he alludes 
 to the Gout as an old paper, which had probably been lying in his 
 desk for some time. Vian thinks — though apparently without 
 definite proof — that it was largely composed at Florence in 1728.^ 
 There is a letter ^ from Florence of that year, in which Montes- 
 quieu extols the fine arts and declares that his eyes are just opened 
 to their beauties. This is to be taken with special reference to 
 painting and sculpture, concerning which the Go4t has much to 
 say. Perhaps then the composition of the paper may be referred 
 to the period of his visit to Italy, or to a time shortly afterwards, 
 when the memory of the visit was still fresh. 
 
 The fact that d' Alembert obtained the sketch only after Montes- 
 quieu's death, and states ^ that it was " trouv^ imparfait dans ses 
 
 ^ "A mesure que le livre avance, le ton s'^leve, les questions graves sont 
 touchees"— Faguet, XVIIIe siMe, p. 153. Also Sorel, p. 36— Yet the worst of 
 the harem affair is at the end. Cf. inf., pp. 191, 194. 
 
 2 1, pp. 416-427. 
 
 ^ Tome VII, 1775. The last four divisions were subsequently added. 
 
 *vii, 421-2. 6 p. 122, but cf. p. 314, 
 
 «vu, 226-227. cf. inf., p. 55. '' Eloge, xxxiv. 
 
16 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 papiers " ^ hardly indicates a later date. But it does show that the 
 final revision never took place. Consequently, while we are to 
 consider the Gout as the product of a maturing mind/ it cannot be 
 held to contain his last deliberate judgments. 
 
 This lack of finish, together with the difference in date, will 
 partly account for the discrepancies between the views advocated 
 here and those of the Lettres persanes. Whatever may have been 
 true of 1753, his mind in the preceding years cannot have been the 
 changeless " mould ^' he thought it. We are unable, in spite of 
 Vian,^ to take this incomplete and often irrelevant ^ sketch as the 
 basis of Montesquieu's aesthetic system. Never does he see art 
 steadily and see it whole. One fourth of the discussion is devoted 
 to women — apparently as exponents and examples of creative 
 '^ beauty.^' ^ He plays with other abstractions. " Variety,'^ thinks 
 Vian,*^ is " son grand principe." Villemain ^ notes rather " une 
 pr^f^rence marquee pour cette finesse delicate, pour ces pens^es 
 inattendues, ces contrastes brillauts qui eblouissent I'esprit." In 
 order to avoid the reproach contained in the phrase communia 
 dicere, he enunciates many strange and striking thoughts which we 
 shall abundantly encounter. 
 
 The best part of the material really comes from the Collection 
 Bordelaise.^ The recent publication of this Collection — extending 
 from 1891 to 1901 — has given rise to much interest and comment. 
 It is known that for the last century persistent efforts have been 
 made to approach and give to light the posthumous writings of 
 Montesquieu. Finally his descendants have consented to the 
 
 ^ " L'auteur n'a pas eu le temps d'y mettre lademiSre main ; mais les premieres 
 pens^es des grands maitres m^ritent d'etre conserv^es,' &c. vii, 113. 
 
 Me<. 31 in 1728. »P. 314. 
 
 * "There is hardly any definite reference to literature at all." — Saintsbury, HiM. 
 of CnL, p. 513 ff. 
 
 °This may be the effect of Mme. Deffand's '' marasquin." He says elsewhere 
 (IV, 312) — "La soci^t^ des femmes g^te les moeurs, et forme le go<it." 
 
 6 P. 314. 
 
 "^ Eloge, p. 67. — " Ces subtils raffinements qui deparent quelquefois le style de 
 Montesquieu sont dict^s par un systeme." If this is true at all, certainly no such 
 complete system can be derived from the Goitt. 
 
 ^ See Bibliography. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine: of Montesquieu. 17 
 
 publication, and the best part of the mss., under adequate collabo- 
 rate editorship, have now appeared/ 
 
 The Collection consists largely of a record of the President's 
 travels ; his fragmentary writings ; and a host of reflections on 
 all possible topics, systematically arranged under appropriate 
 headings by his editors. The value of these volumes has been 
 variously judged. Ste-Beuve, who would have given the Esprit 
 des Lois for the Voyages,'^ finds himself at odds with the best 
 critical opinion on the actual publications. " Puisque nous avons 
 les livres, a quoi bon les carnets ? " demands Doumic, and pro- 
 ceeds to declare that only the Pensees et Fragments bring us 
 anything really new on Montesquieu, the man and his mind.^ 
 Lanson is of the same opinion for the bulk of the Melanges in^ditesJ" 
 
 AVh ether or not the whole collection is really important — and 
 on the side of its significance much of course may be said — there 
 can be, little doubt that for the purposes of the present study, it is 
 in the highest degree valuable. Its body furnishes a larger 
 amount of aesthetic and literary comment than will be found in 
 all of Montesquieu's previous works put together. This comment, 
 with the exception of a treatise on the Gothic and some tolerably 
 connected remarks on the Florentine and Roman galleries, is still 
 mainly in fragmentary form. 
 
 The portions of the Collection which chiefly concern us are : 
 (1) the treatise De la manih-e gothique ; ^ (2) the artistic observa- 
 tions made in Italy, especially those on Florence ; ^ (3) the sections 
 devoted to Lettres et arts, in the Peiisees et Fragments J 
 
 The first of these, which will be more fittingly criticised later,^ 
 
 ^ There are still two apparent exceptions — the Spidlegium or record of our 
 author's readings, and some familiar Letters. An edition of the latter is promised 
 by M. Celeste. 
 
 2 C. de L. VII, 61. 2 Doumic, Rev. des 2 mondes, cxLir, 925. 
 
 *Bev. univ. 1893, p. 386. But cf. p. 391. Brunetiere had already emitted 
 a prophecy just contrary to that of Ste-Beuve {Et.Crit. iv, 244). 
 
 5 Vmj., n, 367-375. 
 
 ® Voy.f I, passim — esp. pp. 155 ff., 226 ff. ; Voy., ii, 3-126 {Voyage en Italic^ 
 suite) ; Florence, Voy., ii, 301-363. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 3-79. This is almost entirely devoted to literary discussions, 
 
 8Cf. inf. p. 71. 
 
18 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 is only an ^bauche on the Gothic style, containing at the end some 
 disjointed remarks on the Orient and on knowledge generally. 
 Montesquieu's editor thinks that these were added " apres coup," 
 and that the whole text was written shortly after or during his 
 Italian travels.^ Much of it is identical with portions of Florence, 
 and this seems the part most carefully corrected. 
 
 The amount of criticism, more especially of description, on the 
 plastic arts is seen to be considerable in quantity. It was written 
 nearly entirely with reference to his Italian journey, since the 
 Voyage en AUemagne ^ contains practically nothing, and the Notes 
 sur VAngleterrCy already known, are all the record that we have of 
 his residence in England. This artistic comment was largely 
 written on the spot, immediately after visits to the various 
 galleries, where he was under the guidance of cicerones. 
 
 Most important of all are the Fensees on Literature. These, 
 which contain much of his wiser and saner views, differ in some 
 cases from his presumably earlier utterances,^ showing once more 
 that his mind was no invariable moule. 
 
 It may be well to give the divisions by which his editors have 
 classified these scattered thoughts.* This will show the range of 
 the observations : 
 
 1. 
 
 Langage et Langues 
 
 2. 
 
 Ecriture 
 
 3. 
 
 Art d'^crire 
 
 4. 
 
 Genres litteraires 
 
 6. 
 
 Litt^ratures diverses 
 
 6. 
 
 Auteurs anciens 
 
 7. 
 
 Auteurs du XVr Si^cle et du XVIP 
 
 8. 
 
 Auteurs du XYIII^ Siecle 
 
 9. 
 
 Livres k faire 
 
 10. 
 
 Esth6tique 
 
 ^ Voy., II, xvii-xviii. {Description des MSS. ) 
 
 2 Voy., II, 129-216. 3 j^ the GoUt and the X. P. 
 
 * There is much repetition, both as between this and the Gout, and elsewhere. 
 In such cases, I have chosen throughout for quotation what seems the fuller or 
 preferable reading. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 19 
 
 11. Musique 
 
 12. Arts plastiques. 
 
 It has been remarked that much of the Collection/ and much 
 of what this study will draw therefrom is fragmentary in character. 
 Accordingly, it will be best, returning to the Gout, to seek mainly 
 in that the generalizations and principles which will form the 
 necessary beginning of an aesthetic theory. What our author has 
 to say on the value and object of art, its qualities and relations, as 
 well as on taste itself may prove of some interest and value. 
 
 Most of the articles arclabelled as brouillcms. 
 
BOOK II. 
 ESTHETIC DOOTEII^E-PEII^rCIPLES. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ART— DESCRIPTION AND DIVISIONS. 
 
 With Montesquieu the terms * art ' and ' arts ' are of the widest 
 inclusiveness. He has left no direct definition of the word. We 
 would formulate one, drawn from his conception and usage, some- 
 what as follows : the arts in general are those products of skill and 
 invention which furnish pleasure and utility to humanity. This 
 is the thesis. The mechanical and industrial arts should aim at 
 utility, while the fine arts will bring both, though more doctrinally 
 pleasure. He has, in the rough, made this division : 
 
 " Je suppose, Rh^di, qu'on ne souffrit dans un royaume que les arts absolument 
 n^cessaires a la culture des terres, qui sont pourtant en grand nombre ; et qu'on en 
 bannit tous ceux qui ne servent qu'st la volupt^ ou ^ la fantaisie . . ." ^ 
 
 In the domain of utility he applies the word in such uses as the 
 art mechanical,^ the art military ^ or naval,* the art of logic,^ of 
 legal procedure,^ of medicine.^ All of these are permissible uses.^ 
 So is the employment of the word in the sense of skill or address,^ 
 as the art of commanding, ^^ of dissimulation," of bankers,^^ of 
 ornament, ^^ and even of genealogy ^^ or of soothsaying.^"^ But 
 Montesquieu leaves the legitimate meanings when he extends the 
 mechanical signification and makes art equivalent to industrie, as 
 Laboulaye has noticed ^^ : " L'ouvrier qui a donn6 a ses enfants son 
 
 1 1, 337. ""i, 362 ; m, 128. ^iii, 317; iv, 441, 443. *iv, 443. 
 
 ^ V, 405. These references might be indefinitely extended. 
 6 V, 347, 368. "^ I, 420 ; v, 401. 
 
 i"i, 219; II, 423. ^^ i, 216; ii, 377. 
 
 20 
 
 15 II, 362, 
 
 8 Littr^, 
 
 S. V. 
 
 9 Littr^, s. V. 
 
 12 V, 24. 
 
 
 13 1, 117; 203. 
 
 16 V, 72 
 
 ;78; 
 
 IV, 266. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 21 
 
 art pour heritage." ^ Elsewhere it very nearly denotes manufac- 
 tures.^ It is even broadened sufficiently to signify metier.^ In 
 the discussion between Rh^di and Usbek, * art ^ is taken first as 
 meaning 'invention.'^ On the other hand, artisan is used as 
 equivalent to artiste^ and to ouvrier.^ These latter divergences 
 will serve to show the economist's point of view. 
 
 Of the other kind of arts, we find a further division in the 
 introduction to Gout : '^ 
 
 ''Lapo^sie, la peinture, la sculpture, 1' architecture, la musique, la danse, les 
 diff^rentes sortes de jeux, enfin les ouvrages de la nature et de I'art peuvent . . . 
 donner du plaisir." 
 
 He refers elsewhere to the arts of criticising ^ and of declamation.^ 
 But in these instances the word has more than a savor of its sense 
 of skill. With such possible exceptions and with the above 
 inclusion of poetry, it is to be noted that he does not class liter- 
 ature formally as among the arts. In enumerations, in fact, the 
 two are contrasted. ^^ 
 
 By the inclusion of gaming and dancing in the category cited, 
 we can see that he makes little distinction between the beaux arts 
 and the arts d'agrSment. And the reason therefor is seen in his 
 statements of the object of art, in the technical sense : 
 
 * ' La perfection des arts est de nous presenter les choses telles qu'elles nous 
 fassent le plus de plaisir qu' il est possible ; " ^* . . . ' ' les beaut^s des ouvrages de 
 I'art, semblables a celles de la nature, ne consistent que dans les plaisirs qu'elles 
 nous font." ^^ 
 
 This is evidently his sincere and lasting belief. 
 
 * V, 112, cf. II, 135, where the terms are used in alternation. 
 
 ^P. &F.,i, 162 ; P. & jP., II, 214. ^y, 438. 
 
 *i, 331-2. The invention of powder and of the compass. Also P. & F., ii, 
 196, cf. IV, 185 — " des machines que I'art invente." 
 
 ^iii, 161. In I, 338, a painter (artist) is called an artisan. 
 
 ^i, 336 ; I, 159 — "II n'y a pas jusqu' aux plus vils artisans qui ne disputent 
 sur r excellence de I'art qu'ils ont choisi." On the other hand, the mere observer 
 is a vil artiste (vii, 53). 
 
 'VII, 116. ^P. &F.,ii,26. « VII, 93. 
 
 ^° VII, 93 — * * les sciences partout encourag^es, les arts proteges, les belles-lettres 
 cultiv^es." 
 
 " VII, 118. 12 yjj^ 123. 
 
22 The Aesthetio Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 ART— ITS OBJECT, ORIGIN, VALUE AND RELATIONS. 
 
 He has developed this idea of pleasure — which ranges from 
 amusement to volupt^ — quite sufficiently. He even excludes as 
 unessential the vision of a "present utility" in things beautiful; 
 if they bring pleasure that is enough.^ But in theorizing still 
 further he declares that of the two kinds of men, those who think 
 and those who amuse,^ he personally will choose the former. — 
 " II ne s'agit pas de faire lire mais de faire penser." ^ This, 
 however, is a late and very lofty ideal. For the most part he 
 recognizes — as who in the eighteenth century did not? — the 
 necessity for relaxation and varied stimulus even in his most 
 thoughtful works.* As for his lighter labors they are designedly 
 replete with what Taine calls the two chief literary condiments 
 of the century — scabrous gakinterie and the old espnt gaulois. 
 Montesquieu himself has said it : " Vos recherches vous feront 
 lire des savants ; et un trait de galanterie vous fera lire de ceux 
 qui ne le sont pas.'' ^ It will be interesting to remember this 
 when we come to criticize the Lettres persanes. 
 
 If it is true then that the soul is made for thought,® it is also 
 true that the same soul comes out strongest in its pleasures.^ 
 This soul is capable of enjoying three kinds of pleasures : its own, 
 or the spiritual variety ; the physical sort ; and those springing 
 from habit.^ " Les sources du beau, du bon, de Fagr^able, etc., 
 sont done dans nous-m^mes ; et en chercher les raisons, c'est 
 chercher les causes des plaisirs de notre ame." ^ This is the 
 subjective-objective standpoint. But those pleasures which are 
 peculiar to the independent soul are such ideas as curiosity, 
 
 » VII, 115. 2 VII, 173. «iv, 58. 
 
 *The curious "Invocation aux Muses" in the midst of E. L. (iv, 359-60.) 
 
 » VII, 284. « VII, 120. 'VII, 116. syjj^ 115. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 23 
 
 aspiration, generalization and analysis.^ Both the spiritual and 
 the physical are natural pleasures, as opposed to the acquired.^ 
 Yet a distinction is superfluous, since taste is concerned indiffer- 
 ently with all alike.^ 
 
 All this would square with his belief that pleasure can be 
 reasoned ; * and where it is not founded on reason, it should at 
 least depart therefrom as little as possible.^ 
 
 The principle of amusement which holds for art in general 
 holds for its kinds as well. If pleasure and art are so intimately 
 associated, if they are united on more than one occasion almost as 
 syntactical doublets,^ we are informed in detail that "Part de 
 nous plaire " is the goal alike of gardens ^ and of geniuses ; ® of 
 music and of dancing ; ^ that the best writers are those who have 
 pleased most ; ^ that belles lettres are read for agreeable surprises.^® 
 It is true that he deprecates the part of raillery and badinage, 
 particularly in conversation." But who is so prompt to agree, in 
 principle and practice, that relaxation counts for much in any 
 work?^^ In a notable passage,^^ where he gives reasons for pre- 
 ferring art to reality, the superiority in each genre is that of 
 pleasure-giving capacity. 
 
 We have given this as a constant attitude. It is only fair to 
 add that there are just glimpses of a forward step and a nobler 
 view, as when he tells the Muses, — " Vous n'^tes jamais si 
 divines que quand vous menez a la sagesse et a la v^rit^ par le 
 plaisir." ^* Of course, as to actual results, this is the spirit that 
 has largely dominated him. But we are dealing here with pro- 
 fessed theory. 
 
 The question arising inevitably after such a prelude is : What 
 
 lyii, 116. ^Yu, 117. 
 
 ' Which seems a poor conclusion after so much philosophizing. There is much 
 half-baked thought and abstract bathos in the Gout. 
 
 * "Souvent notre ame se compose elle-m^me des raisons de plaisir." vii, 131. 
 
 ^vii, 143. 6yjj^ 130^ 140. 7 VII, 130. ^vn, 129. 
 
 9 1, 57. ^° VII, 129. "VII, 178. 
 
 ^'''It is necessary to "d^lasser le lecteur." Apology for the ''Invocation," 
 IV, 359. 
 
 i^P. &F.,i, 290— quoted inf., p. 30, n. 5. 
 
 ^*iv, 360. This whole "Invocation" is rich in material and suggestiveness. 
 
24 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 value can be attached to a thing whose principal end is amuse- 
 ment? This question he has attempted to answer; and in the 
 answer we shall see the conflicting standpoints of the utilitarian 
 and of the homme du mUiei\ 
 
 The main arguments are presented in the debate between Usbek 
 and Rh^di.^ The latter first submits the thesis : — 
 
 **Tu m'as beaucoup parl^, dans une de tes lettres, des sciences et des arts 
 cultiv^s en Occident. Tu me vas regarder comme un barbare : mais je ne sais si 
 Futility que Ton en retire d^dommage les hommes du mauvais usage que I'on en 
 fait tous les jours." ^ 
 
 This has reference to "arts" in Montesquieu's broadest .sense; 
 E,h6di developes it for invention particularly.^ But Usbek's 
 reply, by equivocation or ignoratio elenchiy refutes the objection for 
 the fine arts particularly, though he still includes the industries. 
 It seems a good plea. He declares : — 
 
 " Ou tu ne penses pas a ce que tu dis, on bien tu fais mieux que tu ne penses. 
 Tu as quitt^ ta patrie pour t'instruire ; et tu mdprises toute instruction ; tu viens 
 pour te former, dans un pays ou I'on cultive les beaux-arts ; et tu les regardes 
 comrae pernicieux. Te le dirai-je, Rh^di? je suis plus d'accord avec toi,* que 
 tu ne I'es avec toi-m6me." ° 
 
 This emphasizes the educative value. He continues : " As-tu bien 
 refl6chi a P6tat barbare et malheureux oil nous entrainerait la perte 
 des arts ? '^ We would be no better than monkeys, who yet may 
 be passable creatures among barbarians.® Shall we then consider 
 the example of these primitive peoples, who have counted for 
 power and profit only after they have learned the arts ? ^ As to 
 inventions, their evil effects must be only occasional, else humanity 
 would not suffer them.® And as to the supposed softening of races 
 and the fall of empires : 
 
 "Tu paries de la ruine de celui des anciens Perses, qui fut I'efifet de leur mol- 
 lesse' ; mais il s'en faut bien que cet exemple decide, puisque les Grecs qui les 
 
 ^ L. P. Lettera cv-cvi. These passages, like the " Invocation" and the satire 
 on writers (Letters cxxxiv-cxxxvii ) are most important for us. 
 
 2 1, 331. , 3i^33i_3. Cf. sup., p. 21, n. 4. 
 
 ^ i. e., 'with your better judgment.' It should be remembered that Usbek is 
 generally considered to speak largely for Montesquieu. 
 
 ^1, 334. 6 1, 335. 
 
 'i. e., as first and principal cause — unconnected with arts. But cf. inf., p. 27. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 25 
 
 vainquirent tant de fois, et les subjugudrent, cultivaient les arts, avec infiniment 
 plus de soin qu'eux." ^ 
 
 Here is an excellent argument : 
 
 ' ' Quand on dit que les arts rendent les homraes eff^min^s, on ne parle pas du 
 moins des gens qui s'y appliquent, puisqu'ils ne sont jamais dans I'oisivet^, qui, 
 de tons les vices, est celui qui amollit le plus le courage. II n'est done question 
 que de ceux qui en jouissent. Mais corame, dans un pays polled, ceux qui jouis- 
 sent des commodites d'un art sont obliges d'en cultiver un autre, ^ moins de se 
 voir r^duits a une pauvret^ honteuse, il suit que I'oisivet^ et la mollesse sont 
 incompatibles avec les arts." ' 
 
 Paris is one of the most pleasure-loving cities in the world and 
 one of the most industrious/ 
 
 A direct statement of the importance of the arts is that if one 
 banished those of pleasure and fancy/ our condition would be 
 most miserable. They are truly needs. Without them the State 
 would dwindle and the people perish.^ For the division of labor, 
 the circulation of wealth and the progression of revenues are 
 closely related to the existence and interdependence of the arts. 
 They require little capital and are proportionately productive. 
 For the maintenance of a State, its people must have their delices ; 
 and superfluities count for as much as absolute necessities.^ 
 
 It is easily seen what type of mind would evolve these consid- 
 erations. None has expressed it better than Faguet ^ in declaring 
 that it is the economist alone who speaks. Montesquieu states 
 absolutely that the knowledge of arts useful in a way to mankind 
 is subordinate to the " grand art qui forme et r^gle les societes.^ 
 The ancients, his constant model, cherished the sciences and pro- 
 tected the arts ; but the things of government were their cult.^ 
 It is here a question less of a necessary basis, which could hardly 
 be disputed, than of a free individual preference. 
 
 There are fragments elsewhere voicing a defence similarily 
 restricted. Much of his approval has been for the arts in general, 
 under which head he includes most of the products of civilization. 
 It is true that he classes these as * needs ' and as associated with 
 
 ^1,336. ^Ibid. » I, 337-8. 
 
 *XVIWsiMe, pp. 141-2.— Seem/., p. 
 
 1,102. ^P.&F., I, 103. 
 
26 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 needs.^ It is true that he grants a usefulness even for belles-lettres 
 — which is significant : 
 
 "Les livres de pur esprit, comme ceux de po^sie et d' Eloquence, ont au moins 
 des utilit^s generales ; et cea sortes d'avantages sont sou vent plus grands que des 
 avantages particuliers." ^ 
 
 Without such usefulness beaux esprits become puerile.* In 
 Japan/ with a flux of articles, there will be more material for the 
 " arts," more men at work, more paths to power.^ 
 
 This is well and excellent commercially. " C'est la nature du 
 commerce de rendre les choses superflues utiles, et les utiles 
 n^essaires." ^ In Sparta, the State was left resourceless without 
 these arts and their companions.^ " L^on voit toujours marcher 
 d'un pas %al les arts, les connaissances et les besoins." ' Such 
 signs of progress are commended for the times of the great Louis ® 
 and the great Peter.® In Turkey, "ces barbares ont tellement 
 abandonn6 les arts, qu'il ont n^glig^ jusqu'^ I'art militaire." ^" 
 Finally, " la diif^rence qu'il y a entre les grandes nations et les 
 peuples sauvages, c'est que celles-la se sont applique^s aux arts et 
 aux sciences, et que ceux-ci les ont absolument n^glig^s." " 
 
 But the counter-evidence is heavy and to the point. Such 
 encouragement as a believer in civilization can give he has 
 bestowed ; such reserves as we would expect from an exponent of 
 soundness and normality in the body politic he has yet to take. 
 Even as to the Spartans he observes ^^ that their very limitations 
 in productive fields led to a period of grandeur and glory. Empires 
 generally have been founded in ignorance of the arts.^* For the 
 Romans he is of course all admiration. And the Romans were 
 notably inartistic.^* They possessed and needed only one art, that 
 
 In, 34, 134; iv, 272. 
 
 ' VII, 81. This is in a Discours Academique, the deliverances of which do not 
 necessarily import sincerity or carry conviction. 
 3 1, 142. 
 
 * It is not essential, in regard to the countries, to call his facts into question. 
 5 IV, 395. «iii, 154. 'iv, 272. 
 
 * vit, 93 — his reign showed '' les arts proteges, les belles-lettres cultiv^es." 
 ^i, 184 — "il s' attache a faire fleurir les arts." 
 
 ^°i, 99. " vn, 76. "iii, 154. ^^i, 332. 
 
 "ii, 109. They particularly scorned the theatre, ii, 238. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 27 
 
 of war, to maintain their heroism and integrity in the midst of 
 riches and corruption — " ce qui n'est, je crois, arriv6 h aucune 
 nation du monde." ^ This is the first deduction, for us, from that 
 blinding passion for antiquity,^ whose strange prepossessions will 
 be noted in abundance. Again, in China he finds such a plethora 
 of life that rigid economy is essential. " II faut qu'on s' attache 
 aux arts n^cessaires, et qu'on fuie ceux de la volupt^.'' ^ Under 
 other circumstances he has identified these two classes. Now he 
 commends, with Tacitus, the admirable simplicity of the Germans, 
 who procured their ornaments not from art but from nature.* 
 
 Finally, one may form an estimate as to his valuation of the 
 arts from a passage in the Lettres — a passage immediately following 
 his statement of how his eyes were opened aesthetically in Italy.^ 
 
 In passing to the next subject, of the causes and relations of 
 art, we discover still more to impair his view of its value. For 
 its provenance is simple and direct : " L'effet du commerce sont 
 les richesses ; la suite des richesses le luxe ; celle du luxe, la 
 perfection des arts.'' ^ . Also the two together are among the 
 " biens sans nombre qui r^sultent de la vanite : de la le luxe, 
 rindustrie, les arts, les modes, la politesse, le goM." ^ He asso- 
 ciates thus constantly the two ideas ; ^ and hence it is an easy step 
 from the superabundance of luxury to the perniciousness of the 
 arts. The best passage in the Temple de Gnide is the description 
 of Sybaris,^ whose inhabitants know no difference between pleas- 
 ure and necessity. There all stimulating and disturbing arts are 
 banished ; awards are given to the discoverers of new pleasures ; 
 " et les faveurs des dieux sur Sybaris ne servent qu'a encourager 
 le luxe et la mollesse.'' Again, the Vandals " languissaient dans 
 la volupte ; une table delicate, ... la musique, la danse, les jardins, 
 
 In, 197,120. 
 
 'For the oratorical, conventional, grand antiquity. Cf. tn/., p. 163. 
 
 3 III, 280. 
 
 *iv, 288. He calls constantly for simplicity, alnaost as opposed to art (e. g., i, 
 333). But is it not, as Faguet divines, a simplicite voulue? See inf., p. 166, n. 9. 
 
 * VII, 227 — "A mesure que les go<its dominants commencent k s'affaiblir, on se 
 d^dommage par un grand nombre de petits gotits." Among which small tastes the 
 plastic arts are apparently to be included. 
 (^«iv, 402. 'iv, 313. 8 IV, 397. ^ii, 34. 
 
28 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 les theatres leur ^taient devenus n^cessaires." ^ Corruption and arts 
 were spared the ancient Germans ^ and together would ruin China.' 
 Even in healthy Greece, the " artisans " were, before the decline, 
 denied the rights of citzenship.* Singularly enough one exception, 
 and that not the most obvious, is allowed to this deteriorating 
 influence : music is held, historically and actually, to soften man- 
 ners.* It connects spirit and body and excites the gentler passions. 
 " On ne pent pas dire que la musique inspirit la vertu ; cela serait 
 inconcevable : ^ mais elle emp^chait Peffet de la f§rocit6 de Tinsti- 
 tution, et faisait que Fame avait dans PMucation une part qu'elle 
 n'y aurait point eue."^ Yet while it mitigates it does not weaken ; 
 " de tons les plaisirs des sens il n'y en a aucun qui corrompe moins 
 VkmeJ 
 
 As to literature, general corruption in a realm will affect that 
 branch also. And the great ouvrages d^esprit can hence appear 
 only in the beginning of monarchies.^ This dictum is but a sign 
 of that slighting tone concerning the age of Louis XIV, which 
 marks our author and indeed his period. 
 
 Thus it is seen that while luxury and art are not necessary cor- 
 relatives, they are frequent associates. It is still the idea of the 
 beautiful as a ressort in the State which predominates. 
 
 Other connections of art may be exhibited here. Lanson has 
 found in the Essai sur les causes qui peuvent affecter les Esprits a 
 marked tendency toward psycho-physics, toward the introduction 
 of " nerves " into the literary psychology, which would make of 
 Montesquieu another precursor of that modern fad.^ His partiality 
 for physical science already indicated ^^ would help to account for 
 this. Certainly he is tempted to put aesthetic beauties on a material 
 basis, as when in regard to architecture he declares its orders im- 
 mutable, because " cela est pris dans la nature, et il me serait facile 
 d'expliquer la raison physique de ceci." ^^ Art is relative to our 
 
 In, 288. 2iy^288. 'ni, 280. 
 
 *lii, 168. But he notes a contradiction of Plato, who desired to banish the 
 poets, while admitting their moral effect — P. and jP., ii, 20. 
 ^iii, 160, 162 — i. e., still among the Greeks. 
 « Why ? ' III, 163. 8P. & F. , ii. , 28. 
 
 »Cf. inf., p. 87. 1" Cf. sup., p. 10. "P. & R, ii, 77. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 29 
 
 present state and to the conditions of our physical being ; it is de- 
 pendent on the ^ Machine.' ^ Could we change, it would change 
 with us : 
 
 *'Si nous avions ^t^ faits autrement, nous aurions senti ^ autrement ; un organe 
 de plus ou de moins dans notre machine nous aurait fait une autre eloquence, une 
 autre po^sie . . . . " 
 
 The thought is developed similarly for music and for architec- 
 ture.^ Hence art is subjective and not absolute. 
 
 Its relations with his great theory of climate are not fully 
 developed. It is the reproach made by Scherer ^ and Saintsbury ^ 
 from the standpoints respectively of history and criticism. Still 
 there is more material than one would think at first glance. He 
 gives the general outline and leaves us to read in the special 
 inferences. 
 
 For example, imagination seems characteristic of warm countries.^ 
 The Germans lacked it.'^ Together with taste, vivacity and sensi- 
 hilite ;^ it is derivative from a greater capacity for sensation. In 
 warm climates the susceptibility to amusements is greatest.^ Wit- 
 ness the differing effects of music on the English and on the 
 Italians.^*^ So for the passions. The pleasures of society are best 
 experienced in the temperate zones." And hence we derive taste. 
 
 "Leclimat qui fait qu' une nation aime £l se communiquer, fait aussi qu'elle 
 aime a changer ; et ce qui fait qu'une nation aime a changer, fait aussi qu'elle se 
 forme le goiit." '^ 
 
 Again, in warm countries, there is the love of goUts raffing, such 
 as casuistry. ^^ If the climate is too torrid, the inhabitants are 
 addicted to indolence, gentleness, conservatism and speculation.^* 
 If it is very cold, we find endurance, courage and liberty,^^ or 
 activity and obstinacy as in England. ^^ We may readily draw our 
 
 ^A favorite word with him. 
 
 'The Encydopedie reading, which seems preferable to '' verrions." 
 
 ' VII, 117-118. *Et. sur lalitt. cont. IX, 246. 
 
 ^Hist. of Cnt., II, 514. Cf. Brunetiere, Ev. de la CnL, 144-5. 
 
 6 1, 425 ; IV, 148, 151. 'iv, 170. ^iv, 148. 
 
 »v, 181. 10 IV, 149. "IV, 226. ^^^y^ 312. 
 
 13 P. & R, II, 31. i*iv, 172-3, 150, 153-4. ^^ly^ 145^ 238-9. 
 
 16 IV, 168. 
 
30 
 
 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 ^.^ 
 
 
 own conclusions : the arts will flourish best in warm though not 
 torrid countries. It must be allowed that this hypothesis seems 
 historically justifiable, [t.^ ,^ ^(?^v\aA^/) 
 
 In connection with nature the function of art is discovery and 
 presentation — but also selection and even betterment. For land- 
 scape-gardening : 
 
 " Part vient ^ notre secours, et nous d^couvre la nature qui se cache elle-m6me. 
 Nous aimons I'art et nous I'aimons mieux que la nature, c'est-il-dire la nature de- 
 robee ^ nos yeux." ^ At Paphos, " I'art n'y parait que pour faire go<iter avec plus 
 d' admiration les beauts de la nature." ^ Again, '' la peinture ne prend la nature 
 que la oil elle est belle " ^ and *4'on corrige par I'art,' et les defautsde la nature, 
 et les ddfauts de I'art m6me." * 
 
 With reference to the several genreSy he reasserts, in a single 
 passage, this principle, that the artistic representation of objects 
 may give more pleasure than their reality.* There is thus no place 
 in art for exact realistic delineation. Beauty, rather than truth, is 
 the goal. This corresponds with his scientific judgment that ob- 
 servation is a poor thing by the side of constructive reasoning ; and 
 (he is but " un vil artiste, qui a vu une fois et n'a peut-^tre jamais 
 pens6."« 
 
 The value of this beauty, which art and nature alike seek, is 
 still only in pleasure-giving capacity.'^ Nature has more of 
 varrety ® and less of striking contrast.® Hence our feet must not 
 stray too far from her paths. We hear the old classic cry, 
 " imitez la nature," ^^ by which saying Raphael is praised, and 
 works of the imagination (particularly histories") criticised,^^ 
 when they are more responsible to the claims of truth. Yet what 
 
 1 VII, 121. * VII, 460. 
 
 ' Here, it is true, art mechanical. * iv, 409. 
 
 5 P. & F., I, 290 — ''Les plaisirs de la lecture, lorsque I'^me s'identifie dans les 
 objets, avec les objets (sic) auxquels elle s'int^resse. II y a tel amour dont la 
 peinture a fait plus de plaisir a ceux qui I'ont lu qu'a ceux qui I'ont ressenti. II 
 y a peu de jardins si agr^ables qu'ils aient fait plus de plaisir k ceux qui s'y 
 promenent, qu'on (n' )en a trouv^ dans les jardins d' Alcide ..." 
 
 As to feminine beauty, the passions once passed, there is more delight to be 
 gained from a fine portrait than from the sight of the original. — In the consecrated 
 phrase, we may give this for what it is worth. 
 
 ^6vn, 53;;, 
 iSvnrlSe. 
 
 Wii, 123. 
 " vn, 177. 
 
 VII, 121, 126. 
 2 VII, 174, 
 
 »vii, 127. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 31 
 
 persists is this belief in selection. In gardens again, we must 
 combat nature as bringing confusion ; ^ it is made a matter of 
 reproach to coarser people that " leur ame ne sait ni composer ni 
 decomposer; ils ne joignent ni n'dtent rien h ce que la nature 
 donne." ^ What holds for love will hold for art. 
 
 A word should be said as to Montesquieu's own appreciation of 
 nature as equivalent to the sensible out-door world. His 
 biography and his works ^ are not lacking in allusions to the 
 pleasures of a country life. His avocation as a natural philoso- 
 pher and observer is known.^ His pursuits at La Brede/ the 
 care of his grounds ^ and vineyard/ the pride in his surroundings, 
 would seem to point to the same love for nature's manifestations. 
 He enumerates, among simple pleasures, the view of nature, pro- 
 ductive of "douces sensations."^ Vian^ tells the story of his 
 intention to put " O fortunatos nimium, etc.", as a motto above 
 his gate. At another time he exclaims — " rus quando te 
 aspiciam ! " ^^ There is the testimony of visitors as to his activity 
 in country rambles.^^ But as Petit de Julleville has said, this 
 interest had rather a practical basis — 
 
 " II aimait sinc^rement la vie champ^tre, et il la mena le plus 
 longtemps qu'il put ; il Faimait, non comme un poMe ou comme 
 un artiste ; mais en bon propri^taire foncier, en vrai seigneur de 
 village." ^^ For the rest, his natural descriptions ^^ hardly attest 
 the vivifying impulse which makes the most, artistically and 
 
 1 VII, 130. 2yn^l33, 
 
 » VII, 132-3 ; Vian, Histoire, p. 300. 
 
 * Observations sur V histoire naturelle, cf . sup. , p. 10. 
 
 ^ **Tant la nature s'y trouve dans sa robe de chambre et au lever de son lit 
 (vii, 402). On which Thomas comments (Vieilles lunes d'un avocat, p. 123) — 
 '* Pas tant dans sa robe de chambre qu'il vous plait de le dire, monsieur le Presi- 
 dent. Cette nature-la a bien plutot I'air d'un paysage de Tel^maque," — and 
 H^mon notes ( Cours de litt., i, 26), that here, as elsewhere, a natural sentiment 
 '* reret une forme cherch^e." 
 
 * VII, 271 ; cf . inf. , p. 79. ^ See Lettres, passim. 
 
 8 VII, 181. ^Histoire, p. 299. i»vii, 429. 
 
 ^^ Vian, p. 300 ; see also Sayous, XVIIP, siMe d Vetranger^ i, 211. 
 ^^ Hist, litt.', VI, 177. Hdraon {loc. cit. ) agrees with this. 
 " T. G., V. d P., etc. Little can be expected along this line before the advent 
 of Rousseau and the English poetic influence. 
 
32 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 spiritually, of natural phenomena. With these provisions and 
 limitations, his views, as above sketched, of the artistic conception 
 of nature show what is really an admirable breadth and insight. 
 Other remarks, associated with this subject, will be found under 
 the treatment of landscape-gardening.^ 
 
 Art possesses not only relations, but interrelations. It is 
 always interesting and fruitful to observe not only how any 
 aesthetician conceives of its gradations, but how he values the 
 comparative method and how he applies it. 
 
 The arts, as industries, in the widest sense, " se tiennent presque 
 tous." ^ They are furthermore dependent upon social intercourse,^ 
 a solitaiy individual being unable to practice his art.^ Their 
 interdependence promotes the circulation of riches and the " pro- 
 gression de revenus." ^ 
 
 In the technical sense also, their kinship is close : — 
 
 " Souvent un gofit particulier est une preuve d'un gott general : les Muses sont 
 coeurs, se toiichent I'une et 1' autre, et vivent en compagnie." * 
 
 This kinship he is ready to acknowledge and illustrate, in 
 practice, by somewhat frequent comparisons. But theoretically 
 he contemns them, as void of proof — '' les comparaisons . . . ne 
 sont bonnes que dans Part oratoire et la po6sie et ne servent qu'^ 
 dire la meme chose et plus mal.'' ^ It is true that this does not 
 apply specifically to the critical method, but the extension is easy. 
 Still recommending an apartness, the thing per se,^ he argues well 
 that while the Muses may be sisters, they will ruin themselves 
 by imitation.^ 
 
 To glance at his application, it will be found that he neverthe- 
 less employs the method, in a superficial way indeed, for the con- 
 trasting of individuals. 
 
 Within the same genre, he compares several times, for instance, 
 
 ^ See inf., p. 78. 
 
 ^ P. & F., II, 196 — " une aiguille est le r^sultat de bien des arts. 
 3 P. &F., II, 196. * Still as meaning industrie. ^i, 337. 
 
 ^P. &F., II, 34. ''P. &F., II, 304. 
 
 ^ See on Individualism, inf. , p. 52. 
 
 ^ P. & F., II, 17 — " Les orateurs se sont perdus en imitant les pontes, comme les 
 sculpteurs sesont perdVis en copiant les peintres." 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 33 
 
 Corneille and Racine ; ^ deriving as his best conclusion that the 
 respective merit of their plays, so far as that would imply erecting 
 a scale of values, is not to be decided.^ He may compare for 
 qualities, as where he contrasts Rabelais' naive against Voiture's 
 fine and fatiguing badinage ; ^ or where he allows gaiety to some 
 authors,* plaisanterie ^ to others, and the combination only to 
 Moli^re and the Lettres Frovinciales. Or he may compare the 
 different exponents of a literary style, as Balzac, Voiture and 
 Fontenelle for letter- writing.^ 
 
 In different genres, there is hardly more than a cataloguing of 
 
 names, where authors and musicians or painters and authors are 
 
 paired off, for qualities which may have impressed the writer, but 
 
 . which as a rule, are neither mentioned nor ^ reasoned/ We learn 
 
 that ^^ Rameau est Corneille ; et Sulli, Racine." '' Why ? 
 
 In the striking passage on an author's periods,^ he says that a 
 writer's ^ art ' — subsequent and inferior to his genius — corresponds 
 to a painter's 'manner.' The perfect drawing of Dominichino, 
 Guido Reni or Carraccio reminds him of the perfect versification 
 f of Rousseau {du ruisseau).^ But the most significant example in 
 this cataloguing class is a long list of comparisons between 
 painters and authors — significant less for what it includes than 
 for what it leaves out.^*^ This list, which will be discussed later 
 under Authors, mentions merely names, the basis for the com- 
 parison being sometimes fairly clear, though more often doubtful. 
 Furthermore, he seems to have hesitated himself,^^ as to whether 
 La Fontaine and Marot were more like Correggio or Titian 
 respectively ; as to whether Boileau would best make a running 
 mate for Dominichino or the Carracci ; and he was hard put to it 
 
 ' Cf. wf., p. 139. 
 
 ^ P. & F., I, 50 — "celle qu'on voit repr&enter est toujours la meilleure." 
 ^P. &F., II, 47. 
 
 *Ibid. — To Montaigne, Kabelais, Scarron, and to the Lettres pasanes, which are 
 also riantes. 
 
 ^ Ibid.— To Voiture and Fontenelle. ^ P. & F., ii, 49. 
 
 ' P. & F, II, 69. »P. & F., II, 17. See iv/., p. 81. 
 
 'P.&F, II, 72. 10 P. & F, II, 49. See inf., p. 131. 
 
 "P. &F, II, Notes, p. 539. 
 
34 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 with regard to Chapelain and Diirer. In sum, such comparisons 
 are not very valuable for themselves. We need to guess at his 
 temperamental basis. They chiefly serve to show that he was 
 not a master of the method, which he has slighted. 
 
 So much for his statement of the nature and relations of Art 
 in general. We may now pass to its distinctive characteristics. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 35 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 ART— ITS QUALITIES AND PROPERTIES. 
 
 Under this head will be treated a collection of abstract notions 
 which Montesquieu, in the GoUit,^ considers more or less categor- 
 ically as springs or elements of artistic valuation. Some of them 
 are objective and hence might be classed under taste itself; but 
 it seems better to keep his grouping intact. Such ideas are; 
 v^y^ beauty, sentiment, morality ; order, symmetry, simplicity, variety ; 
 curiosity, surprise, the odd, contrasts, difficulty ; association, 
 sublimity — and the Je ne sais quoi. 
 
 The first three properties, all or singular, are nowadays con- 
 sidered the root of the matter. Montesquieu gives weight to 
 beauty, which from the standpoint of pleasure would be the more 
 prominent, but as to the others, influenced by his character or 
 predilections, he is not so sure. 
 
 In the first place, like art itself, such qualities are not absolute.^ 
 It is the fault of the ancient philosophers — Socrates, Plato, and 
 Aristotle — to have confused the positive with the relative. — 
 
 "Les termes de beau, de bon, de noble, de grand, de parfait, sont des attributs 
 des objets, lesquels sont relatifs aux 6tres qui les consid^rent. " ^ 
 
 This is hardly modified by his subsequent statement that, 
 
 "Quand on dit qu'il n'y a point de qualites absolues, cela ne veut pas dire qu'il 
 n'y en a point r^ellement, mais que notre esprit ne peut pas les determiner." * 
 
 We have seen that beauty's sole end is pleasure, and that it is 
 not primarily concerned with utility.^ But Ste-Beuve declares : 
 
 ^ Saintsbury, Hist, of CriL, p. 514 — "Montesquieu is entirely occupied in trac- 
 ing or imagining abstract reasons for the attractiveness of abstract things." 
 
 2 VII, 159-160, cf., pp. 115-116 and sup. , p. 10. Also Usbek, (i , 93), thinks with 
 reference to pork-eating — " II me semble que les choses ne sont en elles-m^mes ni 
 pures, ni impures " — but only relatively to our natural repugnance. 
 
 'vn, 160. * VII, 162. ^ Sup., ^.22. 
 
36 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 " J*ai parl^ tout a Fheure de Putile : Montesquieu y joignait une 
 id^e du beau. II avait un divin exemplaire en lui : il a 6lev6 
 un temple, la foule y est couru. Mais n'y a-t-il pas introduit 
 quelques idoles?" ^ To reconcile this is difficult. May we not 
 suppose provisionally that an economist's theory of the beautiful 
 would lack efficiency and permanency when placed in rivalry 
 with his practical bent ? Still he values the quality. It comes 
 before the good ^nd the grand in his initial enumeration,^ it was 
 the first-born of the gods ; ^ in monarchies, it is closely associated 
 with honneuvy and actions rank there as beautiful rather than 
 as good.* We are informed (in his verse) that a negligent 
 uncouscious beauty is best of all."^ If its dominion is fragile,^ it 
 has yet been known to carry it over mere pleasure.'' These last 
 indications are slight, but for all that, his doctrine, as doctrine, is 
 definite. It becomes the man of taste which he esteemed himself. 
 
 Beauty in itself is neither the great nor the difficult, — things 
 which were indifferently styled beautiful^ before the advent of the 
 arts.® He adopts as excellent Buffier's definition of beauty as 
 *' Passemblage de ce qu'il y a de plus commun.^' For the fine 
 tilings are those of which there is the greatest number alike — the 
 hazards of variation tending to difformity, and this sort of scatter- 
 ing vote being unable to compete with the type of union and 
 regularity. This principle may explain "toutes les beaut^s de 
 gofit, m^me dans les ouvrages d' esprit. Mais il faudra penser 
 l^-dessus.'^ There is little room for individualism in this.^ 
 
 As to feeling the small part which it played in Montesquieu's 
 life and character ^^ would not lead us to seek much expression or 
 discussion of it in his suggestions on taste. 
 
 Indeed all that we learn in the two divisions " devoted to this 
 
 » a deL., VII, 61. 
 
 ^ vn, 115 — " ces diffdrents plaisirs de notre ^me qui forment les objets du goAt, 
 comme le beau, le bon, I'agreable, etc." 
 
 3 II, 391. * III, 143. 5 vji^ 197^ 203. ^iv, 341. 
 
 ■^ VII, 161 — '' J'ai entendu la premiere representation d'lnes de Castro, de M. de 
 La Motte. J'ai bien vu qu'elle n'a r^ussi qu'a force d'etre belle, et qu'elle a plu 
 aux spectateurs mal^r^ eux," 
 
 ^P.&F.,i, 313, ^P&F.,n, 65-6, cf. in/., p. 53. 
 
 ^^ CI sup., p. 9. "VII, 130-132. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 37 
 
 subject is that the passions in the singing of virtuosi are " trop 
 suspectes de faussete," and that a sensation or a sentiment (he 
 seems to have confounded the two) is manifold and full of access- 
 ory ideas. So, from force of association, he is more touched by 
 the second representation of a play than by the first.^ We are 
 justified in feeling pity for certain situations,^ but, on physiological 
 grounds, there is fatigue in unvarying sensations.^ It is difficult 
 to see how he can speak of the historical labors of Rollin as 
 " le coeur qui parle au coeur." "^ The true passion of tragedy 
 is ter7'or, and it is hard to judge of Cr^billon because of disturbing 
 emotions.^ Still the passions are not ridiculous in themselves, and 
 it is the fault of comedy to use them for laughter.^ 
 
 Morality plays the smallest part of all. So far as the moral is 
 the public good, Montesquieu would recommend goodness. But 
 otherwise Jie is a lenient critic of men and manners, with consid- 
 erable taste for things not particularly virtuous. We do not see 
 from his utterances that morality and art have any connection. 
 There are some conventional expressions of admiration, as when 
 the good Rollin comes in for another neat phrase — "on sent une 
 secrete satisfaction d'entendre parler la vertu : c'est I'abeille de la 
 France." ^ The vertu of the Romans was m^ich more to his taste. 
 Marcus Aurelius is worthy of all praise.'^ But ' good ' is another 
 relative term,^ and in general this is his apology. — 
 
 "C'est en vain qu'une morale austere veut effacer les traits que le plus grand 
 des ouvriers a graves dans nos S.mes : c'est k la morale qui veut travailler sur le 
 coeur de I'homrae h regler ces sentiments, et non pas a les d^truire. Nos auteurs 
 moraux sont presque tous outres : ils parlent a 1' entendement, et non pas k cette 
 ame." » 
 
 One is tempted, for the sentiment part, to cry de tefabula. 
 
 Among those qualities which remain, Vian ^" is probably right 
 
 in thinking that variety comes nearest being the cardinal principle. 
 
 It is at any rate a connecting link and a point de rephre for most 
 
 of them. It is a necessary element in composition." Without it 
 
 1 VII, 161— but cf. p. 147. 'vii, 139, 145. "vii, 127. 
 
 * VII, 163. 5 VII, 161. « VII, 162. 'VII, 160. 
 
 8vii, 115, 160. »vii, 150. iop.314. 
 
 " All this is from the GoUt, vii, 123-4. 
 
38 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 the soul languishes : for like things appear the same and give no 
 pleasure. In art as in nature, aspects and sentiments^ must vary. — 
 
 "C'est ainsi que les histoires nous plaisent par la vari^t^ des r^cits, les romans 
 par la varidt^ des prodiges, les pieces de theatre par la variety des passions." 
 
 Uniformity as equivalent to political conservatism, he has 
 characterized in its excess as a mark of small souls.^ 
 
 Long uniformity is unsupportable in a style of similarly con- 
 structed periods, in a poem of similar numbers and climaxes, in 
 landscapes of similar situations. Yet variety must not impede 
 vision. This is the fault of Gothic architecture, whereas, by its 
 helpful divisions, the Greek seems uniform. A host of differences 
 in minutiae is fatiguing and obscuring. 
 
 Variety is the best of nature ^ and for books the same holds good. 
 He is prompt to praise " cette vari§te qui delasse Fesprit " * — 
 he finds it even in Academy eulogiums ; '' and again he is equally 
 prompt to censure the constant use of monotonous unrelieved 
 antitheses.^ For his own part he will endeavor to avoid, as in 
 the Temple de Gnide ^ any " uniformity vicieuse " — though he has 
 accused himself of having a mind like a mould.^ It is true that 
 beauty — of women — is due to regularity of features.^ But regu- 
 larity is not only quite limited ; in its excess it is disagreeable.^" 
 
 That we must nevertheless have order and symmetry would 
 seem at first to involve some contradiction.^^ He explains this by 
 providing that the pleasure which we derived from symmetry is 
 in the ease with which it allows us to perceive a whole. Hence 
 a general rule : 
 
 "Partout o^ la sym^trie est utile k Vkme, et pent aider ses fonctions, elle lui est 
 agr^able ; mais partout oil elle est iniitile, elle est fade, parce qu'elle 6te la vari^t^. 
 Or les choses que nous voyons successivement doivent avoir de la vari^t^ ; car 
 
 *= sensation? 'y^ 412-13, cf. inf., p. 52. 
 
 3 VII, 121. *vii, 81. 5 VII, 93. 
 
 * VII, 127. — I need only mention here his own crass sins in this particular. 
 
 'II, 9-10. 8 VII, 421— cf. sup., pp. 15, 16. 
 
 *P. & F., 11, 66. Whereas the grotesque is limitless. 
 
 *®P. & F., ir, 78. — "II n'y a rien de si beau que le ciel ; mais il est sem^ 
 d'^toiles sans ordre. Les maisons et jardins d'autour de Paris n'ont que le d^faut 
 de se ressembler trop : ce sont des copies continuelles de Le Notre." 
 
 "VII, 125-8. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 39 
 
 notre ame n'a aucune difficult^ a les voir. Celles au contraire que nous aperce- 
 vons d'un coup d'oeil doivent avoir de la symetrie." 
 
 This he applies particularly to architecture. The object should 
 be simple and unique, and symmetry's great attraction is to make 
 a tout ensemble} Nature leaves no imperfect part ; a pond^ration 
 or balancing is accordingly needed in art. 
 
 Order links to past and future and thereby our soul is pleased.^ 
 It is troubled by confusion, when our imagined suite disagrees 
 with the artist's. " L'ame ne retient rien, ne pr^voit rien, elle est 
 humiliee par la confusion de ses idees, par Finanite qui lui reste ; 
 elle est vainement fatigu^e, et ne pent gotiter aucun plaisir.'' 
 There should be order in confusion itself, as in battlepieces.^ 
 Order is the rule of the universe, though it be not the harmony of 
 Heraclitus.^ It is the basis of science, not to be dispensed with 
 in art.'' It is required in art's forms, as in gardens ; ^ in literature, 
 it is the first thing learned in the study ; ^ as proportion it appears 
 in things like the adjustment of parts in St. Peter's,'' and even in 
 the girdle appropriate to Yenus.^ Such symmetry must not be 
 pushed into the mechanical. Painters and sculptors violate their 
 standards of bodily proportions, because of varying attitudes.^ 
 Michelangelo played with his principles. Architecture is not 
 exact. But, as a rule, great wholes must have great parts. ^" 
 This is in nature. 
 
 The idea of contrasts ^^ is associated with that of variety on the 
 one hand and with that of symmetry on the other. In painting 
 and in sculpture, especially in the latter because it is colder, there 
 must be symmetry in the parts but contrast in the attitudes. ^^ 
 We are not oriental idols. Contrast itself may degenerate into 
 the " vicious uniformity," as has been seen for antitheses ; and 
 painters " sans menagement " allow one to guess exact corres- 
 pondances in their figures. The diverse again becomes the 
 similar. Moreover ; 
 
 1 VII, 125-8. 2yjji22. ^yn,lS. ''Cf. m/, p. 60. 
 
 5 VII, 130. ^R &F.,u, 10. ^ VII, 137. ^vii, 136. 
 
 9 vn, 142-3. loyii, 124. iWii, 126-7. 
 
 ^^ Also P. & F., II, 70 — If symmetry in attitudes is ''insupportable" so is the 
 contrast "trop contraste," which in the last analysis is also symmetry. 
 
40 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 " La nature ne montre pas I'ailectation d'un contraste continuel ; sans compter 
 qu'elle ne met pas tous les corps en mouvement, et dans un mouvement forc<5. 
 Elle est plus vari^e que cela ; elle met les uns en repos, et elle donne aux autres 
 diff ^rentes sortes de mouvement." 
 
 Contrasts have their ludicrous side, as in comedy, where there 
 is dissonance between a character and a situation.^ Our laughter 
 frequently redoubles, because of the contrast between our dignity 
 and the comic impulse.^ " Tous les contrastes nous frappent, 
 parce que les choses en opposition se reinvent tous les deux." ^ 
 This, however, is not of universal application, for : 
 
 " Deux beaut^s communes se d^font ; deux grandes beautfe se font valoir." * 
 
 These are the true beauties of opposition, where the inevitable 
 Florus ^ comes in to support a distinction between antitheses in 
 ideas and mere antitheses of expression, favorable to the former/ 
 But "les contrastes sont cause des d^fauts aussi bien que des 
 beaut^s. Lorsque nous voyons quMls sont sans raison, quMls 
 relevent ou eclairent un autre d^faut, ils sont les grands instru- 
 ments de la laideur," and may thus not only provoke laughter, 
 but also pity and even aversion.^ An opposition which is con- 
 trary to good sense, or which is too rechei-ch^^ no longer pleases 
 and is hence a distinct defect. In large relations, as in particulars, 
 the principle obtains. He thinks that all the agr^ment of his own 
 Lettres persanes consisted "dans le contraste ^ternel entre les 
 choses r^elles et la mani^re singuli^re, naive ou bizarre, dont elles 
 etaient aper9ues." ^ — We shall see that the connection between 
 contrast and surprise is intimate.® 
 
 Curiosity, it has been seen, is a noteworthy trait of Mon- 
 tesquieu's character and mind.^^ He lauds it as a sign of the 
 times.^^ A thinking, perceiving soul should have it.^^ For, in the 
 chain of things, " on ne pent aimer a voir une chose sans dfeirer 
 
 » VII, 145. » VII, 139. 'vn, 138. 
 
 * VII, 172 — Applied especially to physical beauty. 
 5 Cf. in/., p. 136. 6 Qi inf., p. 159. 
 
 'VII, 140. 8 1, 49. 8 Cf. in/., p. 41. i»Cf. *up., p. 10. 
 
 ** ". . . une certaine curiosite que tous les hommes ont, et qui n'a jamais 4t4 
 si raisonnable que dans ce siecle-ci ..." lience comes knowledge. — vii, 78. 
 
The Aesthetic Dodrme of Montesquieu. 41 
 
 d'en voir une autre." Accordingly, the more things we see, the 
 better pleased we are, and a wide range over nature gives us 
 greatest enjoyment. In the intellectual sphere, we have the 
 famous aphorism.^ 
 
 " Ce qui fait ordinairement une grande pensee, c'est lorsqu'on dit une chose 
 qui en fait voir un grand nombre d'autres." ^ 
 
 In gaming, or at the theatre, the suspension of interest is what 
 gives pleasure.^ Finally, for literature in particular, curiosity is 
 the " principe du plaisir."^ 
 
 From curiosity derives the search after novelty,^ which in turn, 
 together with the unexpected and the marvelous, produces sur- 
 prise.^ He dwells much upon this ressort. Its action is spec- 
 tacular and prompt. Not only does it obtain for plays and 
 games, but even "les ouvrages d' esprit ne sont ordinairement 
 lus que parce quails nous m^nagent des surprises agreables." ^ 
 Accessory ideas enter in here,^ and startling climaxes provoke 
 his admiration. 
 
 The movement is towards this climax in the progression of 
 surprise.® The bizarre seen all at once will amaze,^*^ but the eifect 
 does not increase. Surprise is the essence of epigrams ; ^^ it is part 
 of variety, and an effect of contrasts.^^ An illustration is given 
 from natural scenery. In surprise and contrast alike the emotion 
 arises partly from the difference between the actual and what 
 ought to be.^^ 
 
 Another relative of curiosity is what briefly we may call 
 mjstery and what Montesquieu calls the je ne sais quoi^^ — 
 described as '^ un charme invisible, une grace naturelle, qu'on 
 n'a pu d^finir." This likewise springs from surprise, if we had 
 expected to discover less. He applies it particularly to women, 
 
 * Assuredly characteristic of the man and his method. ' vii, 121. 
 
 ''vii, 146-7, also vii, 171— "I'attente est une chaine qui lie tons nos plaisirs." 
 *P, &F., II, 122. ^xu, 120. «vii, 128. 
 
 'VII, 129. ^Ctinf., pp. 43, 81. 
 
 »vii, 136-7. loyii^ 136^ cf, i^y^^ p^ 53^ 
 
 "P. & F., II, 284 — "une belle r^ponse parce qu'elle est contradictoire k celle 
 que I'on attend." 
 
 »2 VII, 138. "vii, 119, 139, 145. 
 
42 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 with little artistic reference.^ "Nous n'aimons presque que ce 
 que nous ne connaissons pas ; " ^ and what is hidden usually 
 excites us most.^ In all the arts and particularly in poetry, there 
 are " certaines f^licit^s que Ton ne rattrape point." * In litera- 
 ture, there is again the glamour of language. A certain work may 
 please more in Latin than in French : — 
 
 "C'est que le franpais reprdsente aux Franfais les choses comme elles sont : 
 il lui donne une id^e juste, qui est si claire qu'il n'en peut pas ajouter des 
 accessoires. Dans le latin, que nous n'entendons pas parfaitement, 1' imagination 
 ajoute a la veritable id^e une id^ accessoire qui est tou jours plus agr^able." ^ 
 
 So he urges for style the principle of suggestiveness, of leaving 
 something to the reader.^ Perhaps we may associate with it that 
 other idea of ars celare arteni, which he applauds : ^ — 
 
 " Mais ^ si vous ne voulez point adoueir la rigueur de mes travaux, cachez le 
 travail m^me ; faites qu'on soit instruit, et que je n'enseigne pas ; que je r^- 
 fl^chisse et que je paraisse sentir ; et lorsque j'annoncerai des choses nouvelles, 
 faites qu'on croie que je ne savais rien, et que vous m'avez tout dit." 
 
 Other more independent qualities are sublimity, ndiveti, and 
 association. Of these three the greatest is simplicity ; " car la 
 majeste demande une certaine gravity, c'cst-tVdire une g^ne oppos6e 
 a ring6nuit6 des graces." ^ And though we admire the majesty 
 of Paolo Veronese, we are touched by the simplicity of Raphael.^*' 
 Corneille is pompous where Racine is natural." Yet, for the 
 "gens qui sont bien 6lev6s," sublimity and nobility persist as 
 ideas ; a thing seems noble when accessories enhance it ; so in 
 comparison one should proceed from the less to the greater. ^^ 
 Unfortunately, among us moderns, the feeling for the sublime is 
 largely ruined by the philosophy of reason, which has diminished 
 the taste for poetry by reducing all to general ideas and pure 
 understanding.^^ Among the people, the has is the sublime,^"* and 
 this passage would give us the whole situation : 
 
 ^vn, 133-5. 'VII, 117. »vii, 120. ^P. &F.,u,VJ. 
 
 ^P.&R, II, 67. ^Cf. inf., p. 130. ^ vii, 85, 161. 
 
 ^** Invocation aux Muses," iv, 360. ^vii, 130, cf. mp. p. 36. 
 
 i»vn, 134. "vn, 140. 
 
 ^^ VII, 141 — Michelangelo is the great exponent of nobility and Giulio Romano 
 is also instanced. 
 "P. <fei^., I, 222. i*vn, 140. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 43 
 
 "Le style enfl^ et emphatique est si bien le plus ais^ que, si vous voyez une 
 nation sortir de la barbaric, vous verrez que son style donnera d'abord dans le 
 sublime, et ensuite descendra au naif. La difficulte du naif est que le bas le 
 cdtoie ; * mais il y a une difference immense du sublime au naif, et du sublime au 
 galimatias." ' 
 
 Because the naive is between the low and the noble, it is the 
 most difficult of styles, though one of the most pleasing,^ and the 
 most replete with grace/ Education, which produces gtne, and 
 affectation spoil this grace, this naturalness in our manners and in 
 our esprit} "Ainsi les graces ne s'acquierent point: pour en 
 avoir, il faut ^tre naif. Mais comment peut-on travailler k ^tre 
 naif? '^ * It is what we shall have to ask ourselves when it comes 
 to a question of his own style.^ 
 
 He is quite fond of the notion of accessory or associated ideas. 
 There is a bit of impressionism in this.^ — "Nous sommes tons 
 pleins d'id^es accessoires." ^ The more we have, the more delicate 
 is our taste.^ So each sentiment is composed of many others ; ^ 
 and the surprise may be in the association.^^ Thereby we gain 
 more pleasure." Such are the accessory ideas ^^ of the persons 
 joined to the performance, of the difficulty of the work, of our 
 previous recollections,^^ etc. As to the artists themselves, we are 
 displeased with the idea of virtuosi,^^ however well they sing ; an 
 actress will please us off the stage, because we still think of her 
 as the princess or what not.^^ He finds impressiveness- or at leas^ 
 cause for admiration in a tour de force. — A thing is hard to do, 
 therefore excellent. ^^ Expense may even be a consideration.^^ — 
 We can eliminate other inconsiderable details, and pass to a dis- 
 cussion of goM itself as interpreted in this Essai, 
 
 1 Kepeated VII, 140. »vii, 176-7. 'vii, 140. * vn, 141. 
 
 ^"Pour s' Clever au rang des plus grands, il lui a manqu^ seulement un peu 
 plus de naturel et de simplicity." Petit de Julleville, vi, 201. Cf. inf., p. 186. 
 
 «Cf. inf., p. 53. 7 VII, 132, cf. mp., p. 41. 
 
 « VII, 133. 9 VII, 129, 131. i» VII, 129. "Cf. s«p., p. 22. 
 
 ^2 VII, 129, 131. "VII, 131-2, vs. 147. "vii, 131. i»vii, 132. 
 
 i«vii, 130-1, 140. Yet elsewhere (P. & F., i, 313) it was people without taste 
 who so judged. 
 
 *' VII, 130 — He was rather parsimonious. 
 
44 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 CHAPTER yil. 
 
 ART— CRITERION— TASTE. 
 
 Such qualities as have been dealt with are the objects of 
 Taste.^ Taste is defined as nothing else than "Pavantage de 
 d^couvrir avec finessee et avec promptitude la mesure du plaisir 
 que chaque chose doit donner aux hommes." It is in rendering 
 reasoning for our sentiments that our taste is formed.^ There are 
 two varieties corresponding to the two varieties of pleasure, the 
 natural and the acquired : ^ 
 
 "Le goAt naturel n' est pas une connaissance de th^orie, c' est une application 
 prompte et exquise ties regies meme que I'on ne connait pas." * 
 
 Neither precepts, nor analysis of our pleasures, nor any philos- 
 ophy can form this innate taste. A taste formed is a taste 
 acquired.^ Yet it is tnie that the two kinds mutually affect and 
 alter each other. 
 
 Taste is a species under the genus esprit.^ Its specific mark is 
 delicacy.^ It is also a matter of feeling rather than of thought — 
 though Montesquieu would connect the two^ — and we have thence, 
 from another point of view, its most general definition as " ce qui 
 nous attache a une chose par le sentiment." ^ 
 
 As a product of this sentiment, of this delicacy, it is the peculiar 
 property of a certain class of people. There is little difficulty in 
 divining what class of people is meant. Among the nations, he 
 commends the development of taste with the Greeks ; ^ with the 
 English he has remarked "plus d'esprit que de goiit," ^ even their 
 
 1 VII, 115. 
 
 '^vii, 116, cf. inf., p. 50, also vii, 131 — "Souvent notre dme se compose elle- 
 m^me des raisons de plaisir." 
 
 3 VII, 117. "vii, 118. ^vii, 119. « VII, 120, 133. 
 
 ' This is significant, as illustrating once more the struggle between heart and 
 head. Cf. sup., pp. 9, 36. 
 
 8 IV, 414. 9 IV, 354. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 45 
 
 poets showing rather crude creation than delicate subtleties.^ It 
 is France, he proudly declares, France which rivals the ancients 
 in this source of wealth,^ this mark of excellence.^ And at home, 
 what caste will appropriate its blessings? The people, "cette 
 sorte de gens que Ton a abandonn^s dans tons les ages,'' ^ contrast 
 unfavorably here with the cultured classes.^ He gives his ideal 
 in the chapter on education^ in monarchies : 
 
 " On trouve a la cour'^ une d^licatesse de gout en toutes choses, qui vient d'un 
 usage continuel des superfluites d'une grande fortune, de la varidt^, et surtout de 
 la lassitude des plaisirs, de la multiplicity, de la confusion m^me des fantaisies, 
 qui, lorsqu'elles sont agr^ables, y sont tou jours re9ues. — C'est sur toutes ces choses 
 que 1' Education se porte pour faire ce qu'on appelle I'honnete homme, qui a 
 toutes les qualit^.s et toutes les vertus que I'on demande dans ce gouvemement." ® 
 
 Taste is, again, a " plaisir delicat des gens du monde ; " ^ and, 
 " ceux qui jugent avec go tit des ouv rages d'esprit ont et se font 
 une infinite de sensations que les autres hommes n'ont pas." ^^ 
 He insists upon the multiplicity and the increasing diminutive- 
 ness ^^ of these sensations, and remarks, after Italy has made him 
 "open his eyes on the arts,'' that small tastes supplant large 
 ones,^^ and "il ne faut pas examiner si on y perd ou si on y 
 gagne." '^ 
 
 The monopolizing of taste may be carried even further ; the 
 Temple de Gnide ^'* is for " tetes bien fris^es et bien poudr^es ; " ^^* 
 women, connected with all agrements,^^ form taste above all.^^ 
 How could he fail to recognize this reigning influence of his time ? ^^ 
 
 1 IV, 356. 2 ]^ote the economist. »iv, 308. ♦iii, 144. 
 
 *vii, 140 — Not, indeed, directly so stated — he says oply "le bas est le sublime 
 du peuple." 
 
 ^ScH., "du monde." 
 
 'He did not, however, exemplify or commend the courtier's life as such. 
 
 8 III, 144-45. » VII, 120. 10 VII, 133. 
 
 "iv, 148 ; VII, 131, etc. — Connected with accessory ideas. There is some Maro- 
 tism in this. Cf. vii, 85. 
 
 1' Cf. sup., p. 27, n. 5. ^^ y^j^ 227. " Dedicated to a princess of the blood. 
 
 '^n, 11. 16 IV, 210. 
 
 "After remarking that taste springs from national inconstancy (quoted sup., p. 
 — ) he states further that "La society des femmes gate les raoeurs et forme le 
 goiit." (iv, 312) Sorel objects that the contrary was true in M's case. Cf. inf.y 
 pp.— 
 
 18 Shown in all his lighter works. Cf. ii, 382. 
 
46 The Aesthetic Doctrine' of Montesquieu, 
 
 All this seems quite clear and quite positive doctrine. It is 
 coherent and logical. It is what we would expect from the mon- 
 archist of the Esprit des Lois, from the fine theorist of the GoMy 
 from the chevalier des dames of the Temple de Gnide — whence the 
 quotations are largely derived. But it is sufficiently evident by 
 now that Montesquieu had still another side to his character. It 
 is from the flotsam and jetsam of the Pensees et Fragments — 
 where I think may often be found much of his rarer and more 
 intimate thought — that a quite different conception emerges. 
 
 Here, he is more far-sighted in penetration and takes many 
 more reserves. In the first place, the things of taste are very 
 obscure.^ Recurring to his favorite principle of relativity,^ he 
 speaks boldly for tolerance, declaring that no taste is always 
 infallible,^ that it varies from China to France, according to the 
 principle of P. Buffier, and that this same principle of common 
 regularity,* " est excellent peut-^tre pour expliquer toutes les 
 beaut^s de goAt.'' ^ 
 
 Generally, for aesthetics, it may be granted that now we are 
 better informed, "depuis qu'on a connu si bien les sources de 
 Pagr^able et du beau," ^ than when, the arts being unknown : 
 
 " Les hommes sans goiit appelaient heau tout ce qui dtait grand, tout ce qui dtait 
 difficile,* tout ce qui avait ^t^ fait par un grand nombre de bras." "^ 
 
 When it comes to discriminating between the persons who 
 ultimately know, his standpoint appears to have changed radically. 
 Taste may still be the property of Paris.^ But the gens de goUt 
 are not only to be carefully distinguished from the gens riches ; ^ 
 they may not wholly, we infer, be identified with the honnUes gens. 
 -For Montesquieu finally admits a possible democratization of taste, 
 in allowing that the people is honnUe dans ses g&dtSy^^ that in the 
 long run it is the tast€ or judgment of the public which decides." 
 
 ^R &F., II, 66. « Cf. sup., pp. 28-9. ^ P. & F., ii, 27. * Cf. sup., p. 36. 
 
 ^ P. &^F., II, 51. — It*is true that his belief varies as to how well we know them. 
 
 « Cf. mp. , p. 43. y ' P. <fe F. , I, 313. 
 
 ^P. & F., II, 180. — "A Paris, on passe sa vie avec des goAts. Dans les pays 
 Strangers, il faut des passions, disait M. Lomillini." 
 
 9P. &F., II, 78. 1° VII, 174. 
 
 ^^P. & F., II, 26. — ' * Ses jugements scell^s par le temps sont presque tou jours 
 bons." 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 47 
 
 Again : 
 
 **A la fin, le public rend justice. En voici la raison : le suffrage des gens sages 
 est constant ; mais ceux {sic) des fous sont divers, et varient sans cesse, et se 
 d^truisent les uns les autres." ^ 
 
 Whatever there may be of apparent contradiction in these 
 diverse statements can perhaps be eliminated by freshly consider- 
 ing his own definition and division of taste. We have seen that 
 on the one hand it is a matter of sentiment and delicacy, on the 
 other a matter of judgment and criticism ; that it may be innate 
 or acquired.^ May we not infer then that, of his two opposed 
 classes of persons, the raffines, the gens du monde appropriate the 
 blessings of the first kind, while the larger public comes with the 
 less immediate and surer judgment of the second? It seems a 
 question of sensitized perception in the first case ^ — the perception 
 that was lacking in the geometer of the Lettres persanes,^ who was 
 ridiculed as seeing only a building of certain dimensions, where 
 other men viewed a superb castle. The people of innate taste 
 perceive immediately, in the present, with vividness of impression, 
 based consciously on no rules. The people of acquired taste 
 judge leisurely, for the future, with fulness of reasoned know- 
 ledge. This nearly approaches our latter-day differentiation 
 between impressionistic and scientific criticism. We would not 
 be warranted in assuming which kind Montesquieu in the end 
 prefers. 
 
 As for his own taste, he trusts that it is excellent.^ This 
 opinion may be reserved for later consideration.® In th6 mean- 
 time, it is fair to say that he values the quality with an honest 
 emphasis. It is with reference solely to this standard that he 
 frequently praises or condemns works of art, as of " bon gotit " 
 or "mauvais gout."^ And the excellence of critics would seem to 
 depend primarily upon the predominance of this faculty.^ 
 
 ^P. & F., II, 28, cf. again the P. Buffier's theory, which quite probably sug- 
 gested this line of reasoning. 
 
 »Cf. sup., pp. 44-5. ' See the above excellent definition, p. 44. 
 
 * I, 397. 5 In connection with his penchant for the ancients. 
 
 *See inf., under criticism of Doctrine, p. 201. 
 '' Voyages, i, 191, 238, etc. » yu^ 264. 
 
48 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 SCHOOLS— CLASSICISM VS. INDIVIDUALISM. 
 
 Since the divisions of this treatise must largely follow the 
 material ^ and since the above subject stands well forward, both 
 for its intrinsic importance, and for its predominance in our 
 author's mind, it has seemed worth while to devote a chapter to 
 his discussion. 
 
 The strife implied between the standards corresponds somewhat 
 with that just mentioned, between a personal temperamental taste 
 and the judgments of a cultivated mind. It corrresponds still 
 more closely with the subsequent opposition of ancients and 
 moderns under Literature.^ 
 
 Classicism finds its most usual antithesis, indeed, in Romanti- 
 cism. But of that, in Montesquieu's time, there could certainly 
 be little premonition. As to the self-assertiveness of the individual, 
 however, one might well ask, is it assuming too much to accredit 
 our author with some appreciation of such principles — principles 
 of independence and inventiveness, of personality and even of 
 iconoclasm ? Could it be expected that the foremost apostle of 
 liberty,^ the political partner of Rousseau, the father of the Giron- 
 dists, would show entire conformity, entire accord with a decrepit 
 order, in things artistic ? It is true that light came latest just in 
 this field for the time and its interpreters ; still there might well 
 be some glimmerings of emancipation, even in a philosophe — for 
 the philosophe himself had taken a forward step in emancipation 
 of another sort. 
 
 Liberty, in sum, would be an extensive and encyclopedic prin- 
 ciple. Among other things, it should embrace art. But just here 
 there are two considerations that give us pause. The first is 
 Montesquieu's occasionally bewildering gift of moderation, his 
 
 iCf. sup., p. 13. •-'Cf. inf., p. 124. »Cf. m/-> P- 204. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 49 
 
 hedging, his disposition to show both sides of the medal. The 
 second is the fact, that in all his lauding of liberty, it is never the 
 individual liberty,^ the individual right that he recommends. 
 Like the ancient legislators, says Janet, Montesquieu " ignore 
 entierement le droit de Pindividu." ^ And Beudant believes that 
 " individualiste par toutes les tendances, il garde le pr6jug6 de 
 TEtat providence." ^ 
 
 There are still these other tendencies. — The best way, as usual, 
 will be to discard these a priori insinuations and to seek for what 
 he has said. 
 
 The term " classicism," in its ambiguity, may be used in several 
 ways. There is the simple love of the classics ; and the conse- 
 quent formulation of rules and principles drawn therefrom by a 
 neo-classical school of France or of England. There is the 
 further disposition to define the literary products of these princi- 
 ples as themselves "classics." Whence derive fresh principles 
 and fresh products, ad infinitum until inanition and putrescence set 
 in — which point was attained in the eighteenth century. 
 
 The first two original kinds of classicism are those which will 
 find most frequent illustration in Montesquieu's doctrine; as a 
 matter first of concrete choice, and then, inductively, of abstract 
 dogma. 
 
 For the first kind, his sincere preference for the ancients admits 
 of little doubt.^ 
 
 He will choose a " finished and finite " past, rather than elect a 
 new, an unborn excellence. Classicism, where it is genuinely 
 classic, needs no further excuse. The TSlemaque is divine, because 
 in it Homer seems to breathe again.'* The Greek bard has given 
 us the two only kinds of epic which we yet have.^ He holds that : 
 
 "Sophocle, Euripide, Eschyle, ont d'abord portd le genre d' invention au point 
 que nous n'avons rien change depuis aux regies qu'ils nous ont laissdes, ce qu'ils 
 n'ont pu faire sans une connaissance parfaite de la nature et des passions." * 
 
 Many other of our genres come from the ancients.^ He declares 
 
 iCf. inf., p. 122. 2 Ed. E. L., p. 318. 
 
 ^Beudant, Droit Individuel, etc., p. 126. 
 
 * VII, 158. 5 Yoyages, n, 374. ' 
 
50 The. Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 — and it is a significant utterance on the classic side — that, " Les 
 Anglais sont des g^nies singuliers ; ils n'imiteront pas m^me les 
 anciens qu'ils admirent." ^ But as to uninspired imitations he is 
 not so sure.^ 
 
 The classicism on principle occupies much of Montesquieu's 
 thoughts. Duparcq ^ thinks he finds in the Gout a broad recogni- 
 tion of convention as "plaisir acquis.^' By this it would be a 
 virtue in art to resemble itself.* The several watch-words of the 
 classical contest find fresh expressions. 
 
 As to Order, what has already been said of this versus variety * 
 may pass for here. — The great point of agreement between his 
 intelligence and Boileau's rules, is the divine right of reason. It 
 is possible, he declares, to " faire un art de la raison meme,'' ^ and 
 no phrase comes nearer expressing his artistic ideal. Reason's 
 empire is natural, even tyrannical ; resistance is vain, and to her 
 laws we must always return.'' By the will of the Muses, " je parle 
 k la raison ; elle est le plus parfait, le plus noble et le plus exquis 
 de nos sens."® Pleasure itself, we have seen, can be reasoned^ 
 and should be reasonable. ^'^ Where it is possible to please in other 
 respects," we should still cling to reason as much as may be. 
 Otherwise that which primarily sins against hon sens can no longer 
 please. ^^ But reason, or rather its forced application, has never- 
 theless its limits : ^^ 
 
 "Les principesde la g^ora^trie sont tres-vrais ; mais si on les appliquait ^ des 
 choses de goClt, on ferait d^raisonner la raison ra^me." " 
 
 ^ VII, 169. 2yij^ 160_1 . 478. ^ Notes, p. 65. 
 
 *The formulation of this principle is, however, not definite. It would seem 
 allied with Spencer's "economy of attention" and, more nearly with M's "pleas- 
 ure of recognition." (vii, 121). 
 
 5Cf. swp., pp. 38-9. 6x11,221. ■'v, 356. 
 
 8 IV, 360. 9 y^j^ 131. 10 yii^ 143. 11 yjj^ 143.4. 
 
 12 VII, 140, 143. Bons sens is made the standard again and again. For its lack 
 he condemns the extravagancies of nouvellistes, (i, 404), of grammarians and their 
 kin (I, 419), and of poets (i, 425). 
 
 '' VI, 202-3. It is true that he is inveighing here against the narrowness of his 
 theological critics — but the whole passage is worth consulting. Cf. inf., pp. 53, 
 , 122. 
 s/ ^* Cf. d propoSf our former geometer (i, 397. ) 
 
The AeMhetic Doctrine of 3fontesquieu, 51 
 
 After this, oue is somewhat surprised to hear him declare that 
 architecture is everywhere and always the same, that to condemn 
 French architecture is to condemn Italian and is as illogical as 
 condemning Italian geometry, that the pleasure we take in 
 buildings is largely mathematical/ Exact proportions can be 
 disregarded only by a Michelangelo, whose excellent taste knew 
 what ' ought ^ to be done to satisfy the eye.^ But for him, " il 
 semblait qu'il etit un art a part pour chaque ouvrage." ^ 
 
 For others, in varying genres, Montesquieu leans towards a 
 belief in the rigidity of standards. The Medici Venus is the 
 model of beauty and shows the way a woman ^ ought' to be 
 represented : ^ 
 
 "EUe sert de regie, et ce qui est semblable dans les proportions a cette statue 
 est bien, et ce qui s'en ^carte est mal." ^ 
 
 In the drama, the above-mentioned Greek tragedians ® having 
 attained the highest possible — not " perfection " but " la totale 
 invention,'' have left us rules, which, in Aristotle's formulation, 
 " subsistent toujours." '^ ^^ Nous ne pouvons nous en departir." ^ 
 That, I think, is as heartily classic as we could desire. Comedy, 
 however, is equally hide-bound, since — unlike life — it must 
 necessarily have five acts.^ 
 
 There is a whole division on " rules " in the Gout, where he 
 takes some reserves : ^^ 
 
 ** Tous les ouvrages de I'art ont des regies g^n^rales, qui sont des guides q'il ne 
 faut jamais perdre de vue. — Mais comme les lois sont toujours justes dans leur 
 ^tre general, mais presque toujours injustes dans 1' application ; de meme les regies, 
 toujours vraies dans la theorie, peuvent devenir fausses dans I'hypotlilse." 
 
 So with regard to physical proportions in painting. Art gives 
 rules and taste the exceptions ; taste shows us where art ' ought ' 
 to submit and where it ought to reign. But whether or not a 
 thing ^ ought' ^^ to please or ^ ought' ^^ to surprise, is a dominance 
 
 ^R &F., II, 76. 2 Yoyages, ii, 346. ' vii, 143. 
 
 * Voyages, ii, 329. & Voyages, ii, 330. ^Ci. sup., p. 49. 
 
 ■^ Voyages, u, 351. — Repeated, with some modification, ibid., p. 374. 
 
 ^ The stronger phraseology is from ii, 374. 
 
 ^P. &F., li, 92. Cf. inf., p. 114. i" vii, 142-3. ' 
 
 "vn, 116. i2yii^ 119. 
 
52 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 of taste, rather than of formulated rules. And the rules of taste 
 it has been seen, may not always be patent.^ 
 
 He flatters himself, in the preface to the Temple de Gnide that 
 he has, in that work, observed the ^ rules ; ^ ^ but if not, he is 
 careless of criticism in this respect. 
 
 " Quelques savants n'y out point reconnu ce qa'ils appellent I'art. II n'est 
 point, disent-ils, selon les regies. Mais si I'ouvrage a plu, vous verrez que le 
 coeur ne leur a pas dit toutes les regies." ' 
 
 But one fears that the ' heart,' as a source of rules, is here a pure 
 affectation. In regard to the Esprit des Lois he has shown a still 
 prouder individuality.^ 
 
 As for this ' nature,' whence spring rules, we have in frequent 
 recurrence — especially in praise of Raphael — the ancient slogan, 
 " imitez la nature." ^ Yet it has been observed ^ that art must put 
 order in her confusion and selection in her wholesale abundance. 
 
 We find thus notions quite opposed to formalism. The idea 
 of an " art apart for each work " ^ seems almost a precursor of 
 late standards of judgment.^ In the criticism of the Academy 
 against the Oid — 
 
 " C'est dans ce cas oil la morale exigeait qu'avant de penser a 
 ce qu'elle devait au public, elle pensat a ce qu'elle devait k Cor- 
 neille, et peut-§tre . . . au grand Corneille.'' ^ Authority itself 
 has its limits. It reigns only in the domain of fact, and not in 
 the realms of reasoning.^^ " Ipse dixit est toujours une sottise.'' ^^ 
 
 In the curious chapter on uniformity, where, as Riaux^^ says, 
 Montesquieu combate " la manie de tout niveler,'' we learn that 
 the known perfection which strikes small souls may yield to the 
 greatness of a genius which realizes " dans quel cas il faut Tuni- 
 formite et dans quel cas il faut des differences.'' ^^ 
 
 ^ VII, 118 — ''des regies que I'on ne connait pas." May I compare "Le coeur 
 a ses raisons ? " 
 
 ^ " . . . les regies, que les auteurs des po^tiques ont prises dans la nature, s'y 
 tro,uvent observ^es." ii, 9. 
 
 3n, 10, 11. 
 
 * VII. 386 — " Mon intention a ^t^ de faire mon ouvrage et non pas le sien." 
 
 5 vii, 136 ; Voyages, i, 229, 231, 240. « See sup., p. 30. 
 
 ■^ See sup. , p. 29. ^ Associated with his ideas of relativity. 
 
 »P. & R, II, 50. 10 P. &F.,n, 22. " P. & R, ii, 490. 
 
 ^^ Notice, p. 16, cf. sup., p. 38. "v, 412. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 53 
 
 For his own judgments, he is the captain of his artistic soul ; 
 and individuality becomes impressionism — 
 
 " II y a des coeurs qui sont faits pour certains genres de dramatique ; le mien 
 en particulier est fait pour celui de Cr^billon . . . je ne pretends pas donner men 
 opinion pour les autres. Quand un sultan est dans son serail, va-t-il choisir la 
 plus belle? Non, il regarde, et il dit ; Je I'aime ; il la prend . . ." ^ 
 
 Talent is god-given and unconscious ; ^ genius, be it a " rudesse 
 originale d^ invention/' ^ is above the dominion of rules, and 
 should be freed from the carping of critics. — 
 
 * ' On vient nous mettre un beguin sur la tete, pour nous dire a chaque mot : 
 ' Prenez garde de tomber ; vous voulez parler comme vous, je veux que vous 
 parliez comme moi.' Va-t-on prendre I'essor? ils vous arretent par la manche. 
 A-t-on de la force et de la vie ? on vous I'dte a coups d'epingle. Vous dlevez — 
 vous un peu ? voila des gens qui prennent leur pied, ou leur toise, levent la tete, 
 et vous orient de descendre pour vous mesurer. ... II n'y a science ni litt^rature 
 qui puisse r^sister a ce pedantisme." * 
 
 Such eloc^uent and virile words become his independence of 
 thought, and the century's advancing freedom of expression. 
 
 Yet excessive individualism may become pure selfishness, as 
 in the socially disastrous argument of the Troglodytes.^ The 
 epigram that "nous ne jugeons jamais des choses que par un 
 retour secret que nous faisons sur nous-m^mes,'' ^ tends, in its 
 introduction of a relativity too nearly infinite, neither to the 
 credit of humanity, nor to the promotion of beauty. This latter 
 truth is vividly realized in his illustrations of negroes who paint 
 their gods black and. their devil a dazzling white ; of " certain 
 peoples'' who attribute to their Venu^ a repulsive malformation; 
 and indeed of the whole body of worshippers who ascribe to their 
 deities the human face and inclinations. 
 
 Originality, too, may become singularity, and the bizarre, 
 the grotesque.^ It is, however, usually the unthinking crowd, 
 "artisans grossiers des ide^s des autres," who call a thinking 
 man of character " un homme singulier." It may happen that 
 " la singjilarite consiste dans une maniere fine de penser (?), qui 
 
 3 IV, 456. -^ VI, 202-3. 
 
 He thinks this good enough to repeat, i, 273. 
 
 1 VII, 314. 
 
 
 
 ^ VII, 
 
 170. 
 
 5 1, 77. 
 
 
 'h 
 
 206. 
 
 He 
 
 T. &F., 
 
 n, 
 
 129. 
 
 
 
54 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 a ^chapp6 aux autres." And a singular man's thoughts are so 
 peculiarly his, that another lies in using them.^ 
 
 Finally he speaks strongly for originality in writing. If diction- 
 aries of living languages are limited things,^ grammar is likewise 
 too restrictive of diction : ^ 
 
 ** Un homme d' esprit est, dans ses ouvrages, crdateur de dictions, de tours et de 
 conceptions . , . . un homme qui (^crit bien n'^rit pas comme on a ^crit, mais 
 comme 11 ^crit, et e'est souvent en parlant mal qu'il parle bien." 
 
 Allowing for the antithetical paradox and for Ste-Beuve's* 
 characterization of the last lines as " des idees fort d^gag^es/' the 
 fact remains that Montesquieu's line of thought here is strongly 
 and convincingly individualistic. 
 
 ip. &F.,u, 129. 
 
 »P. <fc P., II, 7-8. * C. de L., vii, 55. 
 
BOOK III. 
 ESTHETIC DOOTEINE-FOEMS OF AET, 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 MONTESQUIEU AND THE FINE ARTS-GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 " Depuis que je suis en Italie, j'ai ouvert les yeux sur les arts 
 dont je n^avais absolument aucune idee." ^ Such is his own state- 
 ment of the revelation which Italy effected for him. The extent 
 of this revelation and the degree of artistic acumen which he 
 developed, largely in this journey of 1728-9, is what it is proposed 
 to investigate throughout this Book. 
 
 The arts with which he became more or less familiar were, in 
 the order of their importance for him, painting, architecture, sculp- 
 ture, with something of music. Poetry cannot be included in the 
 list.^ The others formed certainly his chief preoccupation while 
 in Italy ^ and even to some extent before ; for we find already at 
 Vienna ^ that the " immobile " ^ M. Jacob, to whom he owes his 
 idea of painting,^ has begun to act as his initiator and guide to the 
 galleries. This was his first cicerone, of whom there were several.^ 
 
 " Le progres qu'il fait en quelques mois est surprenant." ^ If 
 at Venice his eyes are still bandaged, from Padua to Florence, it 
 is a " perp6tuel enchantement." ^ Once at Florence he visited the 
 Uffizi every morning for a month or more,^^ and as a natural result 
 
 Wii, 227. 
 
 ^Cf. inf., p. 106. It is, in any case, best treated under Literatu^re. 
 ' See Picot, Voyages de Mont. , esp. p. 44. 
 *P. &F., II, 542 ; Voy., i, xxi. 
 
 ^Vii, 224— though of amatory tendencies. ^ F. & F., ii, 542. 
 
 ' Voyages, xxvii, xxix, 343 — Bouchardon among others. 
 8 Picot, p. 44. 
 
 *Fournier de Flaix, Voyages de Mont., pp. 8-9. ^"^ vii, 226. 
 
 55 
 
56 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 believed greatly in the Florentine school, whose geniuses "ont 
 contribu^ plus qu'aucune ville d'ltalie au renouvelleraent des 
 arts." ^ Even the Gothic ^ here is better than anywhere else. 
 The published notes on Florence, which yet are not inconsiderable, 
 form but a small part of what he actually wrote.^ And his minute 
 study, particularly of the statuary, is well evidenced. This 
 admiration is in accordance with the Vasari tradition.* 
 
 In Rome, where he spent five months, the arts continued their 
 march, with equal pace, until architecture began, towards the end, 
 somewhat to predominate.* He finds Rome, frankly, 
 
 "la plus belle ville du monde. Si les arts dtaient perdus, on les retrouverait 
 dans Rome." * 
 
 The " stones," however, hardly tempt the future author of the 
 Romains ; ^ it is rather the Rome of the Renaissance which wins 
 his suffrages.® 
 
 Those who are seeking fine works of art should never leave 
 Rome for Naples, where it is easier to ruin one's taste than to 
 form it.^ He spent little over a week here, declaring that it took 
 two minutes to see Naples, as against six mouths for the Imperial 
 City.^« 
 
 It may well be asked, as early as this, how much dependence 
 can be placed on his susceptibility, his judgment, his very indi- 
 viduality in these matters, since he admits that he has frequently 
 transcribed the opinion of M. Jacob and others." We may 
 reasonably expect quite a quantity of trite and unfelt criticism, 
 of conventional admirations, or of unsafe boutades. 
 
 There will be sometimes a succession of " beau," " tr^s beau," 
 "tr^s bon gout," showing weariness rather than appreciation. 
 Much of it, indeed, will not be criticism at all, but a sort of close 
 description of churches, statues, paintings, or an enumeration of 
 the facts and figures which his curiosity demanded and recorded. ^^ 
 
 ^Voyages, i, 169. ^Seem/-> P- 71. ^Voyages, i, xxvii. 
 
 *Voy., 1, 339. 5 Voy., i, xxx. ^Voy., ii, p. 7. 
 
 'See Bonnefon, Voyages de Mont., p. 129. 
 
 ^Fournier de Flaix, p. 11. ^Voy., ii, 6. ^^Voy., i, xxix. 
 
 ^^P. & F., II, 69. — But just after this even, come a series of *' observations que 
 j'ai faites depuis." 
 
 "^. g., on the Tower of Pisa, Voy., i. 157. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 57 
 
 M. Doumic/ as well as another, has stated and even overstated 
 the limitations with which we must reckon. Montesquieu, deter- 
 mined not to neglect Italy^s resources, applies himself " avec 
 conscience." As an attentive scholar, he follows his master, and 
 " on le voit changer d^ opinion en m^me temps que de cicerone.'' 
 He approves of Raphael in conventional style, but reserves the 
 fulness of eulogy for the Bolognese, as the then cult required. 
 Pre-Renaissance and Gothic meant nothing to him, wherein he 
 was no worse than his time. He abdicates his preferences in 
 favor of the "classement officiel." He has tried his best to 
 '* prendre gotat," for art, and thinks that he takes pleasure in it. 
 In short : 
 
 "La v^rit^ est qu'il n'y a rien de plus mdthodique, mais aussi rien de plus 
 froid que la facon dont il passe en revue les chefs-d'oeuvre classes. Nul accent 
 personnel. Pas un mot qui trahisse 1' emotion directement ressentie . . . Mon- 
 tesquieu n'est ni touriste ni artiste." ^ 
 
 Much of this is quite true. It is only too sweeping. I am 
 hardly convinced that he had no fixed opinions, that his great 
 admiration for Raphael was conventional, that he took no real 
 pleasure in this field. Individual observations and the personal 
 note recur frequently, if not invariably, with some warmth 
 of enthusiasm and with the peculiar type of judgment belonging 
 to him. That will be attested in what follows. Few can fail to 
 find in his remarks on the Gothic or on Michelangelo, in his 
 distrust of vaghezza and his relish for chiaroscuro^^ the decided 
 hall-marks of the Montesquieu that we are coming to know. His 
 temper is still that of the curious investigator and of the polished 
 man of breeding.^ Picot makes a good distinction in declaring 
 that it is not always a question — 
 
 " des phrases admiratives telles qu'en peut (^crire un voyageur auquel se r^vMe 
 un art qu'il ne soupfonne pas, mais d'une ^tude approfondie ; il sent les beautds, 
 et il veut savoir a quoi est due cette sensation." * 
 
 The attempt will be made then to convey succinctly whatever 
 seems at once individual and critical in these remarks on the arts, 
 
 1 Vrnjages de Mont, pp. 929-30. ^Ihid., p. 230. 
 
 ^See in order, inf., pp. 71, 64, 61. 
 
 *I hesitate, as yet, to say of "taste." ^ Voyages de Mont, p. 44. 
 
58 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 omitting perforce descriptions, minutiae, banal phrases and evident 
 echoes — omitting, too, what would seriously clog our progress, 
 the detail of technique and processes, the reviewing of individual 
 names and works. The few exceptions to this last, will, it is 
 hoped, prove strikingly illustrative. But there shall be included, 
 in general, whatsoever things are just, beautiful or charming from 
 the standpoint of the President. 
 
 In continuance of his views on the locale of the arts, he holds 
 that, historically, all the arts founded on drawings are " Graeco 
 solo ortaej^ ^ The Greek religion sped their arts,^ together with 
 the fact that they constantly saw men naked. They had corporeal 
 gods and athletes to represent, while other nations lacked such 
 models. 
 
 These side-lights on religion are quite curious. He allows in 
 general its artistic tendencies,^ but in detail he admits them only 
 for the Greek mythology and mediaeval Catholicism. 
 
 **Le8 Grecs, qui n'dtaient point g^n^s par la religion, porterent I'art infini- 
 ment plus loin,* et les Eomains ne se trouverent pas a une bien grande distance 
 des Grecs, et les arts, par la religion, furent retards en Egypte." 
 
 Devotion, or Religion, encourages these arts. Catholicism, with 
 its cult of images, helped in their renewal. Had Protestantism 
 prevailed, we would have lost much. 
 
 To return to the Greeks, they were the fathers of sculpture, 
 which it is almost certain they could have taken neither from 
 the Egyptians nor the Persians — and he gives the arguments.'^ 
 It may possibly have been known in Etruria.® But he abides 
 finally by the Greeks, and derives thence all moderns : 
 
 » Vmi., II, 349. 
 
 2 This connection, implying the ancillary relation of art, which we think of 
 rather as aboriginal or Renaissance or nineteenth century, Montesquieu yet makes 
 for himself en plein dix-huitieme — '' Je sens que je suis plus attache a ma religion 
 depuis que j'ai vu Rome et les chefs-d'oeuvre de I'art qui sont dans les ^glises." 
 {Voy., I, xxxiv.) Whence, remarks Doumic (loc. cit.), one might "avec 
 beaucoup de bonne volont^," draw all of the Genie du Christianwne. 
 
 ' What follows is from the end of the treatise, JDe la maniZre gothique, Voy. , ii, 
 320-3 (cf. inf., p. 71.) 
 
 *i. e., than the Egyptians. ^ Voy., ii, 348-50. 
 
 •Elsewhere, again with apparent inconsistency, he says that Assyrius has 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 59 
 
 *' On peut consid^rer avec quelle rapidite les Grecs allerent de I'art a la perfec- 
 tion de I'art.^ ... II n'y a pas un long trajet de la fondation des empires grecs 
 jusques aux plus excellents peintres. . . . Nous avons inutilement travaille depuis 
 I'inondation des Barbares jusques ^ Giotto. Quelques pretres grecs donnerent ^ 
 Cimabu^ et a Giotto quelques faibles rayons de Tart. lis en resterent la jusques k 
 ce que la vue des antiques^ ouvrit 1' esprit de Michel- Ange et de ses contem- 
 porains. Les Grecs eux seuls ont fait ce que nous n' avons pu faire que par 
 eux." ' 
 
 After the Greeks, the arts rose and fell with the Eoman 
 Empire — rose from Augustus to Hadrian and Trajan, to fall 
 from that point.* Among the moderns, he has little to remark 
 concerning the Germans — whether for Rembrandt, Rubens ^ or 
 Rhine castles. But he says of Diisseldorf that it is easily the 
 finest thing in Germany, and would be quite beautiful " even in 
 Rome.^' ® The English, and, curiously enough, the French them- 
 selves receive very slight individual attention. 
 
 " proved " that the Greeks did not invent the arts, but had them from the Bar- 
 barians. Perhaps ''prouve" should not carry too much weight. (P. & F.j 
 II, 489. ) 
 
 * Cf. for tragedy, sup., p. 49. 
 
 ^ N. B. — for thorough discounting of Pre-Kenaissance. 
 
 3 Foy., II, 350-1. 
 
 *P. <fe i^., I, 274— cf. inf., under Literature, p. 124 f. 
 
 ^ Some conventional adjectives for this painter, cf . inf. , p. 63. 
 
 «Foy., II, 186-7. 
 
60 The Aesthetic Dodnne of Montesquieu. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PAINTING-RAPHAEL AND MICHELANGELO. 
 
 Our author has more to say about painting and painters than 
 any other branch. He is quite clear as to certain cardinal princi- 
 ples, which he deems necessary. The greatest of these, of course, 
 is " imitez la nature.^' ^ That he does so is the chief merit of 
 Raphael,^ who submerges thereby his own manner — or mannerism : 
 
 *' Raphael est presque le seul de tous les peintres qui ne soit pas mani^r^ ; ce 
 qui vient de T imitation de la nature telle qu'elle est, et non de la fa9on que le 
 peintre y met." ' 
 
 It has already been seen, however, that selection is demanded in 
 the midst of imitation.* " La peinture ne prend la nature que 1^ 
 oft elle est belle.'' * He had rather see Raphael's representation of 
 the nude than a real Venus, for " la peinture ne nous repr^sente 
 que les beaut6s des femmes, et rien de ce qui pent en faire voir les 
 d^fauts." ® Selection may even, by the choice of here a trait and 
 there a beauty, tend to the formation of a type and to the suppres- 
 sion of individual expression or resemblance. So in the apologue 
 of the painter, who, desiring to create a goddess of beauty, brought 
 together the fairest Greeks and chose from each " ce qu'elle avait 
 de plus agr^able." ' Yet he criticises severely lack of expression,® 
 whole galleries " oft tout se ressemble." ^ 
 
 He is a friend to Order, ^'^ within reason. It is important in 
 grouping and in massing, in confusion itself, as in battlepieces ; " 
 but symmetry in arrangement should be atoned for by variety in 
 
 ^ " En efifet il faut que la peinture trouve I'art de nous montrer dans un tableau 
 les m^mes choses que nous montre la nature." —7 Foy., t, 257, cf. sup. p. 30. Also 
 vn, 124. 
 
 Toy., I, 229, 231. ^Voy., i, 240. *Cf. sup., p. 30. ^vii, 121. 
 
 •P. & F., II, 67. Cf. sup., p. 30. 'i, 239-40. Wmj., i, 198. 
 
 * " Ce qui est contre la nature ^^—Voy., i, 227. 
 
 "Cf. sup., p. 39. "vn, 122, 124. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 61 
 
 attitude.^ He lauds simplicity and condemns affected and inap- 
 propriate ornament.^ It is characteristically Montesquivian that 
 he condemns vaghezza as lessening strength. — " Je me m^fie tou- 
 jours de la vaghezza : elle est aux d^pens de la force " — and of the 
 chiaroscuro, the bodies thus treated seem clearer, because feebler.^ 
 A brief passage in praise of the Farnese gallery will give a rSsumS 
 of his principles : 
 
 '* . . . les tableaux sont simples: peu de figures, et si bien ordonn^es qu'il para it 
 qu'il y en a encore moins. Les paysages ne sont pas non plus remplis et confus : 
 un beau ciel et peu de choses, comme la nature . . ." * 
 
 A few of his more significant points, in the matter of technique, 
 may be mentioned/ There are " regies gen^rales sur le dessin,'' ^ 
 as to the inclining of the head, the advancement of the body in 
 running, the leaning on one foot, which point chiefly to an avoid- 
 ance of "coldness'' and to the principles of variety and contrast. 
 He believes in the smallness of extremities and svelte figures for 
 grace, since Raphael did thus.^ For the same reason he prefers 
 soft contours, not too marked or sec.^ Chiaroscuro is one of his 
 favorite points : 
 
 '' Ce sont les reflets qui font saillir les corps, et la science du peintre consiste a 
 disposer les choses de fafon que les lumieres, les ombres, les reflets, fassent I'effet 
 desir^."8 
 
 Of the various exponents of painting, he can admire in the 
 ancients only their drawing, their attitudes, and particularly their 
 secret for conserving colors.^*^ The Primitives struck him as 
 impossible. Especially horrible are the efforts in the Campo 
 Santo at Pisa, where the bad taste and the " imaginations singu- 
 li^res " of that time are well displayed. ^^ Giotto is a little better 
 than the others. He finds that the Venetian school "avait 
 beaucoup de facility, et de hardiesse, et de grands traits ; " ^^ but 
 their attitudes are forced. ^'^ The Flemish, on the contrary, have 
 
 lyn, 126. ^Voy., i, 259. 
 
 Toy., I, 249, cf. i, 238. *Fot/., i, 226. 
 
 ^As a rule I cannot think him the inventor of the technical dicta. 
 
 « Voy. , I, 241-2. ' Voy. , i, 228. « Vay. , i, 84. 
 
 Toy., I, 234, cf. pp. 249, 256. ^Woy., i, 198. 
 
 ^^Voy., I, 158. ''Voy., i, 85. 
 
62 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 no " grands traits," ^ nor majesty.^ His solitary observation con- 
 cerning the French school is that : 
 
 "Les Franpais ont d'assez belles expressions des passions dans les visages ; raais 
 leur coloris est faible et n'a pas de force." ^ 
 
 Among individuals, his preferences on the whole seem rather 
 for strength than for sweetness. He has an ecstatic admiration 
 for Guilio Romano, whose work at Mantua was done in a 
 way "que Ton peut regarder comme le chef-d'oeuvre de la 
 peinture." * His ordonnance — especially in battles, where others 
 make confusion — his costuming and his drawing show great 
 knowledge. Daniele da Volterra is another favorite, whose works 
 are admirable.^ It is in regard to this painter that M. Doumic 
 accuses Montesquieu of timidly renouncing his preferences in 
 favor of the " classement officiel." ^ But it will be seen in this 
 passage that the President keeps his preferences, exactly in spite 
 of the usual ranking : 
 
 " Mais j'avoue que j'ai trouv6 la Desccnte de Croix de Daniel 
 de Volterre . . . au-dessus de ce tableau,^ quoiqu'on le mette le 
 deuxieme de Rome, et celui de Daniel le troisi^me." ® It is quite 
 true, however, as M. Doumic says, that there is some " fracas 
 des 6loges " for the Carracci, Guide aqd Dominichino.® 
 
 Of the other Italian painters — and it is practically only the 
 Italians that he discusses — he approves the " majesty " of Vero- 
 nese's draperies,^^ the " grandes benches " ^^ and that fusion of 
 colors which is in Correggio's priceless Notte alone.'^ Carlo Dolci 
 has at any rate a finished manner. ^^ Guido Reni is notable for 
 grace, and his Martyr of the Innocents (at Bologna) is deemed 
 not inferior to the Auroraj for color and expression.^* Titian's 
 Tribuna Venus is admirable — " vous croyez voir la (;hair et le 
 corps m^me." ^^ In the Tribute- Money, the facial expression is 
 
 ^Voy,, I, 85. 2yjj^ 141^ 3Yoy., i, 85-6. 
 
 *Voy., II, 116-7. ^Voy., i, 207. ^Voyages de Mont, pp. 929-30. 
 
 ■^The St. Jerome of Dominichino. ^Voy., i, 247. 
 
 » Loc. cit. i» VII, 134. 
 
 " A propos of the "Madoiina chi adora," Voy., ii, 338. 
 
 12 Voy., II, 97. 13 Voy., ii, 340. i* Voy.. ii, 95. 
 
 i^Foy., II, 337. ~ 
 
>MVER5JTY 
 
 TAg Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 63 
 
 what seizes him/ as also in Leonardo's Last Supper, where he 
 dwells upon the different passions depicted on the faces of the 
 Apostles.^ — Out of Italy, Rubens' Judgment comes in for a word 
 of praise.^ 
 
 At Florence, where there is " rien que d'exquis,'' ^ he was 
 particularly interested in the chamber of Selbstbildnisse, as afford- 
 ing excellent opportunity for the comparison of manners. Else- 
 where,^ however, he fears that the sample is too small, a painter's 
 manner coming out far better in a "grande ordonnance." He 
 traces, in an amusing way, national characteristics in the various 
 groups — the French displaying an inexpensive finery, the Italians 
 with an air of singularity and vivacity, the Flemish grave and 
 off'ering, as more in their line, a little genre painting within a 
 painting. Generally all have " un air qui marque du genie." ^ 
 
 But the most of his study and appreciation is for two masters, 
 whom, though one is equally prominent in sculpture, it is best not 
 to divide in their death. He is nowhere more individual, more 
 outspoken, than in his valuations of Raphael and of Michelangelo. 
 
 If the first may have copied the second,^ if he dealt perhaps 
 with lesser subjects,^ yet he is as renowned for. grace as the other 
 is for force.^ Gfrdce ^^ and douceur " are among his specific marks. 
 But there are also a great simplicity ^^ and purity,^^ a willingness 
 not to strike at first, the ability which promises little and pays 
 much.^^ He shuns the ordinary artifice of weakening colors for 
 distance, but shows his art in the gradation of lights.^^ Roundness 
 and smallness of contour, the slightest points in attitude, the use 
 of little contrasts, just distribution in chiaroscuro, all these are of 
 his mastery. ^^ 
 
 If his works do not strike at once, it is because " il imite trop 
 bien la nature ; de fayon qu'on la prend pour elle-m^me : car je 
 
 1 Voy., n, 97. ^ Voy., i, 97. ^ y^^^ jj^ igg, 
 
 * VII, 227. 5 Voy., II, 339. ^ y^y^^ jj^ 339-40. 
 
 ■'Because, he thinks, the God of the Loggie resembles that of the Sistine 
 Chapel. — Voy., ii, 8. 
 
 ^ VII, 348. — Though one hardly sees how that can be. 
 
 »iv, 356. lOFoi/., I, 256. ^^Voy., i, 257. 
 
 12 VII, 134, 136, Voy., i, 238. i^ vii, 348. 
 
 ^*Voy., I, 230. ^^Voy., i, 227. ^^Voy., i, 228-230. 
 
64 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 ne suis point frapp6 d'admiration quand je vois un homme ou une 
 femme." He uses no constrained attitudes for the sake of an 
 artificial chiaroscuro, and a forced variety. Thus his naturel makes 
 his greatness.^ 
 
 Among his masterpieces, the St. Petefr is a fine example of the 
 gradation of lights.^ This also marks the story of Psyche, as well 
 as the contrast in uniformity of the expression.^ The Loggie 
 awaken the old cry : 
 
 " Quelle correction de dessin ! Quelle beauts ! Quel naturel ! Ce n'est point 
 de la peinture, c'est la nature m^me ! . . . Enfin, il semble que Dieu se sert de 
 la main de Eaphael pour cr^er." * 
 
 The School of Athens excites the remark that Raphael is not 
 manierL^ All his best qualities appear in the Transfiguration, 
 which has, however, the slight blemish that the accessory of the 
 possM^ is too large in the foreground.® But of all his paintings — 
 and our Gascon declares that Raphael must have lived a thousand 
 years to paint what he did^ — the Madonna della Sedia " eifaces '' 
 every Virgin he has seen.^. It is " autant au-dessus des ouvrages 
 ordinaires de Raphael que Raphael est au-dessus des peintres 
 ordinaires.^' ^ 
 
 He is all praise for the Urbinate ; Michelangelo he occasionally 
 condemns ; yet the recognition of the latter's more Cyclopean 
 genius is constantly felt. His great taste can be seen dawning in 
 his predecessors and continuing in those whom he left behind.^'' 
 In his very sketches " on trouve du grand," ^^ and they should be 
 treasured like those lines which Virgil never finished.^^ 
 
 He too shows all of the antique simplicity,^^ making ornament 
 a secondary consideration.^^ A prime characteristic is his nobility.^^ 
 He touched nothing which he did not ennoble, lending majesty 
 even to a Bacchus. 
 
 For his paintings, the Passion is to be noted for the calmness of 
 the Virgin, " instruite de ce grand mystere." ^® There is a sottise 
 
 ^Voy., I, 230-1. 
 
 ''Voy., I, 233. 
 
 'Voy,, I, 227. 
 
 *Foy., I, 239. 
 
 5Foy.,i, 240. 
 
 «Foy., I, 247. 
 
 Woy., II, 114. 
 
 Woy,i, 188. 
 
 ^Voy., II, 352. 
 
 ^0 VII, 226. 
 
 " VII, 142. 
 
 
 ^2 VII, 29; Voy., 
 
 II, 327. 
 
 ^Woy., II, 6. 
 
 
 ^'Voy., II, 327. 
 
 
 15 vn, 141-2. 
 
 16 VII, 141. 
 
 1 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 65 
 
 in his Adam and Eve,^ repeated in the Judgment, which also lacks 
 perspective.^ However : 
 
 ''Eien ne donne une plus grande id^e du g^nie de Michel- Ange, que cette 
 peinture, et je ne crois pas que les Loges de Raphael valent mieux ... II y a 
 dans ses peintures une majesty, une force dans les attitudes, une grande maniere 
 qui etonne F esprit." 
 
 In his architecture, he evinces a mastering originality.^ None 
 knew better his art, and none has played more with proportion. 
 "Avec une connaisance exacte de tout ce qui pent faire plaisir," 
 he had an art apart for each work. 
 
 In St. Peter's, however, it is the exact proportion which miti- 
 gates the massiveness, making the immense dome seem even light.* 
 There is no single point of sufficient smallness to serve as a 
 standard by which to judge its size. " Mais a mesure que Fon 
 examine, Foeil la voit s'agrandir, I'^tonnement augemente." It is 
 only on reflection that its full beauty is felt.^ He does not care 
 for the fa9ade,*' but as a whole it is the " merveilleux qui etonne." ^ 
 
 The Porta di San Giovanni is ^' admirable pour son rustique et 
 sa force." ^ — As to the San Lorenzo, the whole design seems to 
 him ^^ pitoyable," the pilasters too short, the ensemble inharmoni- 
 ous.^ But the New Sacristy ^^ — and here is where architecture 
 merges into sculpture — is "noble, simple et belle." ^^ Here the 
 grand gout reigns. For the statues, if we find "figures fort 
 ressenties," if the women are too muscular,^^ yet the contours and 
 proportions of the men are most just, the four statues and the two 
 princes are all admirable in attitude.^^ This is the last word of 
 praise : "De tous les sculpteurs il n^ a que Michel- Ange qui soit 
 comparable aux Anciens." ^^ 
 
 Woy., J, 185. Woy., i, 246. ^Yii, 143. 
 
 *vii, 136-7. ^Vmj., I, 238. Woy., it, 33. 
 
 W(yy., r, 75. Woy., ii, 35. ^Voy., i, 189-190. 
 
 ^® This, it may be recalled, is the only part for which Michelangelo is responsible 
 in tutto. 
 
 'Woy.,u,d5S, 
 
66 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesqiiieu. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 SCULPTURE. 
 
 The sculptor's art seems to appeal to Montesquieu much less 
 than the painter's. He finds it ^ cold/ and his phrases of admira- 
 tion are apt to be short ejaculations, more forcible than convincing.^ 
 There is little of the delighted lingering, the true lover's passion 
 for single works, and there is decidedly more study from the 
 historical standpoint, particularly for the ancients. Few modems 
 are mentioned. 
 
 Comparatively resourceless by the side of the painter, the 
 sculptor can induct lire and movement into his works only " en 
 mettant ses figures dans de belles attitudes et leur donnant de 
 beaux airs de tdte." ^ He must put them into action, if the 
 position is stiff : " car la sculpture est naturellement froide." We 
 have already heard of contrast in attitudes,^ after symmetry in parts. 
 Statuary has the further disadvantage that it must be viewed on all 
 sides, which makes it more difficult as compared with painting.^ 
 "Ainsi ce qui est beau en peinture, o^ il n'y a qu'une vue, est 
 souvent trds laid en sculpture." ^ He does not admit the use of 
 light for relief or perspective, since one side should not shine at 
 the expense of the other. ^ He recommends the pyramidal forma- 
 tion in a group.^ He has paid some attention to contours and 
 enumerates four or five kinds — of women, noble men,^ powerful 
 men,^ old men and rustics.^ 
 
 *Many of the statues are ''admirable" without specification. Voy., i, 241, 
 267). There are also " autres statues exquises en grand nombre," ( Voy., i, 217), 
 whose exquisiteness is not analysed. 
 
 2P. & F., II, 70. ^YU, 126. Cf. sup., p. 39. 
 
 *P. &F., n, 72. ^Voy., i, 271. 
 
 * Voy. , I, 272. This seems rather hard on ' variety ' and ' contrast. ' 
 
 ''Voy., 1, 267. ^ Round, like women — e. g., the Apollo. 
 
 ^e. g., the IJercules Farnese. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 67 
 
 He makes the singular statement — which, however, he is in two 
 minds about inserting — that, since the human race has probably 
 changed its form : 
 
 "Les sculpteurs d'aujourd'hui ne doivent done prendre pour modele una statue 
 grecque, ni juger des statues grecques par nos figures modernes." ^ 
 
 But the Ancients are worthy of all admiration, and therefore, 
 according to his own principles,^ of imitation. The cause for their 
 superiority is the old one : " On voit dans les antiques la nature 
 presque toujours imitee/^ ^ Again, they treated draping better,^ 
 and that for two reasons — our Carrara marble is harder, and our 
 costumes are often graceless.* By the finesse of draperies, by the 
 degree of softness and roundness in the limbs, by the treatment of 
 the hair, beard and ears, we may judge as to the relative antiquity 
 of a statue.^ The ancients sinned, however, in two respects : in 
 having the drapery wetted, colle to the flesh, for revealing better 
 the nude ; ^ and in badly representing children as too well-formed 
 and muscular.^ 
 
 We must distinguish here between the Greek and the Roman 
 taste.^ The Greek statues, generally naked, show beards and 
 small heads. Their race, with Apelles and Phidias,^ went farther 
 in sculpture than the Romans.^^ The art of the latter declined as 
 the Christians prevailed." Hasty and poor work w^as done, partly 
 from the absence of the Emperors in the provinces ; even as it 
 befell in Florence, between Giovanni da Bologna and Foggini.^^ 
 
 For special statues he has sworn an eternal fidelity to the 
 Medici Venus.^^ Leaving out of account the disproportionate . 
 accessories,^'' it is a model not of Venus, but of beauty itself, " et 
 
 ^ P.&F., II, 205 — But he proceeds to recommend, just below, the Medici Venus 
 as the feminine model for all time. 
 
 ^Cf. sup., p. 50, where the English were ''singular" in admiring without 
 imitating. 
 
 Way., II, 306. ^P. &F., ii, 71. Woy., ii, 304. 
 
 Woy., I, 269. ''Voy., i, 265. Way., ii, 305-7. 
 
 ® " Ces petits insensds de Grecs," vii, 26. 
 
 10 Foy., II, 307. 11 Cf. Slip., p. 59. i^ Foy., ii, 303-4. 
 
 I'P. & F., II, 75 — "que je regarde comme le meilleur pr^dicateur qu'aient 
 jamais eu les Florentins." 
 
 1* The Cupids — work of an apprentice. 
 
68 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 la decrire c'est dire comme une femme doit dtre et comme on la 
 doit repr^senter/' ^ There are detailed observations on several 
 other statues at Florence. He notes and praises particularly the 
 AniinouSj and Prometheus, The Wrestlers ; the Leda and Bacchus 
 of Michelangelo.^ At Rome we have little more than hasty- 
 visits and slight unfelt phrases. He was beginning to weary of it. 
 The Apollo might have seduced him, had he not seen Venus first.^ 
 The Gladiator, the Apollo, the Antinous, the Laohoon, the Hercu- 
 les Fai-nese, — are mentioned, and barely mentioned, as the best.* 
 The only modern on whom he dwells, is, naturally enough, 
 Bernini. A passing fancy for this pretty sculptor — who could at 
 any rate give long odds on morbidezza,^ and did Borghese's head 
 with wonderful realism*' — was later abundantly corrected. He 
 has ruined the Roman School ; '^ he is mani^r^ and a petit-maitre ; ^ 
 his David is heavy, and his Daphne too daintily round.® 
 
 Woy., II, 329. ^Voy., n, 314 ff. 
 
 *Voy., I, 241, 267. ^Voy., i, 191. 
 
 ® Voy., I, 267. — He was also excellent in a large composition, where his incor- 
 rect drawing showed less, and very dexterous in carving small folds, etc. ( Voy., 
 I, 268). 
 
 TYoy-, I, 256. ^Voy., I, 267. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 69 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 ARCHITECTURE— THE GOTHIC. 
 
 There is a fugitive passage in the Pens^es et Fragments which 
 shows that Montesquieu understood that, in dealing with archi- 
 tecture, we leave the domain of the representative or imitative 
 arts and come to a class which is purely presentative.^ 
 
 It may be well to hear him expand his proposition that archi- 
 tecture is invariable in its orders and proportions.^ Our pleasure 
 in a building is excited by certain proportions between the height 
 of a column and its diameter.^ There are (only) five degrees of 
 proportion which are pleasurable, and these make the five orders, 
 Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian and Composite.^ These are 
 incapable of change, by ornament, by disguise, or what not, 
 whether in number or in relation. For : — 
 
 '^ Ce ne sont pas des beaut^s arbitraires qui puissent etre supplies par d'autres. 
 Cela est pris dans la nature, et il me serait facile d'expliquer la raison physique de 
 ceci." ^ 
 
 This hidebound dictum, startling in its narrowness, may be 
 reserved for further comment. He adds a few stray principles, 
 referring to the importance of sailliey^ and the fact that obscurity 
 may increase the effect of greatness in churches.'^ He appreciates 
 that the artistic grouping of buildings is a consideration.^ At 
 Rome, he is glad that the great masters have built their churches 
 
 ^A propos of saillie — " car, si la peinture, qui n'est qu'une imitation, s' attache si 
 fort £L faire fuir on avancer les corps, que sera-ce de I'architecture?" (P. & F., 
 11,74.) 
 
 2 Cf. sup., p. 39. ^P. & R, II, 76-7. 
 
 * Though this last need hardly count. Elsewhere (P. & F., ii, 73), he objects 
 to a certain mingling of the orders — " Foeil ne pent passer de la grossidret^ 
 du rustique a la gentillesse de I'ionien ou du corinthien." 
 
 ^ P. & F., II, 77. *^ Quoted, preceding page, n. 1. 
 
 ^P. &F., II, 74. 8 ^t Pisa— Voy. , i, 161. 
 
70 The Aesthetic Dodnne of Montesquieu. 
 
 so differently/ whereas in France all buildings are uniform.^ 
 Uniformity is a relative matter. Were our sight more feeble 
 and confused, we should need more uniformity.^ Were it more 
 distinct, and our souls larger in grasp, we should require more 
 ornaments. So far as ornament means the enriching of pilasters 
 and columns, that is justified ; * but where it means colifichetSj^ or a 
 multiplicity in richness, as with the Neapolitans,^ it is distinctly 
 of " mauvais go(it." The Gothic is fatiguing with ornament and 
 enigmas.^ The Greeks, with their few and great divisions, are 
 still his model for majesty, simplicity and yet variety : 
 
 **L' architecture grecque, au contraire, parait uniforme ; mais, comme elle a 
 les divisions qu'il faut, . . . elle a cette vari^t^ qui la fait regarder avec plaisir." 
 
 Among the monuments, he thinks the Verona amphitheatre 
 one of the finest bits of antiquity.^ But the most of his admira- 
 tion is for the Italian churches. The Florence DuomOy in its 
 majestic beauty,* is one of the greatest of edifices.^*^ Gothic though 
 it be, it represents " le grand simple." It was a great stroke of 
 genius for "ce si^cle rude, oH Parchitecture grecque n'^tait pas 
 connue." ^^ So for the Cologne Cathedral, in the same genre, 
 whose leghret^ he especially commends. ^^ Notre-Dame is simply 
 a " superbe Mifice.'^ ^^ 
 
 There is some description of San Marco, whose mosaic and 
 marqueterie impress him.^* The Cathedral at Frascati surpasses 
 any thing in France,^^ and the Church of St. Francis at Rimini 
 is " magnificent." ^® 
 
 There are three fine palaces in the world : the Luxembourg, 
 the Pitti, and the Farnese at Rome.^^ The Barberini looks too 
 much like a fortress.^^ What strikes him at Versailles is the 
 " envie impuissante qu'on voit partout de faire de belles choses." ^* 
 He thinks little of Mansard, who might have added wings till 
 doomsday, without achieving the great.^ And he considers that 
 
 ^ There may be then, at least, variety within the five orders. 
 
 2 Voy., I, 236. » VII, 118. * vii, 18. ^ y^y^^ j^ ^ 
 
 « Vay., II, 9. ' VII, 124. « y^y^^ j^ gy^ 9 y^^^ jj^ 349^ 
 
 i» Voy., II, 343. " Voy., 11, 351. ^^ y^y., 11, 185. ^^ i, 210. 
 
 1* Voy., I, 66. 15 Voy., 11, 38. i« Vay., 11, 79. " Vay., i, 274. 
 
 »8 V&y., n, 37. ^^P. & F., 11, 77. '^ P. & R, 11, 78. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 71 
 
 Mansard the younger showed much stupidity in applying his 
 uncle's, Mansard the elder's mansarde to the palace.^ This was 
 intended only as an economic device for bourgeois^ — according 
 to which saying, Paris to-day should be tenanted solely by that 
 class. 
 
 His chief concern in architecture, however, was to discover 
 whether or not a building was Gothic, and if so, whether or not it 
 had redeeming features. In his condemnation of the ^ Gothic ' — 
 which meant for him about what ^ Boeotian ' meant for Landor — 
 he is on a par with his age. He has left a treatise -on the subject,^ 
 which we may pass in review. 
 
 The Gothic manner, he begins, is the manner of no particular 
 people. It was known in Rome before the Goths.^ With the 
 exception of the flourishing of sculpture under Hadrian, the arts 
 had fallen as Paganism yielded to the new Christianity ; ^ and 
 there are abundant indications in the Florence galleries of this 
 decadence previous to the inundation of the barbarians. 
 
 It was not then' the national Gothic manner. " C'est la mani^re 
 de la naissance ou de la fin de Part.'' ^ The progress, so far as 
 sculpture is concerned, is through drawing to attitude, movement 
 and finally grace. In art's decline, grace becomes unknown. 
 Soon movement and variety of attitude are lost : 
 
 ''On ne songe plus qu'a faire bien ou mal les figures et on les met dans une 
 position unique. C'est ce qu'on appelle la maniere gothique. 
 
 " Cette position unique est celle qui se prdsente d'abord a ceux qui ignorent 
 Tart." 
 
 It is marked by stiffness, hardness, an abundance of symmetry, 
 and, in the end, by ignorance of drawing. These stages, of 
 decline and of rise respectively, are seen in the reversion from the 
 age of Pericles to the Low Empire; and in the development 
 from the mediaeval renewal to the Renaissance. 
 
 1 Voy., II, 74. ^De la maniere gothique, Voy., ii, 367-375. 
 
 ' Neither in architecture nor in sculpture did the taste come with the Goths, 
 who certainly brought no workmen with them, {Voy., ii, 304). They did not 
 introduce the manner, but they confirmed it, in making ignorance reign. ( Ibid. , 
 p. 303). 
 
 *Cf. mp., p. 59. 
 
 s " Cest le gout de 1' ignorance," Voy., ii, 304. Cf. Voy., i, 125. 
 
72 Tlie Aesthetic DoctHne of Montesquieu. 
 
 He goes on to explain ^ that though the Greeks took their art 
 from the Egyptians, the latter, being ^ Gothic ' without knowledge, 
 could not father the Greek perfection. These Egyptians, poor as 
 to attitude, could draw admirably. This is explained by a passage 
 from Plato, to the effect that the Egyptians, restrained by their 
 religious laws, were bound always to work in the same style ; but 
 they could perfect that style, i. e., drawing merely.^ 
 
 Elsewhere, he has still more to say concerning the Gothic, as 
 meaning ignorance : 
 
 "Lorsqu'on ne connait pas les v^ritables beaut^s, on s'iraagine d'abord que la 
 multiplicity des ornements donnera de la grace, et que la bcautd augmentera k 
 proportion du nombre des choses qui composeront le tout ... II n'y a que les 
 beaux g^nies qui soient d'abord capables du grand simple." ' 
 
 We have seen that the Gothic, as opposed to the Greek, may 
 seem varied : ^ 
 
 "Mais la confusion des ornements fatigue par leur petitesse . . . de maniSre 
 qu'elle d^plalt par les endroits m^mes qu'on a choisis pour la rendre agr^ble." ^ 
 
 Hence it is an enigma, an obscure poem. The "singular" 
 Borromini has imagined a new architecture, a Gothic mis en 
 r^gle;^ he has thereby departed from the ancients; and his pre- 
 cedent should never be followed. Montesquieu dislikes " ce droit 
 et cette raideur " of the genre J He condemns statues in that style.^ 
 
 When it comes to illustrations, he feels bound to apologize for 
 his own castle, "gothique a la v6rit§ mais orn6 de dehors char- 
 mants." ^ It is chiefly the bad taste of the thing that spoils it. 
 At Naples, with ornaments and magnificence, he finds "aucun 
 goiit : un golit gothique.'' ^^ 
 
 At Florence, the Gothic is better than elsewhere. So for Santa 
 Maria Novella, the Duomo, and the Campanile ^^ — " II fallait que 
 
 ^ What follows is hardly very relative to the Gothic, but is nicely elucidative of 
 several other points. Cf . for the Greek provenance, sup. , p. 58 ; for religion, sup. , 
 pp. 58-9. 
 
 ^ The end of the treatise has been given, in connection with religion, sup. , p. 58. 
 
 » Voy., II, 304-5. *Cf. sup., p. 70. ^yu, 124. 
 
 ^Voy., II, 32, 34. ''Voy., ii, 303. 
 
 Way., II, 303, 355, 360. »vii, 271. ^Toy., ii, 6. 
 
 ^^Voy., I, 169; Voy., ii, 344-5. He admires, for the Campanile, its gradation, 
 its composition, and the fact that ''les ornements sont dans le tout et non dans les 
 parties." 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 73 
 
 ces grands g^nies fussent siip^rieurs a Fart de ce temps-Id,." They 
 executed with taste the things of bad taste. The Duomo at Pisa 
 also is conceded to be beautiful, and the little Spina has a surpris- 
 ing Ug^rete^ — 
 
 ''C'est le morceau gothique le plus achev^ que j'aie vu, et le petit ouvrage a 
 de la beautd autant qu'il peut y en avoir dans un mauvais goAt." 
 
 He is forced to admit that the Gothic seems better suited to 
 churches than another architecture,^ since it is different from the 
 actual, and the Deity should be distinguished. As to the point 
 of leg^ret^,^ this may be allied with his distinction of two kinds, 
 the "gothique l^ger'^ and another. The distinction, his editor 
 thinks, would correspond with that between the ogival and the 
 (late) Romanesque.* Certainly several of the above remarks 
 must apply to the latter style. It is sufficiently evident through- 
 out that the term ^ gothique ' is used in the old, loose, depreciatory 
 sense, without its later definite significance. 
 
 ^Voy., I, 156-7. Woy., i, 43. ^Ci. sup., p. 39. Woy., i, 299. 
 
74 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 MUSIC AND DANCING. 
 
 The remarks on music deal chiefly with the Italians and with 
 operas. He advances the paradox that the more imperfect the 
 'art' of music, the more surprising have been its effects.^ The 
 reason is that early peoples had louder ^ instruments which dinned 
 into ears " qui ne sont pas accoutum§es h la musique ou plut6t k 
 une musique meilleure, qui plait plus, quioqu'elle 4meuve moins." 
 But as the new kind began to please more, the old began to 
 move less. 
 
 From this he springs to a recognition of the higher harmony.* 
 The principle of ars celare artem again appears in this : 
 
 "Les musiciens ont reconnu que la musique qui se chante le plus facilement 
 est la plus difficile ^ composer." * 
 
 Although, in an incidental way, he may call the tenderest 
 music the most divine, yet on the whole it appears that the 
 sentimental still fails to please him. He admires the accords^ 
 the melody and harmony at Paphos, while distrustful of "cette 
 langueur qu'on rencontre si souvent en voulant chercher ce qui 
 touche." ^ He is contemptuous of " Part de faire jurer une dis- 
 cordante guitare," ^ as well as of those who would have the 
 blessed play upon the flute.^ 
 
 It has been seen that music, among the Greeks, contributed 
 to " adoucir les moeurs." ® This is on the authority of the 
 "judicious" Polybius, with whom agree Plato, Aristotle and "all 
 
 ^R&F., 11, 67-8. 
 
 ^ The recognition of emotion as a factor is something ; but it is certainly very 
 catholic to include noise among the varieties of music. 
 
 'ii, 192 — "des dissonances . . . concourent ^ 1' accord total." 
 
 * VII, 140. 5vn^487. 6i, 260. 
 
 '1,389. 8Cf. «up., p. 28. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 75 
 
 the ancients." ^ It is one of their political principles. The 
 reason is that warlike exercises needed to be tempered by some 
 softer means, and music was the most appropriate for this.^ It 
 would be good for those of us who are addicted to the chase, 
 which, like the exercises of the Greeks, excites only the rougher 
 passions. 
 
 "La musique les excite toutes, et peut faire sentir ^ I'ame la douceur, la piti^, 
 la tendresse, le doux plaisir.^ Nos auteurs de morale, qui, parmi nous, proscri- 
 vent si fort les theatres, nous font assez sentir le pouvoir que la musique a sur 
 nos ames." * 
 
 He says in another place that the Chinese legislators likewise 
 apply music " pour les moeurs . . . comme les Grecs.'^ ^ Yet in 
 the Bacchanals, " le long usage du chant, surtout les hurlements, 
 abrutissent encore." ^ 
 
 All these are readily seen to be economic considerations. 
 
 He values particularly the Italian music, although he considers 
 their concerts suitable for infernal punishment.^ The Italians are 
 most susceptible, are transported musically, in comparison with the 
 English.^ Their excellent church music makes even devotion 
 delicious.® In general — 
 
 "Dans mon s^jour en Italic, je me suis extremement convert! sur la musique 
 italienne. II me semble que, dans la musique fran9aise, les instruments accom- 
 pagnent la voix et que dans 1' italienne, ils la prennent et I'enl^vent. La musique 
 italienne se plie mieux que la franpaise, qui semble roide. C'est comme un 
 lutteur plus agile. L'une entre dans I'oreille, 1' autre la meut." ^° 
 
 Again, he thinks it astonishing that the inconstant French have 
 kept their old music, their old airs, the operas of Lulli." The 
 Italians demand always new operas. " Serait-ce que leur musique 
 
 ^iii, 160. ^lu, 162-3. 
 
 ' Thus finally admitting sentiment. 
 
 *iii, 163. ^P.&F.,i, 155. 
 
 •Which seems fully as reasonable — Mel. in., p. 127. 
 
 'VII, 479. 8 IV, 149. ^P. & R, ii, 243. 
 
 ^°P. & F., II, 69. Concerning the French, in this form also, he is not enthusi- 
 astic, and says only this of their chief composers: "Rameau est Corneille ; et 
 Lulli, Racine ; Lulli fait de la musique comme un Ange ; Rameau fait de la 
 musique comme un Diable" (P. & F., ii, 69). 
 
 »Foy., I, 220. 
 
76 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 est plus susceptible de donner du nouveau?" They can no longer 
 suffer the old style. 
 
 Opera, indeed, is the Italian specialty that he prefers.^ " Tout 
 ce qui est spectacle charme les yeux italiens," and it would be 
 useless to give them an opera " sans decorations." No one would 
 go.^ Their rapture at an opera is audible.^ Formerly the finest 
 in Europe were to be heard at Venice ; but now they are no 
 better there than in most of the other towns.'' 
 
 It is the whole genrey however, whether at home or abroad, 
 that meets with his approbation. He may well make Rica 
 declare that what goes on, for society's ceremonies, is the same at 
 the Fran9ais and the Op^ra — all the difference being that they 
 speak at one and sing at the other.^ That he takes the matter 
 seriously is evident from another passage, where he says the 
 moderns are the inventors of this kind of spectacle, " uniquement 
 fait pour ravir les sens et pour enchanter Fimagination.'' ^ It is 
 madef to be admired and not to be examined, and " la raison s'est 
 indign^e en vain '' against the ressorts which it employs — ressorts 
 which tragedy rejects. These are drawn from " la Fable ancienne 
 et modeme," and most happily used.^ 
 
 " Tout ce que nous avons de plus exquis et de plus d^licat, tout ce que le coeur 
 a de plus tendre se trouve dans les operas de Quinaut {sic), Fontenelle, La Motte, 
 Danchet, Koi, etc." 
 
 The choice of names is the only thing that makes us hesitate in 
 accepting this verdict. He expresses somewhat the same ideas 
 in the Gout. If opera is, in a way, contrary to reason, it should 
 yet depart from it as liitle as possible.^ In Italy, he could 
 not bear to hear Cato and Caesar sing ariettes on the stage ; and 
 in drawing their subjects from history, the Italians show less taste 
 than the French, who draw them " de la Fable ou des romans." 
 By the introduction of the marvelous, " Tinconvenient du chant 
 diminue," what would be extraordinary seeming even natural, 
 
 ^ " J'ai bien pris gout a ces operas italiens," Voy., i, 186. 
 
 2 Foy., I, 223. Hy,U9. Woy., I, 24, 
 
 ^i, 122 ; cf. inf., p. 115. ep. & F., i, 226. 
 
 ' " L' esprit m6me y a gagn^ " (Ibid) . ^ vii, 144 ; cf. sup., p. 50. 
 
The AeAetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 77 
 
 magic and mythology appearing almost reasonable. In this~one 
 point, then, the Italians are inferior. 
 
 He speaks of songs only in a secondary way. He ridicules the 
 political or topical chanson,^ and mentions the convulsive effect 
 of certain ditties, presumably Bacchanalian.^ Apollo would dis- 
 own such efforts ; but Bacchus prefers " un d^sordre enjoue a 
 la contrainte de Texacte harmonic.'^ ^ The President seems to 
 remember the Etrennes de la St. Jean.'^ 
 
 Dancing and even " le jeu," as somewhat cognate subjects from 
 his own point of view, may receive summary treatment here. 
 There is one tolerably significant, as well as tolerably malin 
 passage on the dance : 
 
 ' ' La danse nous plait par la legeret^, par une certaine grace, par la beautd et 
 la variete des attitudes, par sa liaison avec la musique, la personne qui danse 
 ^tant comme un instrument qui accompagne ; mais surtoClt elle plait par une 
 disposition de notre cerveau, qui est telle qu'elle ramene en secret I'idee de tous 
 les mouvements a de certains mouvements, la plupart des attitudes a de certains 
 attitudes." ^ 
 
 Delicate people are satisfied with gentle dances, while coarse 
 people require them according to their kind.® The Romans 
 are satisfied with very poor dancing, which they confuse with 
 jumping.^ 
 
 By relation to the motif of surprise, games of chance pique us.^ 
 This pleasure may be analyzed into the elements of avarice, 
 vanity at fortune's preference, and curiosity for the spectacle.^ 
 The last emotion is particularly excited by piquet and hombre.^*^ 
 In other games — ^'jeux folatres'' — our pleasure comes largely 
 from seeing another in a ludicrous situation. ^^ 
 
 ii, 349. 2^11,367. 3^11^474 *Cf. m/, P- 91- ^vii, 131. 
 
 ^P. &F., II, 79 — referring to the ''danse de la Prevost" and the Camargo 
 respectively. 
 
 Woy.,i,21\. 8 VII, 128. n^ii, 130. ^Oyii, 146-7. 
 
 ^Wii, 45 — All this is from the Gout, though its artistic reference is not immedi- 
 ately evident. 
 
78 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 LANDSCAPE— GARDENING. 
 
 His opinions on this subject are naturally allied with his 
 sentiment for nature.^ He would be catholic enough to appre- 
 ciate both the art of gardens, and the beauty of natuml scenery, 
 and seeks to give reasons why each should please us. 
 
 For the former, we like " un jardin bien r6gulier," because it 
 gives the sense of enlargement to vision, of observing with exten- 
 sive view, when ordinarily in towns our range is so restricted.^ 
 / Art aids us and shows us a nature who would conceal herself. 
 Art is certainly better than a hidden nature. Yet — when brought 
 face to face with the real thing — 
 
 "Quand nous trouvons de belles situations, quand notre vue en liberty pent 
 voir au loin des pr^s, des ruisseaux, des collines, et ces dispositions qui sont, pour 
 ainsi dire, crd^es expr^, elle est bien autrement enchant^e que lorsqu'elle voit les 
 jardins de Le Notre." ^ 
 
 Accordingly we like better a landscape painting than the plan 
 of the finest garden in the world. 
 
 Yet gardens have their beauties, and even regular gardens.* 
 We prefer a good arrangement to a confusion of trees for a 
 variety of reasons : we can see farther ; the unit is a large alley 
 and not a small tree ; we are grateful for the novelty of the 
 arrangement, its expense, its difficulty.^ We must combat nature, 
 or she would ruin everything ; whence " un jardin n6glig6 nous 
 est insupportable." He dwells, in the Temple de Gnide, on 
 enchanted and " delicious " gardens.* 
 
 iCf. swp.,p. 31. 2^1,120-1. 
 
 'vii, 121. He speaks elsewhere (P. <fe i^., ii, 78) of the too great regularity 
 and sameness of Le Notre. 
 
 *vii, 130. ^Cf. swp.. Qualities, p. 43. 'ii, 16. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 79 
 
 As to his practical application of his theories, we find, indeed, 
 that he renovated La Brede largely according to English ideas, 
 without much reference to Le Ndtre.^ He thought that it had 
 " dehors charmants," ^ and was one of the most agreeable places 
 in France, since nature was there freshly matutinal.^ 
 
 Vian has undertaken, with some enterprise, to show that 
 Montesquieu injected his qualities of mind into the reconstruc- 
 tion of La Br^de.'* The park speaks scorn of exactitude and 
 symmetry. It has extension, grand lines and variety which seems 
 confusion at first. 
 
 "La vari^t^, I'^l^gance, la profondeur, I'impr^vu, la nettet^, la vigueur, toutes 
 les qualites de Montesquieu sont la." 
 
 Others have not found them. Hemon^ observes that Montesquieu 
 does not disregard order and symmetry in his theory; and 
 Brunetiere® says simply that Vian abuses his prerogatives as 
 biographer. 
 
 1 Vian, pp. 131-2. 'vii, 271. y 
 
 'vii, 402. ^Histoire, pp. 131-2. -^ 
 
 ^Cours de litL, I, 19. Yet Thomas seems to approve — VieUles Lunes, p. 123. 
 
 ^Bev. des deux mondes, xxxiii, 220. 
 
80 The Aesthetic Doetrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 The present chapter, as easily the most significant in the 
 doctrine, will naturally prove the longest in our presentation. Its 
 subject-matter will be capable of less condensation and abridge- 
 ment than has heretofore been possible. It will require many 
 subdivisions,^ many analytical discriminations, much dealing with 
 closely related questions. Its content forms a chief preoccupation 
 with our author and hence necessarily with ourselves. It is the 
 vital link between his more general theory and his written 
 application, the point of departure for the stylist and for his 
 critics. We cannot scant what one of the four greatest of 
 eighteenth century litterateurs has to say concerning literature. 
 
 General View — Definition, Value and Qualities. 
 
 And first the old puzzling question of conception, definition 
 and limitation comes imperiously to the front. If in one place he 
 uses the term very broadly as inclusive of " knowledge and the 
 sciences," ^ in another he is quick to make a distinction between 
 literature and books.^ We may even see some glimmering 
 of a discrimination between the Literature of Power and of 
 Knowledge * — which presents itself to him partly as an opposition 
 of imagination vs, analysis : 
 
 "Donner des images bien sensibles fait la force; donner des id^es tiroes des 
 conceptions de I'ame fait la finesse." ^ 
 
 ^ Which will, of course, largely correspond with those elaborated under Art — 
 Book IL 
 
 ^P.&F.,i, 274. Cited inf., p, 103. 
 
 ^ " Les ouvrages qui ne sont point de g^nie ne prouvent que la memoire ou la 
 patience de I'auteur" (vii, 177). 
 
 *For all this, cf. Introduction, sup., p. 8. ^P. & F., ii, 13. 
 
The Aesthetic Doetrine of Montesquieu. 81 
 
 But it is not for him so much a matter of art against informa- 
 tion as of genius against everything else. Genius is the sine qua 
 non; and art often spoils it. Such categorical statement is 
 contained in the following interesting passage : 
 
 *'Les auteurs s'usent toujours ; ils ont trois manieres, comme lespeintres : celle 
 de leur maitre, qui est celle du college ; celle de leur genie, qui leur fait faire de 
 bons ouvrages ; et celle de I'art, que I'on appelle dans les peintres maniere." ^ 
 
 Genius is then the salvation and the specific difference. It is 
 distinct from esprit, incapable of imitation, identical with invention 
 or creation.^ By this is meant "total invention/' ^ for Voltaire was 
 a plagiarist in that he had to be shown one side of a thing, before 
 fully seeing it himself "^ Genius^ is furthermore ordinarily naif. 
 
 So much for the divine fire. Now as to what it should aim at, 
 which are its qualities and its closer instruments, we detect a 
 certain hesitation, the old hesitation between thought and senti- 
 ment. There would seem to be also a tendency to favor the inser- 
 tion of that other known element of amusement, here however 
 subordinated.^ 
 
 His remark, a propos of Florus, that " ce qui fait ordinaireinent 
 une grande pens^e, c'est lorsqu'on dit une chose qui en fait voir 
 un grand nombre d'autres,'' '' has often been considered as giving 
 the core of his literary ideal. Certainly the principle finds able 
 exemplification both in his subsequent views on writing and in 
 the cachet of his own style. ^ The same preference seems indicated 
 in his admiration of Montaigne as the man who thinks, against 
 most authors who only write.^ The kind of thought proposed, as 
 indeed demanded by liis period and by the character of his mind '^^ 
 is evidently " des id^es tirees des conceptions de I'ame,'' ^^ or the 
 general idea : 
 
 ^P. &F., 11, 17. 
 
 
 r^. &F. 
 
 , n 
 
 ,52. 
 
 
 
 /Ci.sup., p. 51. ^P. &F.,n 
 (J^ntitled here a "grand esprit"— P. & F., ii, 
 
 ;^K g., the compliment to Duclos (vii, 368)- 
 vous faites penser." 
 
 Wii, 121. «Cf. m/, p. 
 
 ,60. 
 124. 
 -"Vous 6tes agr^able a lire et 
 
 157 and p. 196. 
 
 ^P.&F, 11,48. 
 ''P.&F.,n, 14. 
 
 
 i»Witha 
 
 certain reserve, cf. 
 
 sup., 
 
 , p. 10, 
 
82 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 " Un des grands delices de 1' esprit des hommes, c'est de faire des propositions 
 g^n^rales." ^ 
 
 But a restriction is at once suggested, and still more clearly do 
 we see a slur in the statement — itself tolerably general — that there 
 is nothing in the world on which a man " m^diocrement moral ne 
 puisse faire des speculations." ^ 
 
 The cause of sentiment against generalized thought ^ is prettily 
 pleaded in connection with Boileau and a mot of Louis XII.* 
 
 "Un (Z«) roi de France ne venge pas les injures d'un {du) due d' Orleans." 
 
 The first form is a reflection, which anybody might make ; the 
 second is a sentiment, more striking because it could be uttered 
 only by that particular king of France : — 
 
 "II n'en faut point faire une pens^e gen^rale. Ce qui frappe d' admiration 
 c'est lorsque la chose est dite par celui qui la sentait. . ." 
 
 For Boileau, of the corrupted heart, he possesses " un esprit qui 
 ne sert pas assez bien le coeur." ^ 
 
 Literature is clearly addressed to the soul, a soul compounded 
 of sensibility and imagination.^ Our moral authors are outres in 
 speaking to the pure reason. In modern times, 
 
 "Chacun travaille sur 1' esprit, et peu sur le coeur ; c'est que nous sentons 
 mieux les nouvelles connaissances que les nouvelles perfections que nous 
 acqu^rons." "^ 
 
 So it is that with our corrupted manners, our loss of natural 
 sentiments and household affections, a moving tragedy may seem 
 laughable, low and " popular." ^ Our ancestors could weep where 
 we deride, not because their esprit was smaller, but because their 
 hearts were better. For himself, he is glad that he can still be 
 
 ip. & F., II, 124. »P. i& F., II, 19. ^cf. sup., p. 42. 
 
 *P.&F., II, 51. ^P.&R, II, 52. 
 
 «P. &F., II, 297. Nearly repeated, P. cfeP., i, 222— "c'est des sens et de 
 r imagination qu'il s'agit dans les ouvrages d' esprit," Mysteries are sublime 
 rather " pour la raison." 
 
 ' P. <fe P. , II, 137, » P. <fc P., II, 56-7. 
 
The Aesthetic Dootrine of Montesquieu. 83 
 
 touched by the In^ of La Motte and inspired for worthier living 
 by the Esope ci la cour of Boursault.^ 
 
 The part of imagination has just been mentioned as coextensive 
 with that of sentiment. If omitted in his list of the qualities/ if 
 the living in the imagining of phantom fears and pleasures is not 
 recommendable,^ yet poetry without this faculty is manqu^e,^ and 
 in images is there force.^ Characteristically enough, he esteems 
 that it is "dans le monde " that we learn how to imagine. " On 
 heurte tant de sujets dans les conversations que Pon imagine des 
 choses." ^ 
 
 Whatever his striking scorn of certain genres,^ he has small 
 doubt concerning the usefulness, value and importance of literature 
 as a whole, whether considered as containing ouvrages cV esprit or 
 purely as belles-lettres. We have heard him claim at least a 
 general utility for the books oi pur esprit.^ They teach us the art 
 of writing in all its detail ;^ without which many people fail, for 
 fault of being able to render an idea.^*^ He declares — and it is a 
 notable admission already for the eighteenth century — that "le 
 corps des sciences tient tout entier aux belles-lettres." The 
 sciences gain greatly when treated "d'une maniere ing^nieuse et 
 delicate; c'est par la qu'on ote la s^cheresse, qu'on pr^vient la 
 lassitude, et qu'on les met a la portee de tous les esprits." This he 
 illustrates by the examples of Malebranche and Fontenelle.^^ 
 
 In fugitive passages he avows his taste for belles-lettres j^"^ his 
 hope that such taste may become general,^^ and dominant in the 
 life of his friends.^^ He takes up the cudgels indeed for lighter 
 literature, maintaining that not everything is frivolous merely 
 because it has no present utility, observing that " tout est li4 et 
 tout se tient." ^^ Again : 
 
 ^P. &F.y I, 21. He still also uses the word 'sentiment,' as a sensationalist, 
 for the " ebranlement " or * ' chatouillement " of the ends of fibres. " Cela soffit 
 pour expliquer tout." — P. cfe F., ii, 477. 
 
 2Cf. inf., p. 86. 3 1, 189, 453. ^ P. & R, ii, 15. ^P. & R, ii, 13. 
 
 «P. <fe P., II, 11. 'E. g., Poetry. See inf., p. 106. 
 
 8 Quoted sup., p. 26. ^Quoted inf., p. 86. 
 
 1° VII, 81. "VII, 81-2. '^yu,l. 
 
 13 vn, 419. "vn, 451. ^'^P. & R, i, 277. 
 
84 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 **Ce ne sont pas seulement les lectures sdrieuses qui sont utiles, mais aussi les 
 agr&ibles, y ayant un temps oil on a besoin d'un d^lassement honn^te. . . II est 
 done bon que Ton derive sur tous les sujets et de tous les styles." ^ 
 
 Yet in a historical survey which he takes of the subject,^ he 
 holds first that literature is more than an amusement. Its 
 prosperity is linked with that of empires, as sign or cause. 
 Europe is more powerful and concomitantly more enlightened than 
 the rest of the world. In Europe, the states where letters are the 
 most cultivated are the strongest.^ And for further specification — 
 
 "Si nous ne jetons les yeux que sur notre France, nous verrons les lettres 
 naitre ou s'ensevelir avec sa gloire, donner une lueur sombre sous Charlemagne, 
 et puis s'^teindre ; reparaitre sous Fran9ois I^'' et suivre I'^clat de notre monarchie. 
 Et, si nous nous bornons au grand r^gne de Louis XIV, nous verrons que, le temps 
 de ce regne o^ la prosp^rit^ fut plus grande, le suce^ des lettres le fut aussi." 
 
 So the arts rose and fell with the power of the Roman Empire ; 
 and so the sciences flourished, in the empire of the caliphs, with 
 the great family of Abbas. Among the Turks, their ignorance 
 alone can equal their feebleness. By ignorance the kingdoms of 
 Peru and Mexico perished. At which point, Montesquieu drifts 
 into a defence of science. But returning shortly to the linking of 
 letters and empires, he deems that the prosperity of each causes 
 per se its fall — by reason of the pendulum tendency of things.* 
 
 This connection is broadly that of milieu and he elsewhere 
 makes more definitely that point. Literature is at its best only in 
 the beginning of monarchies, a later general corruption " affectant 
 encore cette partie-l^.'^ ^ Manners are a potent influence. It was 
 partly because the French of old had difierent manners that they 
 were more moved by tragedy.® For a new drama, we need "une 
 nouvelle langue, de nouvelles moeurs, de nouvelles circonstances," 
 a new nation, in short, " qui m^le aux caract^res des hommes ses 
 propres moeurs.' ' ^ Inverting the relation, he has even the 
 Culturgeschichte idea of studying the Chinese theatre to learn the 
 " manners of the country.'^ ^ He will take the first viewpoint 
 demanded by a recognition of milieu. To judge of Homer one 
 
 ip. <fc F., I, 388. ^P. &F.,i, 274-5. ^cf. on Art, mp., p. 25. 
 
 *P. & R, I, 278. ^P. & K, II, 28. «P. & P., ii, 57. 
 
 ' P. <fe P., II, 20-1. sp. & P., II, 35, 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 85 
 
 must live in the camp of the Greeks and not in a French army.^ 
 We must indeed find the old passions " sur un fouds nouveau/' 
 before we can take pleasure in viewing the representation of the 
 manners of a barbaric people/ But it is better to heal- the vizier 
 Acomat speak of his way of loving than a ^- Bajazet naturalist 
 franyais." ^ 
 
 He shows evidence of some cosmopolitanism and much tolerance. 
 There is a Eepublic of Letters,^ and — 
 
 ' ' Les honnetes gens, les gens de lettres, sont de toutes les nations, et tous les 
 honn^tes gens de toutes les nations sont leur compatriotes." ^ 
 
 Accordingly, in a spirit of brotherhood, he will seek for the best 
 in Chinese dramatists/ and attributes to English authors 
 generosity and a better knowledge of their own books than the 
 French can have.^ He goes into the future, with this broad 
 spirit, and sees the cyles — or the spirals — of productiveness : — 
 
 "II viendra un peuple qui sera, a notre ^gard, ce que nous sommes ^ I'^gard 
 des Grecs et cles Komains. . . Les auteurs prendront dans la nature ce que nous 
 y avons dej^ pris, ou dans nos auteurs m6mes, et bientdt ils s'dpuiseront comme 
 nous nous sommes epuises." ^ 
 
 There is a great tolerance,^ too, especially for him, in the 
 statement that we must not criticise poets for the faults of poetry, 
 nor metaphysicians for the difficulties of metaphysics.^ The 
 method is still to allow the genre. It is good to write on all 
 subjects and in all styles. ^"^ Furthermore : 
 
 " Je dirai qu'il y a plusieurs sources de beaute par rapport aux ouvrages 
 d' esprit, qu'il faut bien distinguer, et qu'il ne faut point faire dependre une 
 pens^e d'un genre de beaute lorsque'elle depend d'un autre." ^^ 
 
 He would make three principal divisions in the kinds of subjects, 
 consisting respectively in reasoning, depiction, or the expression of 
 passion. In each of the three, the method and the style should 
 
 'P.&F.,i, 228. 2 p ^ p^ j^ 229. ^ Cf . inf., p. 101. 
 
 *vii, 448. - ^P. & F., II, 34-5. «vii, 442. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 20. Cf. my note on classicism, sup., p. 49. ^Cf. sup., p. 10. 
 
 sp. <fe i^., II, 27. 10 Quoted sup., p. 84. "P. & F, ii, 42. 
 
86 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Mordesquieu. 
 
 vary.^ He evinces then the same catholicity for kinds that he 
 has shown in regard to nations. 
 
 Proceeding to strain the qualities of good writing, we have seen 
 that he demands both thought and sentiment. He praises 
 Bonnet's book, because " vous nous menez d' observation en 
 observation." ^ The two great desiderata are, we gather, " cette 
 force de g^nie qui saisit tout un sujef and "cette perspicacity 
 g^ometrique qui le p6n6tre." ^ The more specific qualities in 
 presentation, are thus listed : 
 
 " Nous apprenons dans les livres de pur esprit Tart d'^crire, I'art de rendre nos 
 id^es, de les exprimer noblement, vivement, avec force, avec grflce, avec ordre 
 et avec cette vari^te qui delasse 1' esprit." * 
 
 Several of these are old friends.^ Other such are the sentiment 
 of surprise, for which alone we ordinarily read ; ^ ncCivet^j which 
 should mark genius and epigrams ; ^ curiosity, " principe du 
 plaisir que Ton trouve dans les ouvrages d'esprit ; " * sidte^ or a 
 "chaine secrete et en quelque facon inconnue," which may link 
 personages or different subjects.^ And one may add his statement 
 that the best writers, generous of these and other satisfactions, 
 " sont ceux qui out excite dans Pame plus de sensations en m6me 
 temps." ^« 
 
 Other points in general literary theory may be briefly men- 
 tioned. Montesquieu is no believer in gross fecundity, praising 
 Fontenelle ^^ and English writers ^^ for abstinence in production. 
 He has no points of sympathy with later theorists who declare the 
 subject, in writing, to be of little or no importance. There are 
 certain subjects — for example satires on women '^ — which are 
 worthless, and a really excellent author, such as Horace, will not 
 touch them. Events spring from the subject, in the case of 
 
 ^P. & F,^ II, 45. — "Les choses dent le sujet consiste dans le raisonnement ; 
 celles dont le sujet consiste dans la peinture, comme est par exemple, la po&ie en 
 g^n^ral ; celles, enfin dont le sujet consiste a exprimer 1' agitation des passions." 
 
 2 VII, 425. 3yjj 30. * VII, 81. 
 
 ^Cf., under Art, stip., p. 35. «vii, 129. 'P. &F., ii, 22. 
 
 8P. <fe P., II, 122. »i, 47-8. ^0 vii, 130. 
 
 "VII, 445. 12 p. ^ p^ jj^ 18, IS p. ^p.^ 11^ 52. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 87 
 
 Horner.^ "II faut toujours prendre un bon sujet;'' good things 
 are wasted on a poor subject.^ 
 
 For literary ^ psychology/ something has already been said.^ 
 He may be approaching the notion in his consideration of that 
 finesse, which is '^ to give ideas drawn from the conceptions of the 
 soul." * He approaches it more nearly in holding that, since the 
 great dramatists have exhausted the great types, " il ne nous reste 
 plus que les caract^res fins, ceux qui ^chappent aux esprits de 
 commun." ^ Character-drawing indeed he considers largely a 
 matter of types, of generalizing so far as may be possible. Even 
 a La Bruyere " doit toujours faire des tableaux, et non pas des 
 portraits ; peindre des hommes, et non pas un homme " ^ — at least 
 not an actual man. The thing presents itself to our author rather 
 as a question of loosely grouping like characters, of finding a 
 greatest common denominator, than as the finer process of taking 
 the obtained type and deducing therefrom, differentiating, exhibit- 
 ing the peculiar individual. The remark that a Turk must see, 
 think and speak as a Turk, not as a Christian,^ may partly 
 protect the Lettres persanes, may even indicate a desired objectivity 
 in portraiture, but hardly gives prevision of the niceties of detailed 
 and specialized delineation.^ 
 
 Eelations — The Influence of the Salon and 
 Woman — Esprit. 
 
 In speaking of the epistolary style, Montesquieu remarks that 
 it passed from the hands of pedants with Yoiture who added 
 finesse and a certain affectation " qui se trouve toujours dans le 
 passage de la pedanterie a Fair et au ton du monde." ^ The 
 recognition that literature had, so to speak, changed its base, finds 
 a fuller expression in his reflections on reading Ronsard : 
 
 ^P.&F., n, 36. 
 
 ^P. &F., II, 10; cf. VII, 390. But just above (p. 84) lie has admitted 'all 
 
 3 Cf . sup., p. 28. *P. & F., II, 14. sp. & F., II, 21. 
 
 «P. &F., II, 24-5. Ti^4g. 
 
 «Cf., under Application, in/., p. 190. «P. & P., n, 49. 
 
88 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 "Du temps de Francois 1^"^, c'^tait les savants qui faisaient la reputation des 
 auteurs ; aujourd'hui, ce sont les femmes. Ronsard est la preuve de ceci. On 
 ne pent plus le lire, quoique personne n'ait eu plus de rdputation." * 
 
 It would be desirable for savants, if in writing they could learn 
 this "jargon des femmes/' But they know all languages except 
 that.2 
 
 The talent which pleases women most, that of " badinage dans 
 I'esprit/' has passed from the toilette to all fields, and now well- 
 nigh seems to form the general character of the nation.^ By the 
 use of this, of esprit * above all, of freedom in manners, progression 
 in grace ; ^ by the flowering of imagination " dans le monde,'' ® 
 by imaginative cravings in fair hearers for sottises ; ^ especially by 
 feminine taste, which finds specialism and high intelligence 
 ridiculous, and forces all into the consideration only of general 
 objects : ^ thereby have women won to-day their empire over the 
 thoughts and language of men as found in books.^ 
 
 The transition from this influence to that of conversation is 
 easy. " Plaire dans une conversation vaine et frivole est aujour- 
 d'hui le seul m6rite." ^^ For the most talkative nation is that where 
 women give the tone," and surely the French are talkative.^^ We 
 flee — even to ouvrages d^esprit ! — from insipid and lauguishing 
 conversations.^^ Montesquieu considers them ordinarily as good 
 for others ; he would rather approve than listen ; he is pleased to 
 find a man who will take pains to shine, for such a one is then 
 exposed.^'' Yet, to analyze the matter, we are wearied if conversa- 
 tions become uniform, if lazy people let everything fall.^* For 
 harmony's sake, " il ne faut pas se croiser sans cesse . . . il faut 
 marcher ensemble.'' ^^ Conversation is " un ouvrage que I'on 
 construit," there must be no disarrangements, no disagreeableness, 
 
 ^P.&F., II, 31. ^P.&F., II, 156. =^i, 216. 
 
 *P. (fe F., II, 146, 150. ^P. & F., n, 150. ep. & F, ii, 10. 
 
 'P. & F, n, 147. 8P. <fe P., II, 33. 
 
 * II, 382. His development of this is more in actual living and in practice than 
 in precept. Cf. under Application, inf., p. 186 ; and for his relations with Mmes. 
 Geoffrin, Tencin, du Deffand et al., cf. Lettres, passim; Vian, 192-6, 273-4. 
 
 10 VII, 178. lip. <feP., II, 157. 
 
 12 Barckhausen ed., i. P., p. 295. i' vii, 129. 
 
 1* VII, 152. 15 P. & P., II, 133. 16 P. & P., II, 302. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 89 
 
 no demolishing spirits, who go off on side-issues and plague with 
 minutiae and hinder everything. 
 
 Talking, in turn^ is naturally associated with esprit, and he thus 
 expounds the relation ^ — 
 
 ''L' esprit de conversation est ce qu'on appelle de I'esprt^ parmi les Franpais. 
 II consiste a (sic) un dialogue ordinairement gai, dans lequel chacun, sans 
 s'ecouter beaucoup, parle et r^pond, et ou tout se traite d'une maniere couple, 
 prompte et vive. Le style et le ton de la conversation s'apprennent, c'est-a-dire 
 le style de dialogue. II y a des nations oil 1' esprit de convei'sation est entierement 
 inconuu. . . 
 
 "Ce qu'on appelle esprit chez les Fran^ais n' est done pas de 1' esprit, mais un 
 genre particulier d' esprit. L' esprit, en lui-m^me, est le bon sens joint a la 
 lumi^re." ^ 
 
 Again, the esprit of conversation is an " esprit particulier, qui 
 consiste dans des raisonnements et des d^raisonnements courts.'' ^ 
 The quality is closely linked with literature, since the fury of 
 Frenchmen is to have esprit^ " et la fureur de ceux qui veulent 
 avoir de V esprit c'est de faire des livres." ^ 
 
 He further distinguishes between the greater and the lesser 
 variety, intelligence and wit. The first espHt includes several 
 kinds, such as genius, good sense and taste, and consists broadly 
 in having ^^ les organes bien constitu^s, relativement aux choses oxi 
 il s' applique." ^ There are the two classes of men, those who 
 think and those who amuse themselves.^ There is the difference 
 between saying a truth and a hon motj There is a clear 
 distinction, in fine, between ^' un homme d' esprit et un bel esprit." * 
 And, with particular reference to Voltaire : 
 
 ' ' Le bon esprit vaut mieux que le bel esprit. " ^ 
 
 It is the second specialized sense of the word with which we 
 are concerned, which was indeed with Montesquieu a subject of 
 perennial interest and almost a continual preoccupation. He is 
 
 ^In continuance of the disquisition just given. ^ P. & F., ii, 302-3. 
 
 3 P. & F., II, 11. *i, 223. 5yii^ 119. 
 
 ^P. & F., II, 124. Cf. sup., p. 22, where the reflexive pronoun is omitted. 
 'P. &F., II, 13. sp. & F, II, 126. 
 
 ' vn, 419. He esteems the esprit of that writer as " un vice de plus." — P. <fe P., 
 II, 50. 
 
90 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 perpetually judging people by their possession or lack of this 
 quality.^ That is the first thing which it instinctively occurs to 
 him to say. On the occasion of Chesterfield's practical joke, 
 Montesquieu is said to have been arguing the superiority of the 
 French esprit} It is a principal attribute of modern times.^ 
 
 Yet formally he has much to plead against any wholesale 
 admiration of this treacherous gift. 
 
 It should not be too much intermixed with irony ^ or vinegar ; ^ 
 it is often disdainful in excess/ and has little relation to real 
 genius ; ^ abandonment to it is dangerous ; * ^' les petits beaux- 
 esprits " meet with his condemnation.^ Nor can he altogether 
 approve such allied forms of wit as repartee, raillery and 
 licentiousness. 
 
 The first is a product, not of judgment, but only of vivacity ; ^" 
 badinage, however universal, is but a vain and frivolous thing." 
 The second is " un discours en faveur de son esprit contre son bon 
 naturel." ^^ We rail at everything, " parce que tout^ un revers.^' ^^ 
 But thin partitions do the bounds divide between a railleur de 
 profession and a fool or an impertinent.^* There are rules for 
 raillery ; to wit, that it should touch on slight points, and should 
 never be continuous or too personal : 
 
 "Enfin, il faut avoir pour but de faire rire celui qu'on raille, et non pas un 
 tiers." 
 
 Thus he takes his stand by the celebrated definition of humor. 
 For the Frenchman, genuine wit will find its justification only in 
 its tact and its timeliness. SailUes three-fourths of the time, are 
 hors de saison}^ The ridiculous, defined as "une chose qui ne 
 s'accorde pas aux mani^res et aux actions ordinaires de la vie," ^^ 
 is, like esp7it itself, for its pleasing eifect,^^ entirely a relative 
 matter : 
 
 1 VII, 225-6, 246, etc. ^See Besenval, Mem. i, 133-5. ^P. & R, ii, 127. 
 
 *P. & F., n, 14. ''P. & F., II, 17. «P. & F, n, 27, cf. ibid., 111. 
 
 'P. &F,i, 225 , P.&F, II, 52. sp. & P., ii, 46. 
 
 9vn, 154. ^^P. & P., II, 125. " vn, 178. 
 
 "P. & P., II, 100. ''P. & P., II, 303. '*P. & P., I, 409. 
 
 "3fa in., 136. ^«P. & P., II, 134. ^^P. & P., ii, 126. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 91 
 
 "II est aise de sentir en g^n^ral ce qui est ridicule; mais on a le tact fin 
 lorsqu'on sent ce qui est ridicule Id, c'est-a-dire devant chaque soci^te et devant 
 chaque personne." ^ 
 
 The value of esprit, in the long run, lies in its sympathetic 
 appeal — " que cet esprit s'allie avec les autres esprits." ^ This 
 may be his humeur, which he finally calls the "passion de 
 Fesprit." ^ The French are wrong in confusing what the English 
 variously term " wit, humour, sense, understanding/' ^ This 
 humor, so distinct from esprit,^ is also distinct from plaisanterie — 
 
 " C'est plutot le plaisant de la plaisanterie. Ce n'est point la force comique, le 
 vis comica ; c'est plutdt la maniere de la force comique. Je la d^finerai, dans la 
 plaisanterie, la maniere de rendre plaisamment les clioses plaisantes, et c'est le 
 sublime de I'humeur . . . ce que les images sont dans la po^sie, I'humeur est dans 
 la plaisanterie." ^ 
 
 He allows then kindly humor. He allows too that gaiety which 
 charges itself with the public joy/ 
 
 As to the salacious wit, it is a thing which theoretically he 
 rejects. " Je n'aime pas les bons mots grivois." ^ Whatever 
 cannot be said before women is '^bas et obscene.'' ^ In detail, he 
 admits that if a censorship on such a basis were made very rigid, 
 the ancients would come to us much mutilated ... as also the 
 moderns.^^ All the same, he would recommend such writers as 
 Marivaux, of " admirables moeurs ; '' ^^ he can take no joy in the 
 frank Rabelais ; ^^ and at Paphos he distinguishes between gallantry 
 and grossness, ruling out the books of the latter class.^^ He would 
 defend the Temple de Gnide ^* on the ground that, dangerous as it 
 may be, it has only the fault of its whole class of romans, which 
 are dangerous doubtless, but not more so than other things. True, 
 it is vicious to put licentious things into poetry. " Mais ordonner 
 de n'avoir pas de sentiments a un ^tre toujours sensible ; vouloir 
 bannir les passions sans souffrir meme qu'on les justifie " — is to 
 take too high and speculative ground, in a century which is very 
 bad and is growing worse. 
 
 ip. & R, II, 129. ^P. &F.,i, 215 ; cf. inf., under Authors, p. 97. 
 
 3P. & F., II, 125. 4 His English, P. & F., ii, 8. ^P. & F, n, 14. 
 
 «P. & F, II, 15. 'P. & F, II, 303. 8P. &F, I, 17. 
 
 »P. & F, II, 303. lop. & F, II, 29. ^ip. & F, ii, 61. 
 
 "P. & P., II, 47. 13 VII, 468. i*P. & F, I, 34-5. 
 
92 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Mmitesquieu, 
 
 To return, the characteristics of esprit in general are partly his 
 old notions of naivete ^ and relativity.^ Its possession is a thing 
 difficult to establish, particularly for women. The real quality 
 does not seek to display itself, though ^'on n^est jamais bel-esprit^ 
 quand on ne pretend pas de P^tre." Those who try too hard fall 
 and become sots} " Quand on court apr5s Pesprit, on attrape la 
 sottise." ^ In the opinion of the gens du monde, " I'esprit con- 
 siste a rapprocher les id^es les plus 6loign6es." ^ 
 
 Here may well find place the amusing skit ^ on the wit without 
 honor, who agreed with his friend that they should mutually set 
 off each others sallies. " Travaillons de concert a nous donner de 
 Pesprit." By careful study and preparation, by admiring and 
 supporting each other in public, they should finally be able to 
 keep up a running fire of bons mots for an hour and reach the 
 Academy at last : — 
 
 ''Tu verras que nous donnerons le ton a toutes les conrersations, et qu'on 
 admirera la vivacity de notre esprit, et le bonheur de nos reparties. . . Tu 
 brilleras aujourd' liui, demain tu seras mon second. . . Tu seras homme d' esprit 
 malgr^ que tu en aies." 
 
 For his own esprity Montesquieu does not care to shine,^ nor is 
 he touched by the reputation of fine wit.^ He never tried to 
 appear such. In the world, he says, he was announced as an 
 homme d^esprit, and perhaps proved the accusation by the Lettres 
 persanes — none too happily for his peace of mind. "Dans les 
 occasions, mon esprit, comme s'il avait fait un effort, s'en tirait 
 assez bien." ^^ After which, he proceeds to quote a number of his 
 hons mots}^ Indeed we feel that many of the foregoing remarks 
 on the subject are offered somewhat as samples of his own 
 proficiency. 
 
 ip. &F.yiiy 124. ^P. & F., II, 126. 3 Tjjg distinction is in the bd. 
 
 *P. & F., n, 127. ^P. iSc F, ii, 128. ^Mel. in., 136. 
 
 'i. P., I, 191-4. 
 
 ^ " J'aime les maisons ou je puis me tirer d' affaire avec mon esprit de tons les 
 jours," VII, 152. 
 »vn, 154. 1° VII, 156. 
 
 ^^ Also P. & F., passim. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 93 
 
 Books and Authors. 
 
 It is doubtful if any author of renown has passed so sweeping 
 a condemnation upon books and their producers as has Montes- 
 quieu in some dozen pages of the Lettres jjersanes} For several 
 days he sends his mouthpiece, Rica, to visit a library — a vast and 
 discouraging mass known not even to its keeper — and each day 
 we have the sarcastic demolition of a new genre ^ history alone 
 escaping the fire. Further on, in the same volume,^ he con- 
 temptuously prescribes various books, from Aristotle to the newest 
 novels, as medicinal doses, purgatives, vomitives and the like. 
 
 His opinion elsewhere is no less categorically expressed. "A 
 quoi bon,'' cries the fertile President, " a quoi bon faire des livres 
 pour cette petite terre ? '' ^ In most books, where size is the chief 
 object, we are half-drowned in a sea of words, and amplification 
 is the reader^ s ruin.* Usbek himself could do as well, if he cared 
 to ruin his health and the bookstores. Our productions serve 
 only to immortalize our sottises, which otherwise would die with 
 us.^ Such expressions may well be assigned to the hyperbolical 
 side of the Gascon, but he loses his jocoseness in stating that — 
 
 ''la plus mauvaise copie de I'homme est celle qui se trouve dans les livres, qui 
 sont un amas de propositions g^nerales, presque toujours fausses." ^ 
 
 Among which falsities there might be instanced his, that books 
 always show men as better than they are.'' 
 
 Yet he distinguishes clearly enough between good and bad 
 books, as we have seen him distinguish between books and 
 literature : — 
 
 " Les ouvrages qui ne sont point de genie ne prouvent que la m^moire ou la 
 patience de Fauteur." ^ 
 
 Books are a kind of society, and according as one chooses good or 
 poor company, so he improves or wastes his time.^ There are also 
 
 * I, 414-27. The detail of this will be presented later under the different forms. 
 '1,456-7. '^ VII, 172. *i, 342. ^ j^ 223. 
 
 «P. &F.,i, 281. But cf. mp., p. 82. ' vii, 174. » vii, 177. 
 
 ma, in., 143. 
 
94 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 the most dangerous class, the "ouvrages coramuns," which are 
 tiresome — "les mauvais, od ne les compte pas.''^ He has read^ — 
 or will read^ — only the best books. The chief merit of new 
 works is that by them one may judge the public which reads 
 them.^ Again : — 
 
 " II me semble que, jusqu'il ce qu'un homme ait lu tous les livres anciens, il 
 n'a aucune raison de lenr pr^ferer les nouveaux." * 
 
 It is fortunate, at any rate, that not all works are laborious, and 
 some spring, like Pallas, painlessly from the head of Jupiter.^ 
 
 Among the kinds of books which he especially despises are 
 imitations, commentaries, compilations, translations, etc. The 
 great original work, wherein the author has not lowered himself 
 to the quality of a copyist,^ is the only thing worth while. Such 
 a work usually causes the construction of five or six hundred 
 others, " ces derniers se servant du premier a peu prds comme les 
 g^om^tres se servent de leurs formules." ^ As a result of imitation, 
 the literary jealousy may arise, — " On s'efforce 5, imiter ceux qui 
 ont su plaire ; P imitation ne r^ussit pas, Pamour-propre s'en 
 offense." ^ Parody, in particular, is the refuge of mediocre 
 minds.^ 
 
 It is, however, true that imitation has been known among the 
 best authors. As Tasso imitated Virgil, so Virgil imitated 
 Homer, and Homer probably some one else.^" It does not take a 
 very strong mind to make the accusation of plagiarism." 
 According to small souls, there are no more original authors ; 
 Descartes drew all of his philosophy from the ancients ; Euclid, 
 Horace or Theocritus have said it all. In derision of which, 
 Montesquieu proposes : 
 
 " Je m' engage de trourer dans Cardan les pens^es de quelque auteur que ce 
 soit, meme le moins subtil." 
 
 Collections, recueilsy are not infrequently detestable. ^^ Compilers 
 meet with his highest scorn, those people who gather patches from 
 
 ip. & K, II, 18. 2vji^ 163^ zp &F.,i, 33. *i, 343. 
 
 5 VII, 23, cf. sup., p. 43. «P. & P., II, 11. "^P. & P., II, 17. » vii, 478. 
 
 lip. & F. , II, 11. ''P. & P., II, 65. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 95 
 
 others to paste in their own worksJ " Je voudrais qu'on respectat 
 les livres originaux.'' It seems profanation to draw good things 
 from their sanctuary to expose them to an unmerited mepris by 
 reason of their association. 
 
 He speaks of the " arm^e effroyable de glossateurs, de commen- 
 tateurs, de compilateurs/' weak in intelligence as they are strong 
 in numbers ; ^ of these same grammarians, glossers and commen- 
 tators, who can fortunately dispense with the use of bon sens.^ 
 The commentators, indeed, have a special place in Rica's 
 iconoclastic review. They seek in Scripture not what should be 
 believed, but what they want to believe.* Hence they corrupt 
 meanings and twist passages, making the Bible like a battle-field. 
 They augment or abridge their authors at will.^ A man like 
 Coste comes to believe that he has made Montaigne, and blushes 
 with pleasure when the essayist is praised.^ 
 
 Dictionaries, too, for living languages at least, are bad and 
 restricted things.'^ The Academy itself has produced or caused 
 ^^ satires n^ologiques^ The Academy dictionary he humorously 
 calls almost old when it was born ; ^ *^ un batard,^ qui avait d^ja 
 paru, Favait presque etouif^ dans sa naissance." 
 
 Translations are railed at by the geometer of the Lettres 
 persanes}^ He cannot understand that a man may put twenty 
 years on a translation of Horace, twenty years without original 
 thought, a life-time of merely speaking for others. The savant 
 who is attacked objects that he renders a great service to the 
 public in familiarising good authors. The other returns that he 
 also esteems " les sublimes g^nies que vous travestissez," but the 
 translator is quite unlike them — he may translate them, but no one 
 will ever translate him. In general : 
 
 "Les traductions sont comme ces monnaies de cuivre qui ont bien la meme 
 valeurqu'une piece d'or, et meme sont d'un plus grand usage pour le peuple ; 
 mais elles sont toujours faibles et d'un mauvais aloi." 
 
 1 1, 323-4. 2j^3i9^ 3 1^419, *i, 416-7. 
 
 ^P. iScF., II, 19. 
 
 «P. <fe P., II, 62. A commentator is called '' barbare," i, 53. 
 
 'P. & P., II, 8. ^1, 247. 9 That of Fureti^re. »oi, 398. 
 
96 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 In resurrecting the illustrious dead, the savant gives them a 
 body without life, without spirit. 
 
 But Montesquieu himself, while doubtful as to just what a 
 translation should aim at, is inclined to admit various efforts. He 
 finds fire and charm in the La Valterie Odyssey} Its inexactness 
 does not disturb him, since he considers it better to remove the 
 " g^ne litt^raire " and restore to Homer that agreeableness which 
 he certainly had in the Greek, by a free use of the French spirit 
 and expressions. The translator of the Esprit des Lois ^ is praised 
 for his fidelity, but more particularly for his endeavors to render 
 the spirit : 
 
 " II semble que vous ayez voulu traduire aussi mon style, et vous y avez mis 
 cette ressemblance : qualem decet esse sororum." ^ 
 
 This preference of the ethos versus literalness is hardly 
 supported by his claim for the Temple de Gnide,^ that he has been 
 faithful to his (fictitious) Greek original : ^ 
 
 '* J'ai cru que les beaut^s qui n'^taient point dans mon auteur, n'^taient point 
 des beaut^s ; et j'ai souvent quitt^ 1' expression la moins vive,* pour prendre celle 
 qui rendait raieux sa pensee." 
 
 As to the difficulty of translating, one must first know Latin 
 well and then forget it." There should be no enfeebling of the 
 original, "chose que les auteurs font quelquefois, parce qu'ils 
 estiment trop leur original.'' ^ To keep the Bible " male et forte," 
 its rendering should be free from modern affectations and deli- 
 cacies.® Its original character, its antique flavor, its poetic style 
 should all be kept, without resort to popular expressions on the 
 one hand, nor to mere fine language on the other. With this 
 excellent advice we may leave the subject. 
 
 The author, in himself, and in relation to his works, also comes 
 in for discussion. " D'abord les ouvrages donnent de la reputa- 
 tion ^ Pouvrier, et ensuite Pouvrier aux ouvrages."^*^ When an 
 
 iP. & K, u, 37. 2 Thomas Nugent. 'vii, 353. 
 
 * What he says in connection with this, however, is neither very serious nor very 
 sincere. 
 
 ^11, 10. •Other reading — "qui n'etait pas la meilleure." 
 
 T. & F., n, 8. » VII, 434. » vii, 346-8. ^o vn, 174. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 97 • 
 
 author has become famous, he should be more careful than others, 
 for nothing retards more the progress of knowledge than a bad 
 work by a celebrated author.^ Those who wrote first ^ had the 
 advantage of fresh fields, unexhausted mines and great untried 
 undertakings ; ^ they were also more admired, because for a time 
 they were the superiors of those who read them.^ 
 
 The author, as a personage, has his prejudices, his peculiarities 
 and his glaring faults. In a curious chapter, "Des L^isla- 
 teurs," ^ Montesquieu passes in review such names as Aristotle, 
 Plato, Macchiavelli and More, and finds a prejudice, the personal 
 equation, directing the work of each.^ A similar ressort, mingled 
 with vanity, causes authors to delight in their own writings : ^ 
 
 "Ce que nous avons mis dans nos ouvrages tient a toutes nos autres idees et se / y' 
 rapporte a des choses qui nous ont plti, puisque nous les avons apprises." ^ 
 
 But after a time our masterpieces charm us less, since they are no 
 longer so closely linked to our manner of thinking. 
 
 Amour-propre^ also a reason for our liking our works, further 
 impels an author to represent men as better than they are, that he 
 may be believed better than he is.^ " Enfin les auteurs sont des 
 personnages de theatre.'^ He w^ould recommend to them modesty 
 and a consideration rather for the amour-propre of their readers ; 
 " cherchons a nous faire aimer, si nous voulons nous faire lire.^^ ^^ 
 Authors who would take a beating without complaint are yet 
 unable to stand the least criticism of their productions.^^ 
 
 For all this, for all their vanity and pettiness, however small 
 the souls that one may occasionally find among men of letters,^^ 
 he will certainly call them in the gross honnMes gens}'^ Pedigree 
 does not matter in their case^^ — which, from the President, is 
 worth noting ^^ — and on mont Parnasse all positions from foot-hills 
 
 1 V, 452. 2Espg(,iaiiy dramatists— cited sup. p. 87. ^P. & F., ii, 20-1. ^ 
 
 *P. & F., II, 29. 5 V, 41.4. « Cf. the ^' retour secret," sup. p. 53. . 
 
 ■^ " Un auteur peut dire que nul n'aura plus de plaisir a lire son livre que lui en 
 a eu a le faire " — P. & F., ii, 156. 
 
 ^Mel. in., 146. • ^P. & R, ii, 100. ^op. <fe P., i, 215. 
 
 "i, 342. i2yjj^ 451^ »=^ VII, 448. 
 
 ^* P. & F., II, 40. — He says ironically, ''J'ai toujours eu mauvaise opinion 
 d' Horace, parce qu'il ^tait fils d'un aSranclii." ^^Cf. sup., p. 11, note 5. 
 
98 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 to summit are honorable.^ From the beginning of time it has 
 been a characteristic of autliors to declaim against the injustice 
 of their age.^ Horace and Aristotle were already praising their 
 ancestors and condemning themselves/ the courtiers of Nero or 
 of Augustus kept up the cry, and according to the race of writers, 
 men at present ought to be bears. Only in his own fortunate 
 time — and incidentally in a Discours AcacUmiquej where the great 
 Louis must be duly flattered^ — could Montesquieu call such a 
 reproach reasonless. He assigns as cause for this general lamenta- 
 tion of authors the fact that we are accustomed to consider our 
 fathers and masters in a corrective and hence in a more worshipful 
 attitude.^ What he might have assigned as a more potent and 
 practical reason is the fact of the reciprocal small esteem that 
 most ages have had for their authors. At any rate, he dwells 
 sufficiently upon the rough roads which men of letters usually 
 travel.^ Labor which is often useless ; despair and lassitude ; 
 emulation akin to jealousy ; long meditations and vigils and 
 sueurs — "vous reconnaissez la, messieurs, la vie des gens de 
 lettres." ^ For them, no place is a place of tranquility — 
 
 "Nous n'acqu^rons par nos travaux que le droit de travailler davantage. II 
 n'y a que les dieux qui aient le privilege de se reposer sur le Parnasse." 
 
 Not only must an author endure all insults, all inquietudes, but 
 when his work finally appears, quarrels and wars pile upon him.^ 
 He can obtain esteem only from those in his own field, if from 
 them. " Enfin, il faut joindre, a une reputation equivoque, la 
 privation des plaisirs et la perte de la sant6." 
 
 It would seem by this that the President is surely of the mHier, 
 and of himself as an author he also speaks — " J\ii la maladie de 
 faire des livres et d'en ^tre honteux quand je les ai faits." ^ An 
 interesting passage in the Histoire Veritahky^^ paralleled in other 
 
 1 VII, 256. 2 vij^ 26. 3P. cfe F., ii, 203. 
 
 *vii, 26. 5 P. &F., II, 203. 
 
 * Their condition, be it remembered, was already improving in his time. 
 ' VII, 6. 8 1^ 464_5^ 9 yij^ 156. 
 
 ^''M' Fortage, pp. 56-7, 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 99 
 
 places/ tells of the trouble through which he passed in regard to 
 the Lettres persanes. The book had more success than its author. 
 Envy worked agaiust him, and far more was expected of him 
 than formerly. Many fled from him, because they claimed he 
 was a hel esprit and affected : — 
 
 "Enfin, ce malheureux ouvrage me tourmenta toute ma vie, et, soit qu'on le 
 lou3,t, soit qu'on le blamat, J' en fus tou jours embarrasse," 
 
 He shows, however, some degree of pride in his professional 
 standing. He says with complacency that he is known on " mont 
 Parnasse," ^ he feels that he has gained " quelque espece d'hon- 
 neur,'' ^ he hints with complacency at praise,* and even manifests 
 some humor when his manuscript is slighted.^ It is worth noting 
 that he considers it an important result of his literary fame that 
 his wine sells well in England.^ 
 
 4. 
 
 Scholarship and Cognate Fields. 
 
 Concerning study and scholarship, institutions and Academies, 
 science, philosophy and journalism, our author also freely expresses 
 views which may receive a compendious exposition. 
 
 " Aimer a lire," he says roundly, " c'est faire un ^change des 
 heures d^ ennui que Ton doit avoir en sa vie, contre des heures 
 d^licieuses ; '' '^ study has been for him the sovereign remedy 
 against the troubles of life ; ^ those who have studied in their 
 youth need in their old age only to remember and not to learn ; ^ 
 *' ceux qui aiment a s'instruire ne sont jamais oisifs ; " ^^ but labor 
 must be continuous, for the less we work, the less power we have 
 to work.^^ He adduces weighty arguments for the pleasure and 
 
 ^The *'J'ai la maladie," etc., probably applies to the L. P. Cf., also, vii, 
 153. — " J'essuyai mille degouts," 
 
 2 VII, 251. 3 VII, 413., * VII, 363. ^yu^ 289. 
 
 *vii, 403. For Montesquieu and his critics, cf. in/., p. 122; and for these 
 opinions as connected with his rank as an artist, see later under Application, p. 202, 
 
 'vii, 169. 8vii, 151. 9vn, 176. ^H, 170. "vii, 433, 
 
100 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 profit of study. Aside from the satisfaction of intellectual 
 conquest and the appeasing of curiosity, there is the fact that the 
 love of study is almost the only lasting passion.^ Old age without 
 the benefit of such a love is a terrible ennui, and with it may still 
 triumph over youth. " II faut se faire un bonheur qui nous suive 
 dans tons les ages." The utility of scholarship is, moreover, social 
 and practical as well.^ 
 
 But he fully recognizes that not all the forms of scholarship are 
 wise or profitable. He is opposed to the predominance of 
 authority in matters of pure reasoning.^ Scholarship, in many of 
 its manifestations, shows as the reverse of genius.'' It is a pity 
 that justement in reading, where our soul puts out all its force, it 
 should be compelled to follow others' ideas — ideas childish and 
 frivolous — exactly what we are seeking to escape.^ It is bad and 
 benighting to ridicule savants ; ® but their powerlessness of adapta- 
 tion often exposes them to scorn : 
 
 "Us sont gauches quand ils veulent etre fri voles, et sots quand ils veulent 
 raisonner avec des machines qui n'ont jamais fait que sentir." ' 
 
 He cannot esteem these savants, whose knowledge has no 
 connection with their soul, " et qui annoncent la sagesse des autres 
 sans ^tre sages eux-memes." ^ When scholars degenerate into 
 pedants, he little likes their style of writing ; ^ and he congratulates 
 himself that there is no nation less pedantic than the French.^^ 
 The blind passion of a manuscript hunter," the excessive care for 
 minutiae and details,^^ the empty subtleties of dialecticians^^ he finds 
 ridiculous and openly mocks. 
 
 With the hard conditions of scholars, however, as with that of 
 writers,^* he is disposed to sympathize. They are not appreciated 
 to-day, now that the salon influence is supreme ; ^^ an ungrateful 
 country, which employs the fruits of their labors, yet dares call 
 
 1 VII, 79-80. 
 
 ^ He 'extols the importance of method (vii, 179), and makes the modern 
 
 recommendation of extreme care in the use of sources (P. & F., ii, 46). 
 ^P. & F., II, 22, cf. sup., p. 53. 'P. & F, u, 252. ^P. & F, i, 157. 
 
 6 VII, 2. ''P. & F, II, 156. sp. & F, II, 157. ^P. & P., ii, 49. 
 
 »»P. <feP., II, 176. 1^1,447. 121^334 
 
 13 1^ 142 ; P.&F, II, 23. »*Cf. sup., p. 98, ^^P. & F, ii, 31. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 101 
 
 them useless.^ There is an imaginary letter from a savant in"the 
 Lettres persanes^ giving in a semi-serious way, the hardships of 
 his lot.^ In general, such men have to suffer poverty, privations 
 and persecutions, sustained only by droiture dans le coeur and the 
 persistent thirst for learning. 
 
 He continues his remonstrance against set authority by stigma- 
 tising as dangerous the project of the Journaux de Trevoux " de se 
 rendre maitres de la litt^rature ; '' ^ by declaring that there is room 
 for all in the Republic of Letters.^ As to institutions, demi- 
 GolUges are no help to knowledge, estranging as they do the sons of 
 bourgeois from their true estate, without giving them the other/ 
 The education of colleges in general is hassCy bigoted, damaging to 
 the intelligence and to the heart. The Sorbonne, which held him 
 under its censure for a time,^ provokes a hon mot : 
 
 " Cette Sorbonne est la mouche du coche ; elle croit qu'elle fait remuer tout." ' 
 
 It is particularly the Academy which he attacks, as French men 
 of letters usually attack that institution until they are admitted to 
 its doors. Yian has remarked ^ that at the time of Montesquieu's 
 second candidacy,^ the Academy was composed largely of church- 
 men and lords with " quelques gens de lettres.'^ ^^ This illustrious 
 body had refused him admission two years before, mainly on 
 account of his epigrams against them in the Lettres persanes. 
 Such action hardly tended to diminish the epigrams : 
 
 "Ce corps a quarante tetes, toutes remplies de figures, de metaphores et 
 d' antitheses. Tant de bouches ne parlent presque que par exclamation ; ses 
 oreilles veulent tou jours etre f rappees par la cadence et 1' harmonic." 
 
 It is never constant, was formerly greedy and is always bizarre. 
 They have the fury of the panegyric — ^' Peloge va se placer, 
 comme de lui-m§me, dans leur babil 6ternel." ^^ The Academy 
 will never fall ; as long as there will be fools there will be also 
 heaux-esprits}'^ 
 
 ^P. &F.,ii, 122. 
 
 2 1, 462-4. 
 
 ^P.&F.,ii, 63. 
 
 *P. & F., II, 27. 
 
 5P. & F., II, 308. 
 
 «vii, 397, 402. Cf. inf., p. 189. 
 
 ' VII, 422. 
 
 ^Hist, p. 99. 
 
 « In 1727. 
 
 ^ About six. 
 
 Ill, 247-8. 
 
 i2p. &F., II, 127. 
 
102 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 After his election, it is without surprise that we hear him declare 
 that such institutions are made to promote amity, " une alliance 
 entre les gens de lettres, et pour ^tre comme le temple de la paix. '' ^ 
 The Academy gave us the finest model of the critical genre in its 
 Critique sur le CifU Our author's Dkcours de R^ception^ may 
 itself be esteemed a fine model of tergiversation — "just for a 
 riband to stick in his coat." He harangues the brotherhood to 
 the effect that they are inspired with the love of righteous men, 
 and with the hate of genius unadorned by virtue ; that they are 
 established to render worship unto Louis XIV, Richelieu and 
 S%uier ; that he is happy in being elevated, associated to such 
 masters in the art of various eulogy ; and he proceeds to do his 
 best for his predecessor. 
 
 He is equally solicitous concerning other Academies. He 
 sought to join the Academy of Stanislas at Nancy, and was much 
 pleased when elected.'* It is to be remarked that the best of his 
 commendation for literature'* is taken from a Discours to that very 
 Academy of Bordeaux whose activities he turned from belles-lettres 
 to science : 
 
 " II regardait les soci^tds de bel esprit, si ^trangement multiplies dans nos 
 provinces, comme une espece, ou plutot comme une ombre de luxe litt^raire, qui 
 nuit k 1' opulence reelle, sans m^me en offrir I'apparence." • 
 
 His early taste for science has been mentioned.^ He does 
 not value at a high figure his scientific writings upon Natural 
 History, the causes of echo, etc : 
 
 "II ne faut point chercher la reputation par ces sortes d'ouvrages, ils ne 
 I'obtiennent ni ne la m^ritent ; on profite des observations, mais on ne connait pas 
 I'observateur."^ 
 
 Mere observation does not require much talent ; a mediocre 
 observer, incapable of constructing a system, may yet find a fact 
 which will put even a Newton to the torture ; but Newton will 
 
 1 VII, 447. 2 By Chapelain— P. & R, ii, 50. ' vii, 91-5. 
 
 *vii, 368-72. * Quoted mp., p. 83. 
 
 *d'Alembert, p. iv. Also cf. Auger, Vie, p. vii ; Z^vort, Montesqkieu, p. 37 ; 
 Vian, Histoire, pp. 43, 47. 
 'Cf. sup., p. 10. ' 8yjj^ 53^ 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 103 
 
 always be Newton, and the other "nn homme commun, un~vil 
 artiste [sic'j, qui a vii une fois, et n'a peut-^tre jamais pens6." 
 The sciences are capable of division into those " qui sont 
 uniquement du ressort de la memoire/' and those for which genius 
 is needed.^ Again, he has stated the dependence of the whole 
 body of sciences upon belles-lettres.^ His use of the word ' science/ 
 even in the Bordeaux Academy Discours sur les motifs qui doivent 
 nous encourager aux sciences, is broad enough to include knowledge 
 and scholarship in general, and has little more than a rhetorical 
 opposition to the arts and literature.^ 
 
 To pass for a moment to the other pole where literature touches 
 life, our author can hardly be considered a fervent friend of 
 journalism. The journalistes^ are wrong in praising only new 
 books, and are insincere in their criticisms.^ The nouvellistes, who 
 were the real purveyors of news in those times, the idle haunters 
 of the Tuileries, are useless, vain, frivolous and bitten with an 
 abundant curiosity.^ They are always exaggerating their informa- 
 tion ; " ils ne sauraient consentir a ignorer quelque chose." They 
 are further marked by a mania for gratuitous prophecy, by 
 truckling and chauvinism. They lack only modesty and good 
 sense. 
 
 Other kinds of writing or discourse — not literature, though 
 connected therewith — on which Montesquieu delivers himself, are 
 philosophy, theology, jurisprudence and oratory. The first, he 
 sees, is in a way the fountainhead of knowledge : 
 
 " La philosophie ne doit point ^tre isol^e ; elle a des rapports avec tout." 
 
 He declares its value, singularly illustrating by saying that if the 
 Mexicans had been Cartesians, Cortez could never have conquered 
 them.'^ But with this exception and another,^ he thinks little of 
 the individual philosophers : 
 
 lyii, 85. ^Yii, 81. 
 
 ^It is from this Discours that were drawn many of our citations on the value of 
 literature and of study — cf . sup. , p. 83. 
 
 * That is, book-reviewers. ^i, 342-3. ^j^ 403_4. 
 
 'P. & F., I, 388-9. This is either a gasconade or a poor pun. 
 ^Malebranche — cf. inf., p. 142. 
 
104 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 '*La philosophic des Grecs ^tait tres peu de chose. lis ont gat^ tout 
 I'Univers : non seulement leurs contemporains, mais aussi leurs successeurs. " * 
 
 Their great error of not distinguishing between positive and 
 relative qualities inundated all their knowledge. The Pytha- 
 goreans were pitiable and puerile, and too submissive to Ipse 
 dixit. We have never gained much by taking over the jargon of 
 Aristotle.^ Plato, Cicero or Lucretius may be ^^beau." The sects 
 of Epicureans and Stoics contributed mainly to the preparation 
 for Christianity. In general, philosophy is an excellent soporific,^ 
 and — 
 
 " C'est une chose extraordinaire que toute la philosophic consiste dans ces trois 
 mots : Je m'en f . . . " * 
 
 The seductive sides of metaphysics are, first, that it suits for 
 lazy people to study in bed, and, second, that it treats of great 
 things and great interests, God, man, nature and the future.^ As 
 to philosophy in the special eighteenth-century sense, he holds 
 that it has won over the intelligence, but left the national 
 character and manners.*^ 
 
 For ethical and theological books, our moral authors are outris 
 in speaking to the understanding and not to the soul ; ^ but a 
 moral treatise as such would not shock even a prince.^ Works of 
 this kind are much more useful than ascetic or devotional books.'' 
 Those of theology are "doublement inintelligibles, et par la 
 mati^re qui y est trait^e, et par la maniSre de la traiter." Those 
 of mystics, " des divots qui ont le coeur tendre," contain ecstasies 
 and ravissementSf the warmth of the heart provoking that of the 
 brain and resulting in "le d^lire de la devotion." When, as in 
 the case of Santa Theresa, the ecstasies are real and recounted by 
 the person who has experienced them, they are easily pardonable ; 
 but there is no excuse for a cold and fictitious relation of "les 
 plus grandes niaiseries du monde'^ by another party, as is the 
 case of the Vie de Marie Alacoque}^ 
 
 J l^ ^R&K, II, 489-92. 2 Qf. inf., p/l34^ *P. & F., 11, 300. *R&F., 11, 483. 
 ^P. & F., II, 475. Cf. I, 419, ''leMiVres de mdtaphysique, qui traitent de si 
 grands interets, et dans lesquels I'infini se rencontre partout." 
 
 6 VII, 268. 'P. <& F, II, 297. ep. & F, u, 19. 
 
 9 1, 417. lop. &F, II, 527-8. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 105 
 
 Casuists deal with secret, imaginative and seductive things ; ^ 
 they are derided in a portrait of the Lettres persanes,^ as addicted 
 to vain subtleties and as seeking to win heaven at the best 
 bargain. 
 
 In short, theology, if it has not spoiled its victim, may pass 
 him on to natural philosophy.^ 
 
 With law-books, the degag6 advocate of Letter Lxviii * would 
 readily dispense. Such monuments of a vain science are only in 
 the way, since almost all cases are idiosyncratic and not to be 
 found under any general rule. It is a question, not of knowledge, 
 but of practical application in the courts. Montesquieu pays his 
 compliments to procedure ^ and legal chicanery in the fine Discours 
 prononce a la rentrSe du Parlement de Bordeaux : ^ 
 
 "L'obscurite du fond. a fait naitre la forme. Les fourbes, qui ont esp^rd de 
 pouvoir cacher leur malice s'en sont fait une espece d'art." "^ 
 
 He exhorts the advocates and the procureiirs to be just, upright, 
 merciful, considerate of their duty to the public.^ Among great 
 legislators he ranks Puffendorf and Grotius. The first is the 
 " Tacite d'Allemagne.'^ ^ Both, as his precursors, receive a 
 generous tribute : 
 
 " Je rends graces a MM. Grotius et Puffendorf d' avoir execute ce qu'une grande 
 partie de cet ouvrage ^° demandait de moi, avec cette hauteur de g^nie a laquelle je 
 n'aurais pu atteindre." ^^ 
 
 Orators, ^^ qui ont le talent de persuader ind^pendamment des 
 raisons,'^ ^^ yet prove in the long run less powerfully persuasive 
 than those whom we really esteem. ^^ He does not think their sort 
 very influential with the people : 
 
 "Le Peuple ne suit point les raisonnements des orateurs. II pent ^tre frapp^ 
 par les images et par une Eloquence qui a des mouvements ; mais rien ne le 
 determine bien que les spectacles." ^* 
 
 1 1, 417. 
 
 ^i, 
 
 201. 
 
 
 3 VII, 
 
 268. 
 
 
 
 *i, 237-8. 
 
 i^'' Quant 
 
 a la procedure, 
 
 jen 
 
 'y entendais 
 
 rien" 
 
 —VII, 
 
 152. 
 
 
 
 « In 1725. 
 
 
 
 ^vii, 56. 
 
 
 
 
 ^VII 
 
 , 63-5. 
 
 « Voy., II, 
 
 202. 
 
 
 i»^. L. 
 
 
 
 
 "P. 
 
 &F.,i, 100. 
 
 ^2 1, 419. 
 
 
 
 i3p. &F., 
 
 II, 22. 
 
 / 
 
 
 i*P. 
 
 <feP., II, 231. 
 
106 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 What orators lack in profundity, they will give you in length ; ^ 
 and they magnify or diminish the importance of things to suit 
 their purposes.^ 
 
 To take oratory's special types, we have seen him criticize the 
 Academy eloge ; ^ the oraison fun^bre is likewise a deliverance of 
 praise, "avec lequel on serait bien embarrasse de decider au juste 
 du m^rite du d6funt." ^ Of sermons he has hardly a word to say, 
 alluding simply to the old discourses of Maillard, Menot, Rollin 
 and Barletta^ as seeming burlesques to-day, though sufficiently 
 serious in their time.^ 
 
 He makes frequent rapprochement between orators and poets. 
 The former have ruined themselves in imitating the latter.^ The 
 works of both are "ouvrages d'ostentation," ^ and have but a 
 " general utility." ^ They are alike addicted to a wearisone 
 uniformity, orators in periods, poets in measures and cadences. ^° 
 
 5. 
 
 Genres — Poetry, Fiction, Drama, History, Satire 
 AND Criticism. 
 
 Poetry, in itself, made little or no appeal to Montesquieu. 
 What Ste-Beuve ^^ has called an " exclamation memorable '' — 
 the famous dictum that the four great poets are Plato, Male- 
 branche, Shaftesbury and Montaigne ^^ — shows well enough where 
 lie our author's tastes. He will value principally the poetry of 
 thought, of philosophy, with little regard for musical or senti- 
 mental elements. 
 
 He admits readily enough his own failures in this respect, ^^ and 
 even when he addresses the Muses, he is careful to make a 
 discrimination between their respective provinces : 
 
 *' Divines Muses, je sens que vous m'inspirez, non pas ce qu'on chante a Temp^ 
 sur les chalumeaux, ou ce qu'on r^pete a Delos sur la lyre ; vous voulez que je 
 parle k la raison." ^* 
 
 1 VII, 171. ^P. &F.,u, 24. ^i, 247— But cf. mp., p. 102. *i, 153. 
 ^Fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. «P. & F., ii, 31-2. 'P. & F., ii, 17. 
 «v, 403 ; vn, 171. » vii, 81. i»vii, 123. 
 
 " C. de L., IV, 94. ^^ y^^ 171, 13 y^^^ 199^ 393, u jy^ 360. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 107 
 
 The subject receives much comment in the Pensies et Fragmente^ 
 and poets furnish both a portrait and an important division of 
 Rica's library talks, in the Lettres persanes. A poet, with his 
 grimaces, his lack of good clothing and of savoir-faire is "le 
 grotesque du genre humain '^ and the most ridiculous of men.^ 
 He may be born such, as he declares ; he will certainly remain 
 such all his life. So he is exposed to the full scorn of the public,^ 
 to poverty, and at best to the mercies of his patrons.^ 
 
 In Rica's analysis,^ the poets are " ces auteurs dont le metier 
 est de mettre des entraves au bon sens, et d'accabler la raison 
 sous des agrements." ^ For the several kinds, the epic is a type 
 concerning which he knows very little ; but connaisseurs say that 
 there have never been but two,^ and that all the others are false 
 epics. They say, moreover, that it is impossible to make new 
 ones; " et cela est encore plus surprenant." ^ 
 
 The lyric he scorns as much as the others, considering that art 
 ^^une harmonieuse extravagance." The idyll and eclogue give 
 a pleasing sense of tranquility, in showing the condition of 
 shepherds. The most dangerous class are the epigrammatists.^ 
 
 The only species whom he is willing to admire are the 
 dramatists,^ "qui, selon moi, sont les pontes par excellence, et 
 les maitres des passions,'' whether moving us gently in comedy, 
 or, in tragedy, with violence and agitation. 
 
 But the Troglodytes are allowed epic and pastoral song as 
 at any rate connected with simplicity and innocence.^^ Poetry 
 flourishes best in quiet places and the silence of the woods ; ^^ and 
 perhaps it is hence that he allows singers to. celebrate the vie 
 
 ^ T, 173. 2 Even to the point of being beaten (i, 343). 
 
 2 In E. L., M, dwells on the base uses of poetry, its association with rhetoric 
 and flattery (v, 488). *i, 425-6. 
 
 ^Elsewhere (P. & F., ii, 507), M. makes the ''ddliredes poetes" responsible 
 for Paganism. 
 
 ® Probably the Iliad and the Aeneid. 
 
 "^ This is probably a sly hit at the Henriade, which was jusi in the writing (cf. inf., 
 p. 144). As to the artificial epic, he claims (P. & F., ii, 19) that fiction is such 
 an integral part of the genre that the Paradise Lost could be admired in England 
 only after religion had begun to assume a fictional value. 
 
 « See inf., p. 119. » Cf. inf., p. 113 f. lo i, 83. " vii, 9. 
 
108 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 champUre and the late lamented Golden Age.' He would then 
 naturally allow description and it has been seen that he con- 
 siders poetry a literary division whose subject consists " dans la 
 peinture.'^ ^ Whether painting the effects of nature or of the 
 passions, a flow of words here seems in order. The method may 
 merge into that of narrating by effects, as when Ovid depicts 
 the state of Lucrece and her abandonment to grief.^ 
 
 The poetry of love receives only slight and unimpassioned 
 mention in the Voyage d, Paphos* The "titres galants^' are 
 there arranged on different shelves, with a preference for the 
 ancients.® They include a small number of authors, " qui se sont 
 plus attaches aux sentiments qu*^ Pesprit.^' But Montesquieu 
 recognizes little high expression of this passion, and a certain 
 poet who attempts to celebrate the pleasures of love with fatuity, 
 emphase and exhaustion of his technical devices, is thus disposed 
 of by Venus : 
 
 ' * Les Muses seront peut-^tre contentes de votre ouvrage ; mais je connais des 
 plaisirs qu'Apollon m§me n'exprimera jamais." ^ 
 
 With reference to the Temple de Gnide, however, he has declared 
 that, while directly licentious poetry is vicious, yet to move the 
 passions is its essential purpose.^ 
 
 So far as concerns his personal relation with poetry, he shows 
 at best only a flowery and conventional esteem therefor. He feels 
 impelled to use high-flown terms in speaking of Muses and 
 Graces ; ^ and he takes great delight in quoting, in pondering 
 over and elucidating single classical lines,^ which shows at any 
 rate a care for the single word.^^ But his praise of a work, as 
 one editor remarks,^^ would be "c'-est beau comme de la prose," 
 which last Montesquieu distinguishes' as a large and majestic 
 river, against the jet d^eau of beaux vers}^ His sole favorable 
 
 1 VII, 133. 2p ^ p jj^ 45 cf. mp., p. 86, note 1. ^P. & F., ii, 43. 
 
 * VII, 467. ^Cf. w/., p. 125. « VII, 469. 
 
 ' Cf. mip., p. 91. ^Yu, 87, 388. 
 
 » As exemplified inf., p. 136. Also vn, 9; P. & F., ii, 7, 14, 58, and Ibid., 
 pp. 44 ff., where for pages he draws on the, one line of Ovid. 
 
 w Cf. inf., p. 158. " vn, )02. '^P. & F., ii, 12. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 109 
 
 judgment as to the utility of poetry is that Plato was wrong and- 
 self-contradictory in banishing poets from the Republic.^ 
 
 Among the various nations, French poetry in itself may be 
 bad, but their poets are perhaps good.^ The mediaeval product 
 gives him little delight : 
 
 ''On ne voit rien de si pitoyable que les poesies de cinq ou six si^cles . . . de 
 miserables ouvrages, faits par des gens qui n'avaient que des idees prises de 
 I'Ecriture sainte." ^ 
 
 Yet everything, the number of poets, emulation and patronage, 
 should have contributed to make good works — a state realized 
 only when people began to read, imitate and approach unto the 
 Ancients.^ The classics then, his constant choice, are also pre- 
 dominant in this field. For the English poets, they show rather 
 a " rudesse originale d^invention '' than a delicacy of taste.^ 
 
 The invention, however, the " making,' ' is what constitutes the 
 genius of a poem, as of other ^oio^krj Nor can he disregard 
 the technical elements which enter in for its perfecting. He 
 considers the quality of "declamation'' as closely allied to the 
 music of the verse.'^ The Italian recitative, "une declamation 
 plus haute," which is in its syllabic values akin to the English 
 and German,^ is totally unsuited to the French. 
 
 " Chaque musique est done excellente, c'est-a-dire la plus excellente que chaque 
 langue puisse porter. II me semble seulement que notre declamation est meilleure, 
 et notre musique, moins bonne." 
 
 The Italian declamation is feeble and unfit for tragedy, its rimed 
 lines are insupportable, and its trochees, for physical reasons, 
 inferior to the French iambics : 
 
 * ' Les iambes f rappent mieux les organes. La longue qui finit le mot semble lui 
 ajouter quelque chose ; la ])reve qui le finit semble lui 6ter quelque chose. 
 Lorsque nous voulons mou voir un corps, nous I'ebranlons et gardons toujours la 
 grande percussion pour le fin. II en est de meme des mouvements de I'ame." 
 
 ip. & F., I, 176 ; P. & K, II, 20. ^P. & P., ii, 31. 
 
 /-^P^<fe P., I, 226-7. *Cf. inf., p. 126. ^iv, 356. 
 
 *\ «P. i P., II, 52-3, cf. sup., p. 81. ^P. & P., II, 4-5. 
 
 *^These languages, he asserts with decision, make only dactyls (!) — which 
 approach nearer to the trochee than to the iambus. 
 
110 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 Such is true cadence, as the ancients have shown.^ Also, the 
 French caesura is invariable, while the Italian can be changed. 
 Feminine rimes in both languages are " trop donees,'' and rime 
 in general comes " lorsque Pon commence a sortir de la premiere 
 barbaric."^ Transpositions, allowable in poetry, frequently give 
 it an advantage over prose, as putting the important word in the 
 right place.^ Climactic arrangement generally, whether of expres- 
 sion or thought, is desirable.* 
 
 His tour de force idea ^ recurs : " II sort de Pembarras des vers 
 ^ X quelque chose qui plait.'' ^ He again rejects ornaments, in so far 
 ^' as that means what is pretentious and rechercMJ Epithets, he 
 thinks, should be frequent : 
 
 ** EUes ajoutent tou jours. Ce sont les couleurs, les images des objets." ® 
 
 They make the charm of T6Umaque. 
 
 The element of mystery ^ is also acknowledged. 
 
 For the psychology of poetry, such matters as brief or impetu- 
 ous expression should depend upon the state of soul represented. 
 Not everything should end epigrammatically.^" Finally, poetry 
 and dogma are opposing poles, as illustrated by Racine and 
 Boileau; the first revealed the sentiments, the grandeur of reli- 
 gion, whereas the second drew from Jansenism " des discussions 
 theologiques, sujet stranger et ennemi de la poesie." " 
 
 Fiction constitutes a department which, in some particulars, is 
 close to poetry. Immediately following his diatribes on the 
 latter subject, Rica's librarian vents himself on 
 
 "les romans, dont les auteurs sont des especes de poetes/' et qui outrent 
 ^galement le langage de 1' esprit et celui du coeur ; ils passent leur vie a chercher 
 la nature, et la manquent tou jours ; leurs h^ros y sont aussi Strangers que les 
 dragons ailes et les hippocentaures. " ^' 
 
 ip. & F., II, 6-7. Ubid., p. 12. 
 
 ^ Cf., Spencer's Philosophy of Style, where he argues for the inverted or ''direct" 
 order as that which is at once the most effective and the most economic of 
 attention. 
 
 ^P. <fe P., II, 43. ^Cf., sup., p. 43. ^P. & P., II, 12. 
 
 ' Ibid., p. 58. Cf. sup., p. 43. sp. <fe P., I, 228. ^Cf., sup., p. 41. 
 
 lop. &F., II, 42. 'mid., p. 52. 
 
 12 The two are also associated in i, 435. "i, 426-7, 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 111 
 
 Rica assures him that the Persian authors are no better, fully as 
 unnatural, and ^^ extr^mement genes par nos moeurs/' A lover 
 must pass ten years of passion as preliminary to seeing the face 
 of his mistress. Since the incidents cannot be varied, the 
 romancers have resort to an artificial remedy worse than the dis- 
 ease — that is, to prodigies. " Ces aventures froides et souvent 
 rep^t^es nous font languir, et ces prodiges extra vagants nous 
 revoltent." ^ 
 
 Other allusions amply show that practically the only romans 
 which Montesquieu knew^ were the stories of chivalry or of 
 wonder, certain of the old romans d^aventure and a wearisome 
 number of their later cold imitations. In mediaeval times, there 
 were, to be sure, the "romans grecs,'' but most important, he 
 thinks, were the tales directly associated with chivalry and its 
 marvels, the accounts of paladins, necromancers, fairies, enchanted 
 palaces, etc.^ From the idea therein contained of championing 
 weakness and punishing justice, came the whole modern concep- 
 tion of gallantry connected with love, the protection of women 
 producing a desire to please them. 
 
 But prodigies and magic are what chiefly impress him. He 
 speaks of "les merveilles des romans, ou, apres avoir pass^ par 
 des rochers et des pays arides, on se trouve dans un lieu fait 
 par les f^es." ^ Romans please by the variety of prodigies.^ The 
 " merveilleux " characterises fiction as well as the " Fable.'' ® 
 At Paphos, the volumes of stories are small, because "on en a 
 retranch6 les histoires magiques et les conversations ennuyeuses." '^ 
 
 In regard to the Lettres persanes, he claims for it a plot, and 
 divines generally the important secret that novels please because 
 we picture ourselves in the position of the hero or heroine. This 
 is connected with his former appreciation of impressionism or the 
 individual's private and personal judgment of things with refer- 
 ence to himself. — ^ 
 
 ^i, 427. 2 Except Manon Lescaut, cf. inf., p. 139. 
 
 *vii, 138. ^yu, 123. 
 
 «vii, 144. For the "Fable," cf. inf., p. 113. 
 
 'VII, 467-8. 8 Cf. sup., p. 53. 
 

 112 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 "Rien n'a plu davantage, dans les LeUres persanes, que d'y trouver, sans y 
 penser, une esp^ce de roman. On en voit le commencement, le progres, la fin : les 
 divers personnages sont placfe dans une chaine qui les lie. . . 
 
 ''D'ailleurs ces sortes de romans r^ussissent ordinairement, parce que Pon rend 
 ;? compte soi-m6me de sa situation actuelle ; ce qui fait plus sentir les passions que 
 tous les r^cits qu'on en pourrait faire." ^ 
 
 Moreover, digressions ^ are not allowed in the ordinary roTnan, 
 except when virtually constituting a new story ; nor are disquisi- 
 tions and reasonings permitted, as opposed to the design and 
 nature of such a work. 
 
 Novels are bound faithfully to depict passions.^ For himself, 
 he reads rontons only when gloomy.^ Pure story-telling, by a 
 raconteur, does not interest him for itself, but only for "la 
 mani^re de la faire." ^ This last must have been a powerful 
 interest indeed, since he submitted to hearing one poor little 
 histoire two hundred and twenty-nine times — "dont je fus tr^s 
 content.'' ^ 
 
 An allied form, the fable, receives some slight attention. The 
 authors of the ancient fables are sought for, because they were 
 " les nourrices des premiers temps et les vieillards qui amusaient 
 leurs petits-enfants an coin du feu."^ What they related was 
 unliterary, was as purely folk-lore tradition as a salacious story. 
 The fables were later compiled by a Lokman, a Bidpai, an Esop, 
 who may have added the moral reflections. The genre, however, 
 was hardly invented by the Orientals for the sake of the moral. ^ 
 That sort of truth was likely to be more offensive than a direct 
 statement, in its suggestion of stupidity in the hearer, and either 
 kind is sufficiently unpleasant in particular application. It was 
 useless, if the truth were merely general, to take the detour of an 
 allegory. For why should a prince be shocked by a moral 
 treatise ? ^ 
 
 ^i, 47-8. For criticism of the "chaine," cf. inf., p. 194. 
 
 2 Cf., inf., p. 160. ^P. & F., I, 34-5. Cf. sup., p. 86, note 1. * vii, 377. 
 
 ° Which might point to a lack of care for plot. — vii, 152. 
 
 6 VII, 179. T. & F., u, lS-19. 
 
 ^''Pour dire aux princes des verites d^tournees." 
 
 ^ Cf . for morality, sup. , p. 37 and p. 82. 
 
I 
 
 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 113 
 
 Montesquieu also uses the word ^ Fable/ with a capital, nearly 
 in the sense of "recit mythologique relatif au polyth^isme/'^ 
 From the antique vie champ^tre spring — 
 
 *'cet air riant repandu dans toute la Fable . . . ces descriptions heureuses, ces 
 aventures naives, ces divinites gracieuses, ce spectacle d' un etat assez different du 
 n6tre pour le desirer, et qui n'en est pas assez eloigne pour choquer la 
 vraisemblance, enfin ce melange de passions et de tranquillite." ^ 
 
 Our imagination laughs at the idea of the gods and the nymphs, 
 the woods, fields and fountains. The word ^ Fable ' thus acquired 
 for him a flavor of la vieille romance, and in this special sense he 
 loves to use it.^ Other broader meanings with him are ancient 
 stories in general * and a fiction as falsehood.^ 
 
 Our author professes a becoming modesty in regard to his 
 knowledge of the drama.® He can only indicate his preferences 
 and beliefs, and among these we have seen the high estimate 
 which he places on the dramatists, as the first of the poets, the 
 masters of passions.'^ Again, this is the only genre in which 
 the moderns have equaled the ancients, perhaps because it is 
 rather an advantage to have disposed of the old mythological 
 machinery, as unsuited to the movement and action of drama. ^ 
 Historically, he considers that the origin of the play was in " la 
 joie des vendanges.'' ^ The interval from the ancients to the 
 moderns he regards, as usual, a barren w^aste : ^^ 
 
 "Nous faisions des pieces de theatre avant Corneille et Rotrou. Nous les 
 aurions faites tou jours aussi mauvaises, si les ouvrages des Grecs n'avaient eclair^ 
 les dramatistes." ^^ 
 
 The French came slowly to Venceslas and the Cid in comparison 
 to the rapidity with which the Greeks reached excellence.^^ 
 
 iLittr^, s. V. 4°. 
 
 'vii, 132 — Such a passage as this represents his nearest approach to a 
 conception of poetry. 
 3 VII, 144 ; P.&F., II, 144, 287, 298. 'P. & F., ii, 205. 
 
 sp. & F., II, 195, 258. Cf. the colloquial English. 
 
 * '' Je n'ai pas une grande connaissance sur les choses du theatre," vii, 314. 
 'i, 426. Quoted sup., p. 107. ^F. & F, i, 225. ^vii, 170. 
 
 "Cf. sup., p. 71. ^Woy., II, 374-5. 
 
 i^P. &F.,i, 229, cf., sup., p. 59. 
 
 1- 
 
114 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 Another modern advantage is that the plays to-day seem more 
 virtuous, and Montesquieu can return benefited from a spectacle, 
 where an ancient would have lamented his corruption.^ As a 
 usual thing, morality ^ is demanded by an audience : 
 
 " Les homines, fripons en detail, sont en gros de tr^ honn^tes gens ; ils airaent 
 la morale ; et si je ne traitais pas un sujet si grave, je dirais que cela se voit 
 admirablement bien sur les theatres : on est sdr de plaire au peuple par les 
 sentiments que la morale avoue, et on est stir de le choquer par ceux qu'elle 
 reprouve." ^ 
 
 Among the characteristics and requisites of the drama, he 
 readily includes the three unities, which, he explains, mutually 
 suppose one another."^ The unity of place requires that of time, 
 much more time being needed for transportation to another place ; 
 these two require a unity of action, for in a limits time and 
 space there can only be one principal action. He agrees, too, 
 that a play should have five acts,^ because, according to his friend 
 Conti, everything should have a beginning, a middle and an end, 
 and a link between each stage." 
 
 His old principles of curiosity and surprise are invoked to 
 account for the suspension of interest in the tramej It is con- 
 sidered a harder thing to make good dialogue ^ for women than for 
 men, the latter requiring only book-knowledge, while the former 
 demands "P usage du monde et des biens^ances." ^ Proper charac- 
 terization, indeed, is a most difficult thing, especially now that the 
 great types have been taken.^" '^11 n^a qu'une trentaine de bons 
 caract^res, de caracteres marques.'^ He lists these, evidently 
 after Moli^re and his colleagues, as : " le Medecin, le Marquis, 
 le Joueur, la Coquette, le Jaloux, I'Avare, le Misanthrope, le 
 Bourgeois." Our sympathy or aversion for personages, in comedy 
 particularly, is an important point and should be managed with 
 consistency." 
 
 Wii, 161-2. Though our moral authors would still proscribe the theatre — V, 
 163. 
 
 'Apparently the melodramatic morality. ^ v, 161, cf. sup., p. 37. 
 
 *P. <fe F., n, 20. 'P. & R, II, 92. ^Voy., i, 307. 
 
 ' VII, 146. ^Eeferring to Shakespeare. Cf. inf., p. 151. 
 
 « vn, 184, i»P. & F., II, 20-1, " vii, 146. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 115 
 
 A comedian should be careful to throw his countenance into 
 the proper expression just before reciting his lines ; for these are 
 only the effect of the antecedent new passions.^ A comedy, in 
 Rica's opinion, may take place rather in the audience than on the 
 stage.^ The spectators, at the Franpais,^ are themselves on exhi- 
 bition, as languishing lovers, costumed actresses, or what not. 
 He satirizes in this connection the society farce of the foyer and 
 of the petits-maitres. Comedies should express rather the ridicu- 
 lousness of manners than of passions, for passions in themselves 
 are not ridiculous.^ Nor is it so important that an actor should 
 say funny things as that he should represent really a ridiculous 
 character.^ Sometimes the laughable element arises from seeing a 
 personage in a situation opposed to his character, as a woman in 
 straits, a grave man in a foolish position, an old man deceived.^ 
 In extending this conception Montesquieu comes very near to 
 admitting horse-play. 
 
 Tragedy is his real passion ; '' and the real passion of tragedy 
 is terror.^ In his own age, good tragedies were an exhausted 
 mine.^ 
 
 History is the only large department spared in Rica's denuncia- 
 tion of books. ^^ He does not extol its study or its utility ; but he 
 allows it to pass with a majestic and panoramic survey of the 
 course of empire in various nations. Our author is quick to see 
 the vital points which make or mar historical writing. As a pure 
 literary genre, he remarks that it has been handled by a certain 
 class of authors, who seek simply to be agreeable and amusing. ^^ 
 These select for treatment one special point or phase of history, 
 like a revolution, writing with a unity of action which pleases the 
 reader as a tragedy, and economizes his attention. This species 
 turns from the fatiguing uninteresting facts with which dry 
 chronicles are burdened. But he believes too, without reaching 
 
 ip. & F., 11, 78-9. 2 j^ 121-2. ^ Cf. on the Opera, sup., p. 76. 
 
 *vn, 162. sp. & P., II, 21. 6 VII, 145-6. 
 
 Wii, 161; P. &F., II, 56. 
 
 ® VII, 161— After Aristotle ; or after Plato, it may give horror {P. & F-, n, 20). 
 
 8P. & P., II, 20. i°i, 422 ff. i^P. & P., I, 27, 
 
116 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 the full coDcept, that the study of history must be philosophic.^ 
 Some idea of comparative history may be found in his plea for 
 allowing to each age its own ideas. ^ 
 
 A notion of the history which concerns itself with the life of 
 the people is to be found in his objection to the Greek historians, 
 that they give no glimpse of Grecian manners and laws. — '' C'est 
 comme si nous voulions trouver les notres en lisant les guerres de 
 Louis XIV." ^ It may be that the ancient histories generally 
 yield to the modern, in that our development of political art 
 makes them "plus belles."'' The mediaeval historians, those of 
 . the Church and the Popes have an effect which is frequently the 
 reverse of edifying.-^ The English have the advantage of showing 
 the progress of liberty.^ 
 
 The French school, from jealousy or conviction, he singles out 
 for special condemnation. Some have too much erudition for 
 genius, and others too much genius for their erudition/ They 
 are often blinded by prejudice or partiality ; ^ their particular 
 systems are their ruin ; ^ they will twist facts for their theory and 
 select, from the msss of data, those which they need to display 
 their own ideas and sentiments : ^^ 
 
 ''Toute I'histoire en corps n'est-elle pas un monument de I'aveuglement de nos 
 p^res £l cet dgard? Pour moi, j'aimerais mieux ne point ^crire d'histoire que d'en 
 ^crire pour suivre les prdjugds et les passions du temps. . . 
 
 "On ne fait pas un systeime aprds avoir lu I'histoire ; mais on commence par le 
 syst^me, et on cherche ensuite les preuves." 
 
 But the bitterest word yet on the French historians is : 
 
 " Ut, sicut prima aetas vidit quid ultimum in libertate esset, ita nos quod in 
 servitute." ^^ 
 
 Subserviency and falsehood in history have perhaps been further 
 advanced by the invention of printing.^^ Formerly a writer, 
 
 ^ Especially for princes ( vii, 414) — For restrictions on this method, in so far as 
 it is theoretical, cf. following page. 
 
 ^v, 448 ; P. &F., ii, 191 ; cf. swp., p. 52. ^yu, 160-1. 
 
 * VII, 179. ^i^ 422. «i, 423. 
 
 ' VII, 163. His criticisms here usually have an oblique reference to Dubos and 
 Boulainvilliers, to whom he pays his compliments in the E. L. Cf. inf., p. 147. 
 
 sp. & R, II, 193. 8 V, 448. i"P. & R, ii, 251. 
 
 "P. & R, II, 250. i2p^ & R, II, 193-4. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 117 
 
 being little heard, could cry his loudest and his best; but now 
 his necessary circulation, the establishment of a censorship, and 
 the fear of offending the powers that be tend to a disguisal of the 
 truth. An upright historian, whose pen is not venal, is subject 
 to a thousand persecutions.^ 
 
 This impatience with his predecessors may account for his 
 judgment on histories in the large as "des faits faux composes 
 sur des faits vrais, ou bien a ^occasion des vrais ; " ^ and for that 
 other opinion that, "on trouve dans les histoires les hommes 
 peints en beau, et on ne les trouve pas tels qu'on les voit." ^ 
 
 In regard to the criticism of sources, a point where in practice 
 he has so often been accused of failing,^ he would seem at least 
 in doctrine to recognise the importance of the principle. He 
 says, for instance, that when we are looking for something in 
 antiquity, we must be very careful lest our authorities themselves, 
 from the influence of the personal equation, have departed a little 
 from the truth.^ 
 
 Montesquieu, when in a happy mood, likes old chronicles, 
 " pour temperer les biens et les maux." ^ The writers of memoirs 
 suffer from the same complaint as historians and authors in 
 general ; only here it is themselves and not all men whom they 
 would represent in a favorable attitude. They are "si visible- 
 ment vains qu'il est impossible quails soient vrais. lis ont tout 
 fait dans la guerre et dans les affaires." ^ Yet recent memoirs,^ 
 especially of the minority of Louis XIV, are certainly enormously 
 popular to-day.^ 
 
 Concerning letter- writing, he has only two curt observations. 
 If their writers had reduced their long compliments and the 
 petty details of their day, "ils auraient vu leurs ouvrages 
 s'evanouir." ^"^ I have quoted his remark as to the passing of the 
 epistolary style from the hands of pedants to those of the gens 
 du monde}^ 
 
 1 1, 464. 2yjj^ 174 3 yji^ 177^ ^f. swp., p. 93. 
 
 *Cf. inf., p. 200. sp. & R, II, 190. « vii, 377. 
 
 "P. & R, II, 193. 8 Excellent emetics (i, 457). »i, 348. 
 
 ^0 r, 52. This is d propos of the L. P. , where he claims to have followed his 
 precept. ,^1*. & R, ii, 49. Cf. sup., p. 87. 
 
118 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 The satire and the epigram may be considered together, the 
 first being connected in his mind with criticism, and both being 
 characterized by that espritj which we have seen to be one of his 
 chief preoccupations.^ Is it satire purely or destructive criticism 
 which he condemns as " cette fureur de juger, cette honte de ne 
 pas decider, cet air de m^pris sur tout ce qu'on ne connait pas, 
 cette envie de ravaler tout ce qui se trouve trop haut ? " ^ Again, 
 he denounces — 
 
 " cette fureur pour la satire qui a fait multiplier parmi nous les Merits de cette 
 espece, qui produisent deux sortes de mauvais effets, en d^courageant les talents de 
 ceux qui en ont, et en produisant la malice stupide de ceux qui n'en ont pas. De 
 la ce ton continuel ^ qui consiste k tourner en ridicule les choses bonnes et m^me 
 les vertueuses." 
 
 The really great satire, like that of Aristophanes, is no more. 
 The usual satire dies, while the work which it attacks still lives/ 
 Satire can be usefully employed as a weapon, for example, against 
 fanaticism, but it is only " pour le bien des hommes que Pon pent 
 faire usage de la malignite humaine." A combat won in this way 
 proves nothing, " parce qu^me plaisanterie n'est pas une raison." * 
 
 A " mauvais naturel " seeks a too frequent repetition in satiri- 
 cal traits.^ Only two pedants, Boileau and Juvenal, have written 
 satires on women — a subject in which, worthless as it is, Horace 
 would have succeeded far better. 
 
 In ancient Rome, punishment was meted out to satirists and 
 libellists.'^ In despotic states, where oppression and ignorance 
 together take away the talent and the will for such writing, satires 
 are hardly known. ^ Among the English, what with the spectacle 
 of society and the disposition to retreat from life, "leurs Merits 
 satiriques seraient sanglants, et Ton verrait bien des Juvenals 
 chez eux, avant d' avoir trouv^ un Horace.'^ ^ 
 
 He thinks it a mistake, in practical life, to hasard apoph- 
 thegms ; ^^ but he shows certainly a well-marked favor for the 
 
 ^Cf. sup., p. 89. ^P. &F.,i, 276. 
 
 * *' Si commun dans notre nation," Ibid., p. 277. ^E. g. Virgil and Horace, 
 sp. &F.,i, 277-8. 
 
 «P. & F., II, 52. Cf. VII, 63— ** Quel triste talent que celui de savoir dechirer 
 les hommes. "^ m, 254. ^iv, 83. »iv, 356. 
 
The Aesthetic Dodrine of Montesquieu. 119 
 
 epigram. The quality of naivete, which he has ascribed to so 
 many things, even to esprit,^ may add to the epigram as well.^ 
 Surprise is also an element. He approves of a certain "belle 
 r^ponse, parce qu'elle est contradictoire a celle que Ton attend.'' ^ 
 He recognises, in quoting/ that the surprise and the sting are 
 in the tail, and that here brevity is the soul of wit.^ Yet " tout 
 ne doit pas finir en epigramme." ® 
 
 As a poetic form, the epigram was unknown until Martial, 
 the Greeks being ignorant of the acute dictum^ and writing only 
 inscriptions.^ It is a form in which every word counts, as he 
 well illustrates.^ He approves the opinion that the pentameter 
 and hexameter verse " attirent n^cessairement T^pigramme ; " ^ 
 with which he leaves the subject. 
 
 ''Dans les critiques, il faut s' aider, non pas se detruire ; chercher le vrai, le 
 bon, le beau ; dclairer ou refldchir (reflechir et rendre) la lumiere par sa nature ; 
 n'^clipser que par hazard." ^^ 
 
 In such clear and decisive words does Montesquieu give his voice 
 for the criticism which enlightens as opposed to the criticism 
 which destroys ; an opinion quite in accord with his previous 
 condemnation of satire, of pedantry and of narrow dogmatism. 
 He illustrates and emphasizes his distinction in his mention of 
 the Academy's Critique sur le Cid, "critique severe mais char- 
 mante ! . . . c'est 1^ que Ton voit la louange des beaut^s si pres 
 de la critique des defauts." ^^ 
 
 Criticism ^^ is not a profession to which a man should abandon 
 himself.^^ Posterity attaches a certain scorn to works of this 
 class, be their sponsor even a Cato.^* There is, however, an art 
 of criticism, and when one would abandon himself thereto, when 
 he would direct the taste or the judgment of the public, he must 
 consider whether, after all, he has the fortune to agree with those 
 
 1 Cf. mp., p. 92. 2p_ cfe F., II, 22. ^P. & F., ii, 284. 
 
 * VII, 129. ^P. &F., II, 42. Cf. the examples from Florus, vii, 121-2. 
 
 ^P. &F., II, 42. The " Qu'il mourtit ! " of the old Horace shows the brevity 
 without the wit. '' The literal sense of the word, of course. 
 
 sp. & R, II, 15-16, 9P. <fe F, II, 41. lop. & F, II, 26. 
 
 "P. & P., II, 50. 12 Evidently in the pejorative sense. "P. <& F, ii, 26. 
 i*If he is a Maevius, his ecrits injurieux are doomed to oblivion (Ibid., p. 41). 
 
120 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 popular verdicts sealed by time.^ For, in the long run, these 
 verdicts will hold ; and if you dissent, if you have only extra- 
 ordinary opinions, " vous n'^tes pas propre pour la critique." ^ 
 
 Esoteric standards are then practically valueless. Nor is this 
 all. It would seem that really good authors need no bush, no 
 criticism or corrective.^ No words are too strong to excoriate 
 that criticism which consists in disdain and intolerance, in unfair- 
 ness and cavilling. The worst type is the ignorant wretch who 
 can sustain life only by selling his insults to the book trade; 
 whose works are read only for their malicious stings ; whose 
 acquaintance no one will avow and whose vileness justice must 
 overtake.'' 
 
 The third part of the Defense contains generalizations on criti- 
 cism which were largely inspired by the reception the Esprit des 
 Lois had met with from the Jansenist journal.* No argument, 
 he says, will hold, which makes a good book seem bad, or a bad 
 book good, which confounds the ideas and standards of the 
 different sciences.^ Nor is it fair to employ arguments which 
 attack science itself." Knowledge of the thing treated and of its 
 authorities is essential. The principle of fairness to the author 
 is dwelt upon. It is not right to read into him ideas which he 
 has not put down. His visible words are the only test. It is a 
 mistake gratuitously to attribute evil thoughts and intentions to 
 him.^ Elsewhere,^ Montesquieu maintains that it is unjust to 
 suppose offhand that the author has not seen and provided for 
 the contradictions of which he might be hastily accused ; that a 
 critic must be sure he holds the entire system, the central object 
 of the whole machinery, before he remarks on small wheels that 
 turn in opposite directions. And that the criticism on the great 
 
 Ubid., p. 26. 'Cf. Ibid., p. 28 and sup. p. 47. 
 
 ^P. & F., II, 27. — This, at least, I take to be the meaning of " A mesure qu'on 
 a phis exige des auteurs, on a moins exig^ des critiques." 
 
 * P. & F., II, 28. — The personal animus which our author would repudiate 
 seems prominent in this. 
 
 ^The Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques, 9 and 16 October, 1749. «vi, 196-7. 
 
 ' That is, allow the genre. Cf. P. & F., ii, 27 and sup. p. 85. 
 
 8 Also VI, 198. 
 
 »P <fe F., II, 25. Still with palpable reference to the E. L. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 121 
 
 Corneille which allowed first for the duty it owed him stands 
 as a model of its kind.^ 
 
 The critic/s task is as easy as the original author's is difficult, 
 since the former has all the advantage of choosing the point of 
 attack.^ " II n'y a rien de si ais6 que de d6truire les sentiments 
 des autres.'' ^ Critics are eternally contrasting an author's charac- 
 ter with his works and making suchlike reflections, " parce qu'on 
 les pent faire sans essayer beaucoup son esprit." * In which 
 connection, Montesquieu makes the old slur that ten thousand 
 men can easily criticize what they cannot themselves create.*^ 
 This class of writing merits little indulgence when it shows as 
 an ostentation of superiority over others and a source of human 
 pride.^ Of all genres " elle est celui dans lequel il est plus 
 difficile de montrer un bon naturel." It not infrequently has its 
 root in jealousy ^ and its impulse in iconoclasm.^ 
 
 The writing of such corbeaux has two evil effects ; it spoils the 
 reasoning power of readers by causing them to take good for ill 
 and vice versa ; and it leaves no weapons to attack the really bad 
 works, "de sorte que le public n'a plus de r^gle pour les dis- 
 tinguer." ^ For he fully recognises that, too numerous as they 
 are,^^ too prone to employ against things that warmth which is 
 needed only to paint things," destructive critics have yet their 
 usefulness in certain directions. A bad work by a celebrated 
 author must be unveiled for the benefit of knowledge.^^ His 
 objection to the flimsy journaux is exactly that they make no 
 attempt to criticize.^^ Authors cannot judge themselves, because 
 " s'ils eussent cru une phrase mauvaise, ils ne Pauraient pas 
 mise ; " ^^ after which the natural demand would be for some one 
 to judge them. If he urges harmony and general forbearance 
 in the Academy, it is because criticism has a thousand other 
 battlefields.'" 
 
 ip. & F., II, 50. Cf. sup. p. 52. 2yj^ 198^ sp^ ^ p^^ „^ 483. 
 
 * I, 51-2. ^R&K, 11,57. 6 VII, 198. Vii, 478-9. 
 
 8 VII, 432. « VI, 199. wvii, 162. " vii, 432. 
 
 12 V, 452— Quoted swp., p. 97. ^H, 343. 
 
 **P. & F.y II, 156. And authors of criticisms, fearing to be hoisted with their 
 own petard, "sont comme ce peintre qui, ayant peint un coq, d^fendait a ses 
 apprentis de laisser approcher les coqs de son tableau." (Ibid.) ^^vii, 447. 
 
122 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 The real aim of criticism, however, as indicated in the last 
 paragraphs of his discussion,^ is primarily neither destructive nor 
 dogmatic. The first kind, as applied especially by his theological 
 enemies, becomes a thing which limits the scope and " la somme 
 du g^nie national." Theology cannot be the criterion to bound 
 all the sciences, any more than the principles of geometry will 
 apply in taste.^ Dogmatism is peculiarly dangerous — 
 
 *'Rien n'^touffe plus la doctrine que de mettre ^ toutes les choses une robe de 
 docteur : les gens qui veulent toujours enseigner, emp6chent beaucoup d'appren- 
 dre ; il n'y a point de g^nie qu'on ne r^tr^cisse, lorsqu'on I'enveloppera d'un 
 million de scrupules vains." 
 
 Follows the fine passage on the repressive effect of such pedantry.^ 
 Criticisms should not be considered as personal attacks until 
 we are forced so to regard them. It is quite permissible to criti- 
 cize works given to the public ; for those who seek to enlighten 
 others should surely seek to be enlightened themselves, and 
 " ceux qui nous avertissent sont les compagnons de nos travaux." 
 This last Ste-Beuve calls a fine saying, " devise et louange dc la 
 vrai critique.'' ^ Finally, if the author and the critic are alike 
 seeking truth, they have a common interest and cannot be 
 enemies.^ 
 
 Montesquieu has endeavored, he declares, to make his own 
 criticism largely appreciative. Since he has read, so far as 
 possible, only the best authors,® he gives his opinion usually on 
 those whom he esteems. " Je loue plus que je ne critique.'' "^ 
 
 As to the President and his own critics, several things may be 
 observed. Ste-Beuve has declared, " il toit des plus sensibles h 
 la critique," ^ which seems true with qualifications. Montesquieu 
 admits that he has been tormented all his life by "ces petits 
 beaux-esprits qui m'ont rompu la t^te de ce qu'ils out mal lu 
 et de ce qu'ils n'ont pas lu." ^ But he speaks more indifferently 
 elsewhere of *' quelques frelons qui bourdonnent autour de moi," 
 
 Wifense, S^e partie, vi, 202-3. ^Quot^^j g^p^^ p, 50. 
 
 ^Quoted in extenso, swp., p. 53. * C. de L., xiii, 148. ^vii, 203. 
 
 «Cf. sup. p. 94. 'P. &F.,i, 37-8. ^C.deL., vii, 80. 
 
 »P. <fe F., I, 38. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 123 
 
 which buzzing he does not mind, if the bees get honey from his 
 toil/ His editor remarks that superficial criticisms caused him 
 irritation ; ^ so did those written with malice aforethought ; and 
 more especially those directed against his whole manner of being 
 and individuality. The Jansenists have wished him to make an 
 Esprit des Lois according to their own plan and containing mainly 
 the things theological with which they are concerned.^ Their 
 objections are in their heads and not in his book/ To another 
 caviller he retorts : " mon intention a 6t§ de faire mon ouvrage et 
 non pas le sien." ^ The " infinite de mauvaises critiques sur mon 
 Esprit des Lois " were written by men who did not wish to under- 
 stand him, that they might have a free field for declaiming — an 
 easy sort of triumph.^ 
 
 He has preferred to keep silent when attacked, both from 
 scorn, and because he believes that calumnies will return to the 
 address of the calumniator/ " Mon principe a et^ de ne point 
 me remettre sur les rangs avec des gens m^prisables." ^ 
 
 In regard to individuals, it is true that he contemptuously 
 dismisses the Sorbonne,^ and puts it on a par with the " declama- 
 tions et fureurs " of the Nouvelliste EccUsiastique ; ^° it is true that 
 the preceding philippic against distorting an author's meaning ^^ 
 was aimed at the Journal de Tr^voux,^'^ and the paragraph on 
 allowing for contradictions in view of a possible system ^^ is his 
 reply to de La Porte/'* He likewise showed some acrimony in 
 dealing with Yoltaire,^^ notably in the response, " II a trop 
 d'esprit pour m' entendre/' ^® 
 
 1 VII, 329. 
 
 2P. & F., I, Preface, XV. It is perhaps hardly fair to quote the carefully 
 erased passage in which he makes his bitterest retort — "Sur quelques petits 
 auteurs qui me critiquaient, je dis : Je suis un grand chene au pied duquel les 
 crapauds viennent jeter leur venin" (Ibid., p. 36). 
 
 3 VI, 196. * VII, 397. syii^ 386. 
 
 «P. &F.,i, 36. •'VII, 404. 
 
 8 VII, 405, cf. VII, 385— "Depuis le futile de la Porte jusqu'au pesant Dupin, 
 je ne vois rien qui ait assez de poids pour m^riter que je r^ponde aux critiques." 
 
 9 VII, 197. i» VII, 386. ">SV, P-120. 
 ^^P. & F., II, 27. 13 ;sup., p. 120. ^*P. & P., II, 25. 
 15 Cf. inf., p. 144. ^^\u, 397. 
 
124 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 But this is only one side of the medal. Again and again in 
 his letters, he invites criticism from his friends and approves it 
 from strangers. He profits by the strictures of Mme. de Mirepoix 
 and admires her taste ; ^ he requests corrections from Mme. 
 d'Aiguillon ; ^ he gives Guasco liberty to judge and criticize ; ' 
 he congratulates Grosley on his objections and his knowledge,^ 
 and replies with good humor to his points ; ^ he thinks Gerdil 
 meritorious;^ he is enchanted with Bertolini — "Je m'y trouve 
 par6 com me dans un jour de f§te ; " ^ and he thanks Risteau for 
 his " ^loges flatteurs." ^ In general, he is willing to admit a 
 difference of opinion on small points,^ though he objects when 
 Vernet, unsolicited, corrects his French. ^'^ This last seems to give 
 the clue to the situation : among friends and fair-minded critics 
 he is perfectly willing to allow minor dissent and corrections, if 
 there is agreement on main issues ; but those who largely 
 condemn, misunderstand or misconstrue his position, especially if 
 acrimony is added, arouse his indignation and his scorn. Which 
 seems, on the whole, neither an unnatural nor an unreasonable 
 attitude. IncW^i. 
 
 •6. 
 Ancients and Moderns. 
 
 The unique importance of this subject at the time of Monte- 
 squieu's writing has made it seem worth while to devote to it a 
 section. Many correspondences will be found between the present 
 treatment and that outlined, more purely as a matter of principle, 
 under Classicism and Individualism." I shall still reserve for 
 the next section the authors separately discussed, contrasting 
 here the two broad types of the old and the new order of writers. 
 
 At the outset, Montesquieu is quick to declare that the aca- 
 demic Quarrel does not concern him, that he is impartial in the 
 matter, and esteems equally both the ancients and the moderns, — 
 
 »vn,,264. 2yjj^423. ^yu^ 273. *vii, 396- 
 
 6 VII, 334. «vn, 397. "^vii, 442. «vii, 375. 
 
 syn, 344. ^"vii, 296. ^^ Cf. mp., p. 48. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 125 
 
 " Je n'ai aucune predilection pour les ouvrages anciens ou nouveaux, et toutes 
 les disputes a cet egard ne rae prouvent autre chose si ce n'est qu'il y a de tres 
 bons ouvrages, et parmi les anciens, et parmi les modernes." ^ 
 
 This absolute statement, however, must be taken with a grain 
 of salt. There is abundant testimony to show which way the 
 balance leaned for him. There is the general observation that 
 we have no right to prefer new books until we know the old.^ 
 There is the specific and direct avowal of his preference for 
 the ancients — 
 
 "J'avoue mon goiut pour les anciens; cette antiquity m'enchante, et je suis 
 tou jours pret a dire avec Pline : C'est a Athdnes que vous allez, respectez les 
 dieux." 2 
 
 Again, he has always had a decided taste for the ancients,^ he has 
 admired some criticisms against them, but he has admired them 
 most ; and he thinks his taste may be justified.^ 
 
 As Sorel has finely observed,^ it is only in antiquity that the 
 President finds poetry, that he himself reveals some poetic impulse.'^ 
 Accordingly, at Paphos, Ovid and TibuUus may rank with Ana- 
 creon and Sappho ; " mais entre les vers du siecle d'Ovide et ceux 
 de notre temps, les Graces judicieuses ont laisse I'espace de bien 
 des livres.^' ^ 
 
 New books may be good for readers ; the ancient are for 
 authors.^ Theirs was the superiority in point of bon sens, in 
 purity of style.^*^ For their present dominance, the rules of the 
 Greek tragedians are still unsurpassed and unchangeable.^^ 
 
 He has the humanistic evaluation of antiquity when he affirms, 
 "je suis naturellement curieux de tons les fragments des ouvrages 
 
 ^P. & F.,i, 38 ; cf. P. & F., ii, 29, where he likes the Quarrel, as proving the 
 same thing. ^ j^ 343 
 
 ^ VII, 158. This heads the first of two sections, ''Des Anciens ; Des Modernes," 
 in the Pensees diverges. They include fragmentary remarks, largely on individuals, 
 rather than a raisonne account of the matter, and it has seemed as well to dispose 
 of such scattered utterances as the order of our arrangement calls for them. For 
 Antiquity, cf. sup., p. 11. 
 
 *vn, 159. ^Ct mp.,^.47. ^MmL, ^. 21. 
 
 ^Cf. sup., p. 113. «vii, 467. 9 VII, 159. 
 
 ^°P. & F. , II, 46. These are, however, merely casual generalizations, with real 
 reference to one special case. " vii, 150. Cf . sup. , p. 49. 
 
126 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquim. 
 
 des anciens auteurs ; " ^ when he would have a catalogue made of 
 all the lost books cited by the ancients.^ He has the poetic 
 evaluation when he regrets "cet air riant '^ which marked the 
 antique world, that ^^ simplicity de moeurs, naivete de la nature," * 
 even that taste for the marvellous, which however, might be 
 criticised — 
 
 *'Ce qui frappe le plus chez les anciens auteurs, c'est que leurs Episodes se 
 ressemblent presque toutes." 
 
 These oracles and enUvementSy this conquering of monsters, etc., form 
 always the same adventures under different names/ 
 
 The ancients, it has been remarked, were sufficiently salacious.^ 
 It is a poor reproach to tax them with glorifying merely the 
 physical strength of heroes, since it is in nature that the body 
 should excite admiration and move to the marvellous.® It is also 
 unfair to insist on a circumstantial comparison between the 
 modern and ancient poets, which latter "d^crivent les moeurs 
 et les costumes, et dont les beaut^s, meme les moins fines, 
 dependent, la plupart, des circonstances oubliees, ou qui ne 
 touchent plus." ^ This Culturgeschichte element he again allows, 
 when he likes to read the ancients "pour voir d'autres pr6jug6s."^ 
 
 Comparison ^ may not be circumstantial, but in the large it is 
 inevitable. As a criterion, it results naturally from the process 
 of imitation,^^ which seemed to Montesquieu, for the forming of 
 taste at least, equally as necessary. The French had only " mis6ra- 
 bles ouvrages " until the Renaissance period — 
 
 " Mais, d^s que I'on commenpa k lire les Anciens, que I'on etit perdu un siecle 
 a les commenter et h les traduire, on vit paraitre des auteurs, et (ce qui me semble 
 faire la gloire des Anciens) on pent leur comparer les Modernes." " 
 
 He has manifested his astonishment that the English can admire 
 the ancients so much without imitating them.^^ 
 
 'P. & R, II, 39. ^P. & F., II, 64. 
 
 3P. & F.,i, 310-12. For the "simplicity" cf. sup., p. 43. 
 
 ^P. &F.,i, 309. 5 Cf. sup., p. 91. «P. &F.,i, 227-8. 
 
 ''P. & F, 1, 227. 8 VII, 160. ^Cf. sup. p. 32. 
 
 10 Cf. mp., p. 50. "P. <&F,i, 227. 
 
 12 VII, 169; P. <&F.yUySO. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 127 
 
 The Quarrel is, of course, another point of contact. The 
 Lutrin, wherein the ancients were not taken as models, is the best 
 argument that Perrault's cause could have. Against its own 
 author's opinion, it is a fine plea for the moderns.^ It is chiefly, 
 however, a later phase of the Quarrel, the dispute on Homer, 
 that excites comment from Montesquieu. He has ridiculed in 
 the Lettres persanes the whole puerile discussion, as begotten by 
 beaux esprits — 
 
 ''Par exemple, lorsque j' arrivals a Paris, je les trouvai ^chauff^s sur une 
 dispute la plus mince qu'il se puisse imaginer : il s'agissait de la reputation d'un 
 vieux poete grec. . . Les deux partis avouaient que c' etait un poete excellent : il 
 n'^tait question que du plus ou du moins de merite qu'il fallait lui attribuer." ^ 
 
 Everyone wished to assign the per cent ; and among so many 
 distributors of reputation, "les uns faisaient meilleur poids que 
 les autres.'^ This was the trouble. It gave rise to coarse insults 
 and bitter pleasantries, and Usbek fears greatly the implacable 
 hate of these people, whose enmity could be stirred by such 
 a trifle. 
 
 More seriously, he considers that Pope has come off best in 
 the Quarrel, since he alone realized the greatness of Homer, 
 which was the essential point.^ Madame Dacier showed zeal 
 without knowledge, and dragged LaMotte into details. The 
 latter, with this esprit retreci^ lacked sentiment and an acquaint- 
 ance with Antiquity — a deficiency, which, from the President\s 
 standpoint, was largely shared by the other disputants. 
 
 There are some things that may be said for modern writers, 
 and more things against them. It may be that if the old world 
 had better esprits, the new has at times better works."* It is 
 difficult to write ill, now that we are experts on taste.^ Yet there 
 is far more to mar the modern literatures than to make them. 
 This exclamation gives one cause for decadence : 
 
 "Quel siecle que le notre, oil il y a tant de critiques et de juges, et si peu de 
 lecteurs." ® 
 
 ip. <J^ F., II, 53. 'I, 141-2. ^F. & F„ ii, 29-30. 
 
 *P. cfe F., I, 228. 5P. & P., II, 51 ; of. mp., p. 46. «vii, 162. 
 
128 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 Amusements are too numerous for reading.^ Among other and 
 graver causes, there is the taste for badinage and paradox, the 
 dominance of women and conversation.^ There is the penchant 
 for ridicule, the spirit of the nil admirari — " On ne saurait croire 
 jusques oii a 6t6, dans ce dernier si^cle, la decadence de Padmira- 
 tion." ^ He would explain the general lack of taste for Corneille 
 or Racine, as due to the ridicule which is poured upon all things 
 for which a great intelligence is needed. Then, anything which 
 has a determined object, anything which smacks of specialism will 
 not be tolerated. 
 
 *'0n ne connait que les objets g^neraux, et, dans la pratique, cela ce r^duit 3, 
 rien. C'est le commerce des femmes qui nous a menes la : car c'est leur caract^re 
 de n'^tre attach^es a rien de fixe. II n'y a plus qu'un sexe, et nous sommes tous 
 femmes par 1' esprit. . ." * 
 
 Sentiment also seems ridiculous, and natural family affection, 
 and the strong emotions of tragedy.' All these were sources of 
 appreciation for his ancestors, as they would be for any people 
 " dont les moeurs seraicnt moins corrompues que les notres. 
 Nous sommes parvenus k une trop malheureuse d^licatesse." 
 
 It was thought until lately that a devotion to letters was 
 inappropriate in a grand seigneur^ — a sentiment which has been 
 ascribed to Montesquieu himself.^ This would be the pride of 
 birth. More explicitly harmful is the philosophe spirit — 
 
 ''Un certain esprit de gloire et de valeur se perd peu a peu parmi nous. La 
 philosophic a gagn^ du terrain,^ les id^es anciennes d'h^roisme et de bravoure, et 
 les nouvelles de che valeric se sont perdues." ^ 
 
 With this is connected the yielding to method and the supremacy 
 of commercialism and calculation. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 34. ^i, 149 ; i, 216 ; vii, 178. 
 
 ^P. <fe F., II, 33, cf. Ibid.y p. 51 — " Nous jugeons des ouvrages d' esprit avec le 
 dugout des Sultans." 
 
 ^Ibid. , p. 33. Cf. sup. under Women and Esprit. 
 
 ^P. & F, II, 56-7. Quoted mp., p. 82. 
 
 •'vii, 85.— Relative to the Marshal of Berwick. '' Cf. inf., p. 189. 
 
 ^And he adds in another reading (P. & F., ii, 141) — '^j'ose m^rae dire un 
 certain bon sens." 
 
 *vir, 175. Though he thinks too that the philosophe spirit has left alone the 
 character and manners, while gaining the mind. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 129 
 
 This surely seems 'modern' enough, too modern for the eigh- 
 teenth century. It is, for a moment, the theme of Burke's 
 threnody on the age of chivalry. 
 
 He returns to literature and to the Quarrel, again belittling 
 the latter and again asserting that even its conceded and boasted 
 bon sens is not enough for the former in this age : 
 
 " Un si^cle od le souverain m^rite est de penser juste, et qui, dans le temps 
 qu'il admire une belle traduction de Vlliade, n'est pas moins frapp^ d'un mauvais 
 raisonnement sur Vlliade.^ ^ ^ 
 
 Individual Authors. 
 
 Before entering on the large field of the different literatures 
 with which Montesquieu was more or less acquainted, it may be 
 well to take some account of his views on the various languages, 
 as well as to show to what degree he was versed in foreign 
 tongues. 
 
 Latin he undoubtedly knew and thoroughly. Greek he could 
 hardly have known for reading purposes. Such familiarity as 
 he had with Greek authors seems to have come, in the large 
 majority of cases, from secondary sources and translations.^ Of 
 the modern tongues, he knew something of Italian and English. 
 He quotes from both, and drops into both for phrases or descrip- 
 tion, in his fragmentary writings.^ But he admits, "je ne suis 
 pas assez fort dans la langue italienne pour juger de la diction." * 
 As to English : 
 
 ' ' It does not appear that he had prepared himself for his visit to England by 
 acquiring the language." ^ 
 
 ip. <fei?'., I, 224. 
 
 'Ste-Beuve (C de L., xii, 81) is convinced that none of the great four read 
 Homer directly. 
 
 '^Cf. '* I said to her," &c., in P. & F., and the remarks on technique in paint- 
 ing, Voy. I, passim. 
 
 *vii, 440. ^Collins, Mont, in England, p. 339. 
 
130 Tke Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 The same writer accounts for the fact that the Presidents rela- 
 tions in England were rather with the social than the literary set/ 
 by assuming that " though he could read English and follow it, 
 when spoken, with perfect facility, he could not speak it intelligi- 
 bly." ^ And anecdotes are cited which seem to support these 
 statements, save as to the point of " perfect facility." 
 
 We may then suppose a reading knowledge of Italian and 
 English, sufficient for a respectable amateur acquaintance with 
 the masterpieces in these tongues ; but the knowledge which 
 makes for an adequate literary appreciation can be predicated 
 only of French and Latin. 
 
 His remarks on language and the languages are certainly 
 piquant and perhaps illuminative. From an academician's stand- 
 point, as he pleasantly states, French should gain ground abroad 
 every day and ultimately become the common language for the 
 communication of the peoples.^ It shines, in contrast to the Latin, 
 by its definiteness and, in a way, by its lack of charm : 
 
 ''C'est que le franpais repr^sente au Franfais les choses comme elles sont : il 
 lui donne une id6e juste, qui est si claire qu'il n'en peut pas ajouter d'accessoires. 
 Dans le latin, que nous n'entendons pas parfaitement, 1' imagination ajoute a la 
 veritable id^ une id^e accessoire, qui est toujours plus agrdable." * 
 
 French pronunciation may seem like song to a foreigner, because 
 " tout ce qui s'^loigne de la prononciation ordinaire parait chant." ^ 
 French versification, it has been seen,^ is composed of iambics, as 
 contrasted with the Italian trochee and the dactyl of the English 
 and the German. This works against exact correspondence in 
 translation, as does also the fact that " la langue franyaise est plus 
 pure et plus simple, et Fitalienne est plus haute et plus elev^e." ^ 
 The former, as opposed to Latin, cannot be so serre on account 
 of its articles. " Ces articles sont des non-valeurs." The fixity 
 of the Italian ^ seems to him due to the lack of a common central 
 Court, whose changes would be accepted throughout the country.^ 
 
 1 But cf. inf., p. 152. Ubid., p. 382. ^ yjj^ 221. 
 
 *P. & F., II, 67. Cf. sup., p. 42. ^P. & F., ii, 4. 
 
 «P. cfe F, II, 4-5, cf. sup., p. 109. ^P. & F, ii, 6. 
 
 »That is, the Tuscan, ^Voy., i, 54. 
 
The Aesthetic Docti'ine of Montesquieu, 131 
 
 The English, strangely capable of some "jolies choses " is, on the 
 whole, frankly " barbarous.^' ^ What indicates, more than these 
 sporadic and unsafe judgments, that he had something of the 
 philological instinct is his preoccupation, in translation and in 
 original expression, with semasiological niceties.^ 
 
 Proceeding to the literatures, two cautions must first be taken. 
 The President cannot always be credited with impartial views. 
 Towards his friends and well-wishers, his criticisms are lenient 
 and complimentary.^ Towards his detractors and opponents, he 
 does not always manifest a pure liberality.^ Again, there is a 
 tendency towards a superficial, hasty or raffing sort of criticism, 
 well illustrated in his comparison, already mentioned,^ between 
 certain painters and authors. This comparison, as a curious 
 sample of singular insufficiency, may well be given : ^ 
 
 **S'il faut donner le caractere de nos poetes, je compare Corneille a Michel- 
 Ange, Kacine a Kaphael, Marot (La Fontaine) au Correge, La Fontaine (Marot) 
 au Titien, Despreaux au Dominiquin (aux Carraches), Crebillon au Guerchin, 
 Voltaire au Guide, Fontenelle au Bernin, Chapelle, La Fare et Chaulieu au 
 Parmesan, le pere Lemoine a Joseph Pin, Regnier au Giorgione, La Motte au 
 Rembrand, Chapelain est au-dessous d' Albert Dxirer.'^ Si nous avions un Milton, 
 je le comparerais a Jules Romain. Si nous avions le Tasse, nous le coraparerions 
 aux Carraches. Si nous avions I'Arioste, nous ne le comparerions a personne, 
 parce que personne ne lui peut etre compare. ' ' 
 
 It is true that something, though not very much, may be derived 
 from the first part of this catalogue ; but in the main it is at 
 once categorical and indefinite. The uncertainty shown in his 
 substitutions is significant. 
 
 Montesquieu was always a great reader and had supremely the 
 faculty of turning grass to wool. Both Bernadau ^ and Walckenaer ^ 
 
 ip. & F., II, 81. 2p ^ p^ ij^ 8 and passim. 
 
 3 VII, 381, 388. Especially is he kind to Hume, (vii, 320-1), cf. inf., p. 152. 
 
 ^E. g., his attitude towards Voltaire, Boulainvilliers and Dubos. Cf. inf., pp. 
 144, 147. 
 
 5 a. mp., p. 33. 
 
 «vii, 163. Also (fuller) P. & F., ii, 49 and Notes, p. 539. The variants are 
 found in the last reference. 
 
 ■^In place of this the Notes give — " Rotrou est mieux qu' Albert Diirer ; le 
 Pinturicchio est notre Chapelain." 
 
 8 Tableaux, p. 194. 
 
 '•Who had access to M's notes on his reading — ih^ Spicilegnim which is stil} 
 unpublished. (Montesquieu in Biog. Univ., p. 89.) 
 
132 The Aesthetic Doctrine of MoiUesquieu, 
 
 express, in identical words, their astonishment at the prodigious 
 quantity of books he had read, and at the fact that " les pens^es 
 les plus remarquables et les plus profondes lui 6taient presque 
 toujours sugg6r6es par des ouvrages frivoles ; et il en lisait beau- 
 coup de ce genre." 
 
 We are fortunate in having a number of details as to his 
 private reading and the composition of his library.^ 
 
 * It seems worth while to give a summary of this information. First, as to his 
 youthful reading, there is an anonymous MS. note to the Bibliotheque Nationale 
 copy of Solignac's Eloge. Among '* des Merits que son Pere lui mit en main" 
 were, according to this annotator, "Cic^ron, Horace, Plutarque, Lucien, Rabelais, 
 Montaigne, Bayle, Locke, Lafontaine, Moliere, Pascal, Bodin, Pufendorf, 
 Desbans, Grotius, Descartes, Neuton {sic), Gassendi, Lamotte, Le Vayer, Platon, 
 Lucr^ce, I'Aloisia (?), Th^ophile, Verville, Sextus Empiricus, Lacru, les trans- 
 actions philosophiques, les M6m. de 1' Acaddmie des sciences." — {Eloge, pp. 250-1). 
 And Labat (La BrMe, p. 183) found in the note-books of Montesquieu's youth a 
 list of authors "qui semble indiquer dans leur ordre ceux qui ^taient alors de sa 
 predilection. C'^tait Moliere, Corneille, Racine, Boileau, Pascal, Rabelais, 
 Montaigne, Labruyere, Cervantes." These last, he considers, may have given the 
 germ of inspiration for the L. P. 
 
 As to the President' s library, it results from inventories and examinations made 
 by Brunet (Migne, xliii, col. 344-6, and Bulletin, pp. 33-6) and Labat (op. ciY., 
 pp. 181-2) that, although there is some account of a collection of 4,000 volumes, 
 the working library of Montesquieu liimself at the time of his death consisted of 
 just 1556 works. This is still, with some exceptions, at La Brede. It included : 
 
 Theology, 291 works— 9 Bibles, 11 Testaments, many Fathers and commentaries. 
 ' Jurisprvdence, 324 works. 
 
 Sciences et arts, 318. Numerous works on medicine and exact sciences, some on 
 occult sciences. Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Charron, Bacon, Hobbes, 6 Euclids, 
 
 2 Plinies. 
 
 Belles- Lettres, 267. Accounted in this class are, curiously enough, Du Cange, 
 
 3 Greek dictionaries, 2 Ciceros, Demosthenes, Homer, Lycophron, 4 Virgils, 
 
 4 Horaces, 4 Juvenals. Some few Elzevirs and Aldines, but editions usually 
 small and worthless 16th century, from the presses of Bale or Lyons. 
 
 French Literature — not rich. Marot, Rabelais, Ronsard and 17th century classics. 
 
 Italian Literature — feeble. Petrarch, Ariosto, Tasso. 
 
 History, 306. Many travels. Marco Polo, Pinto, Chardin, etc. Ancient 
 historians in great number. French — Gregory of Tours, Villehardouin, Monstre- 
 let, de Thou, Commines, etc. Also several collections for archaeology. Literary 
 history poor (3 Bibliotheques, Photius). 
 
 All of the authorities mentioned call attention to the predominance and 
 importance of the ancients ; to the number of works on travels ; to the fact that it 
 is a library ad usum rather than a collection de luxe or of rarities. 
 
 Further, we may remark that it is a library rather of the legist, historian and 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 133 
 
 Of the various literatures, we may consider first the Oriental. 
 The Bible, which he quotes occasionally in the Vulgate, impresses 
 him peculiarly for its poetic quality.^ Its original character, the 
 character which makes it respected, should be conserved in trans- 
 lations — which recommendation he makes also for other religious 
 books, such as the Koran and the monuments of the Gu^bres. 
 He contrasts the Scriptures with the Talmud, the former exempli- 
 fying " Fextraordinaire dans le grand," while the latter is only 
 " Fextraordinaire dans le petit."^ In the Koran also, spite of its 
 figured style and its forceful expression, there are a number of 
 puerilities : 
 
 " II semble d'abord que les livres inspires ne sont que les id^es divines rendues 
 en langage humain : au contraire dans notre alcoran {sic) on trouve souvent le 
 langage de Dieu et les idees des hommes." ^ 
 
 The religious is not the only form in which Orientalism appealed 
 to our author. Sorel has called attention to his taste for the 
 Arabian Nights,'^ which, however, he mentions only casually.^ 
 There is something certainly of its flavor in his shorter tales,^ as 
 Fortage points out,^ though hardly in the Lettres persanes. 
 
 The Greeks, whose supremacy in all arts has been heretofore 
 posited,^ receive as writers from the President an admiration 
 generally enthusiastic, though somewhat vague, unreasoned and 
 traditional. He thinks that they showed less of esprit, less of the 
 epigrammatic touch than the Latins.^ And there is the remarkable 
 statement that " les Grecs ^taient hardis pour le style et timides 
 pour la pens^e.'^ He discusses only the half-dozen leading lights, 
 with special fondness for Homer. 
 
 scholar than of the man of letters. Pure literature occupies a subordinate place — 
 if we except Du Cange and his consorts. The classics, Latin, French, and Italian 
 are respectably present, but not as the back -bone of the collection. 
 
 ' VII, 347-8, cf. sup., p. 95. ^Mel in., 137. 
 
 =*i, 312. *Mont., p. 27. ^P. & F., ii, 108. 
 
 ^A. & I. One might add the episodic and salacious tales of the L. P. 
 
 ' Ed. Hist, verit., p. xii. According to this editor, he read Galland's adaptation 
 of the Nights (1703-1711). 
 
 ^ Cf . sup. , pp. 49, 58. Also Greece showed the Universe ' * le gotlt et les arts 
 portes a un point que de croire les surpasser sera toujours ne les pas connaitre 
 (IV, 414). 
 
134 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 For the blind bard, indeed, the force of praising can no farther 
 go. The Odyssey is emphatically the most beautiful poem in the 
 world, after the Iliadj which is the first. ^ In an opinion which he 
 at least encourages, there are only two epic poems, the Iliad and 
 perhaps the Aeneid.'^ Homer surpasses Virgil for grandeur and 
 variety of characters.^ The first poet made possible the second, 
 who, however, " manquait du beau feu d'Hom^re." * Variety of 
 episodes, of movement, of redts, of combats, is the quality of 
 Homer which is dwelt upon.^ His descriptions and comparisons 
 are found riantes and admirable.^ The rapidity of his action, his 
 warmth, the natural development of his subject, his tempered and 
 enveloping use of the marvellous, the simplicity with which he 
 depicts customs, finally his patriotism — all are commended.^ It 
 is quite possible that he imitated some one, and the cantilenae 
 theory of his epics is considered likely. 
 
 Homer " n'a 6te th^ologien que pour ^tre po^te," nor is he to 
 be regarded as the father and master of all the sciences, a ridicu- 
 lous claim for any author.^ His continual greatness is shown 
 indirectly by the excellence of the Telemaque^^ and is also the 
 principal point that evolves from the Quarrel.^® 
 
 The error which Montesquieu attributes to the Greeks, of taking 
 relative qualities as absolute, is held to have " inundated all their 
 philosophy," to have been the Jleau and deception of Socrates, 
 Plato and Aristotle.'^ This Greek philosophy was " tr^s peu de 
 chose" and has "gat^ tout FUnivers." ^^ Aristotle's thought is 
 qualified as a profitless jargon, ^^ his obscurity is reprimanded,^* he is 
 unjustly accused of personal prejudice and jealousy in his Politics?^ 
 Plato is judged a little more leniently. He is one of the four 
 great poets,^^ his system is beautiful enough to be of our own day,^^ 
 
 » IV, 405. 
 
 ^ I, 425. So thinks his editor, though both may be of Homer. 
 3 VII, 159. ^P.&F.,u,S6. 
 
 ^F. & F. , II, 35-6. Granted, however, that the Homeric epithets grow weari- 
 some (Ibid., 55). 
 6 VII, 423 ; P. &F., ii, 35. "^P. & F, ii, 35-7. sp. & F, i, 223. , 
 
 9 VII, 158. i«i, 141-2 ; P. &F, ii, 29-30. " vii, 159-60. 
 
 i2p. <fe F, II, 489. '^P. & P., II, 492. i*P. & P., ii, 202. 
 
 ^5 V, 414. " VII, 171. "P. & P., II, 489. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 135 
 
 some of his opinions are quoted with approval/ But he says_ 
 " presque rien que des paroles " ^ and he too is accused of partial- 
 ity.^ Nor is his Republic more ideal than that of Sparta.* Both 
 authors must be read, however, for a just idea of the laws and 
 manners of ancient Greece.^ 
 
 The dramatists, he has remarked, are supreme in invention and 
 passion.^ Demosthenes impresses him as opposed to declama- 
 tion ^ and is the provoking cause of a heau mot — " d^s qu^il ne 
 foudroie pas, il est simple ; tel que le ciel, il est presque toujours 
 serein, et il ne tonne que par intervalles." ^ Plutarch is about 
 the only spirituel Greek. ^ " Plutarque me charme toujours : il a 
 des circonstances attach^es aux personnes qui font toujours plaisir." ^^ 
 That is to say, he has the art of arousing sympathy for his person- 
 ages, seen particularly in the Death of Caesar. 
 
 Montesquieu pleads the Latins as his special admiration." It 
 may accordingly be expected that he will have more to say, and 
 more of value to say, regarding his favorite authors. But the net 
 result is not so very large. 
 
 Yirgil, it has just been seen, is inferior to Homer in character- 
 drawing and invention — but is his equal for pure poetic beauty.^^ 
 He lacks the Homeric fire, and is finer in his first books, where he 
 imitates the Odyssey^ than in his last where he follows the Iliad}^ 
 So the last books give our author less pleasure, as being too long 
 drawn out and comparatively uninteresting.^* Yet, as compared 
 with such a one as Lucan, he stands forth as Raphael toward the 
 Venetian School — more natural, if less frappant}^ 
 
 Horace is barely mentioned as capable of awkwardness in 
 dialogue,^^ and great in satire. ^^ Juvenal is there his inferior. His 
 satire on women is the work of a pedant. 
 
 Ovid came nearer appealing to the President. There is the 
 
 Ubid., 489-91. 2p_ ^ ^^^ ji^ 202. 3 V, 414. 
 
 * VII, 161. 5 VII, 160. sQuotedsMp., p. 107. 
 
 'Cf. inf., p. 156. ^P. &F.,i, 216. »P. <& F., ii, 30. 
 
 i»P. & F., II, 38. » VII, 158-9, cf, mp., pp. 125, 130. 
 
 12 vn, 159. '^P. & F., II, 36. '*P. & F, ii, 39-40. 
 
 's VII, 136. i8P. & F, II, 40. "P. & P., II, 52. 
 
136 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 story of Charlemont ^ that the book Montesquieu was reading at 
 the time of his visit turned out to be the most gallant of that 
 poet's elegies. At Paphos, Ovid and Tibullus are ranked by the 
 Graces with Anacreon and Sappho.^ The Ars Amoris surely 
 " knows how to please." ^ Ovid and Bussy are " deux exiles qui 
 n'ont su soutenir leur mauvaise fortune.'' * The former is admir- 
 able in painting passions, too swift to be diffuse and hardly so 
 much addicted to esprit as has been claimed.* On one verse of 
 the poet's — 
 
 Et matroncUes erubitere genae. 
 
 our author spends pages of disquisition. ^ 
 
 Cicero is " un des plus grands esprits qui aient jamais 6t6 : 
 I'^me toujours belle lorsqu'elle n'6tait pas faible." ^ According to 
 Vian ^ and Labat, the orator is for the President " celui de tons 
 les anciens auquel il aurait aim6 le mieux h ressembler." The 
 Discours sur Ciceron^^ a product of Montes(juieu's youth, declares 
 the elevating effect of reading the Roman, accords fervid praise to 
 his personal merit, his eloquence, " toute grande, toute majestueuse, 
 toute h^roique," the hardiesse of his expressions and the vivacity 
 of his sentiments, his transports, his portraits, the profundity of 
 his philosophy, etc. 
 
 For the historians, there is none like the ornate, epigrammati- 
 cal, antithetical Florus, an admiration which on Montesquieu's 
 part is most significant. This writer is quoted approvingly for 
 his striking concision, his power of giving a whole thought by 
 suggestion in the fewest possible words ; ^° as also for his use of 
 antithesis in its larger sense, as a true contrast of ideas." His 
 habit is to astonish and impress the imagination. 
 
 Livy is " un pen d^clamateur, et ce qu'il y a d'admirable, il ne 
 Vest pas dans ses belles harangues." ^^ It is a pity to see him 
 
 ^ Hardy, Mem. of Charlemont, i, 62. 
 
 2 VII, 467. 3 VII, 478. *P. & F., n, 41. 
 
 ^Ibid., 44-6. For, if so, esprit would reign in his works as in those of Marini. 
 But Ovid " prenait le caractere qui ^tait propre a chaque sujet." 
 
 ^Ibid., 41-4. ^vii, 159. ^MeL in., pp. 3ff. 
 
 ^Hist.,p.U5. ^0 VII, 121-2. 
 
 ^^ VII, 138-9. For Montesquieu's endorsement of such doctrine, see inf., under 
 Style, p. 159 and under Application, p. 192. 
 
 ^^P. <& F.f n, 47. Cf. on Demosthenes, just above. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 137 
 
 "Jeter ses fleurs sur ces ^normes colosses de Pantiquit^." ^ The 
 subtle reflections of Tacitus are useless for politicians — ^because 
 the facts which inspired them would take all eternity to come 
 again. ^ But he too is praised for concision, as a writer " qui 
 abregeait tout, parce qu'il voyait tout." ^ And d'Alembert would 
 have it that Tacitus has helped Montesquieu much.^ 
 
 An unorthodox taste, thereby the rnore suggestive, is that for 
 the Periple of Hannon, whose authenticity is more than doubtful. 
 Our writer purposely repeats his praise — ^ 
 
 "C'est un beau morceau de 1' antiquity que la relation d' Hannon : le m^me 
 homme qui a execute a ^crit ; il ne met aucune ostentation dans ses r^cits. . . Les 
 choses sont comme le style. II ne donne point dans le merveilleux." 
 
 A stricter standard is shown in the condemnation of Quintus 
 Curtius, by the side of whom even Arrian shines forth — 
 
 "On ne salt guere quel est le rh^teur qui, sans savoir et sans Jugement, promene 
 Alexandre sur une terre qu'il ne connait pas, et qui le couvre de petites fleurs, et 
 qui a ^crit sans connaitre une seule des sources o^ il devait puiser." * 
 
 The ancients have not cited him at all, and although the purity 
 of his style (?) shows his antiquity, only an age of barbarism 
 could bring him from oblivion to the schools. 
 
 Seneca is mentioned humorously as a philosophic consolation,^ 
 his Thyestes is ridiculed for its lack of historical perspective.^ 
 Lucretius is lengthily quoted, but his arguments and some of his 
 philosophy are deemed of little value.^ Marcus Aurelius is 
 warmly lauded : 
 
 " Jamais philosophe n'a mieux fait sentir aux hommes, les douceurs de la vertu 
 et la dignity de leur etre que Marc Antonin : le coeur est touchy, I'^me agrandie, 
 resprit^lev^."^o 
 
 Of the Fathers, Montesquieu mentions only St. Augustine, 
 
 ^ II, 150. 2p ^ p^ jj^ 309 3y^ 413^ 
 
 *Eloge, p. xix. ^iv, 434; vii, 110. 
 
 8P. & R, II, 46. ^i, 134. ^YU, 144. 
 
 »At beginning of E. L., Ch. xxiii (v, 57). Also P. & F., ii, 195 ff., where 
 his plea for the destruction of the world *' proves too much." 
 ^° VII, 160. 
 
138 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 whose Oivitas Dei we know that he possessed in manuscript.^ 
 And this author he mentions only to condemn his continual use 
 of antithesis.^ 
 
 French literature naturally occupies the first place in our 
 writer's regard and attention. It has been seen that he considers 
 the course of French letters as running parallel with the growth 
 of the French monarchy.^ The "sombre lueur" under Charle- 
 magne did not reappear until Francis I. The apogee, he pretty 
 clearly indicates, was the age of Louis XIV. 
 
 There is no word upon the Old French or the Middle French 
 writers. He begins with the Renaissance and with Ronsard. 
 The latter author is losing his reputation, since the influence of 
 savants has yielded to that of women. ^ As for Rabelais, Monte- 
 squieu cannot enjoy him. His gaiety may be admirable, but his 
 naive badinage fatigues at length,* " Je ne Pai jamais pu gotiter." 
 Montaigne's gaiety is as good,^ and his excellence has a wider 
 range. These lines are applied to him — 
 
 ** His fancy and his judgment such : 
 Each to the other seems too much." ^ 
 
 Again : " Dans la plupart des auteurs, je vois Fhomme qui 4crit ; 
 dans Montaigne, Phomme qui pense." ^ And Sorel notes that not 
 only does the one Gascon love the other and rank him among the 
 four great poets ; ^ but " il s'en d^lecte, il s'en nourrit et, par 
 moments, il le ressuscite.'' ^^ 
 
 Among the romances, we have first philippics against the 
 Amadis and its tribe. As contrasted with Homer, their uniformity 
 is wearisome and disgusting, their combats long, their events heavy, 
 nothing is impassioned and nothing is inevitable." Scarron, con- 
 cerning whom he tells a pretty little story,^^ has created a truly 
 
 * Brunet, he. eit. 
 
 
 'P. «fe P., II, 48. 
 
 2 VII, 127. 
 
 
 8 VII, 162. 
 
 ^Swp., p. 84. 
 
 
 9 VII, 171. 
 
 *P. &F., II, 31. 
 
 Cf. sup., p. 88. 
 
 ^^Mmt., p. 11. 
 
 sp. <feP.,ii, 47. 
 
 
 "P. cfeP., II, 35-6, 
 
 «/6id. 
 
 
 "P. <feP., II, 263. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 139 
 
 ridiculous character in Ragotin/ and the Roman comique is admir- 
 able as Rabelais for gaiety.^ The Princesse de Cllves seems to 
 please him, in that he speaks familiarly of the characters and dis- 
 cusses their psychology.^ But his only sure admiration along this 
 line is for Manon Lescaut, to whose protagonists much may be 
 forgiven for the motif of love.* His editor here notes ^ that this 
 lately published judgment confirms SorePs *^ ingenious hypothesis ^' 
 that Manon should have appealed to the President, and Manon 
 alone among the fiction of his time.^ Fortage, in commending 
 Montesquieu^s opinion on the novel as " ce jugement ferme et stir 
 qu^il portait sur toute chose/' lays emphasis, one hardly sees from 
 what authority, on his general taste for romances.'^ Sorel again ^ 
 seems nearer the mark in affirming that " les romans que Ton public 
 en son temps, d^lay^s, sans observation, sans style, le d^tournent 
 de la litt^rature d'imagination ; '^ just as " la versification terne, 
 froide et machinale des contemporains le d^tourne de la po^sie,'' 
 
 Coming to the great dramatists, there is no lack of respect for 
 Corneille, he who surpassed the Cardinal in genius, he who forced 
 the Academy into fair criticism and acknowledgment of what was 
 due to him.^ Between him and Racine a choice is difficult. There 
 are ten or twelve tragedies of these two " qui ne permettent jamais 
 de decider : celle que Ton voit repr^senter est toujours la meil- 
 leure." ^^ Both are no longer liked, since the exercise of a great 
 mind has grown ridiculous." Both perhaps, if Racine is the other 
 author, inspired the SyJla et Eucrate — 
 
 " J'^tais jeune, et il fallait etre bien jeune pour ^tre excite k 4cnre par la 
 lecture du grand Corneille et par la lecture de cet auteur qui est souvent aussi 
 divin que lui." ^^ 
 
 Yet, for distinction, he tells the Queen of England that Corneille 
 was regarded as the greater mind and Racine as the greater 
 
 ip. & F., u, 21, cf. mp., p. 91. »P. & F., n, 47. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 103. *P. & F, II, 61. 
 
 ^P. <fe F, II, 541. '^Mont, p. 21. 
 
 'Ed. Hist. veriL, p. xii. ^Loc. cit, cf. sup., p. 110. 
 
 »P. & F, II, 50 ; cf. sup., p. 52. ^Ubid., p. 50. 
 
 "P. & F, II, 33. Cf. on Ronsard and mp., p. 128. 
 
 i2p. &F,i, 35. 
 
140 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 author.^ Or again, the lines of Corneille are pompous and those 
 of Racine are natural, though^ the former wrote easily and the 
 latter avec peine.^ 
 
 Racine, per se, has known the restraint of modern manners and 
 "n'a pas os6 montrer Astyanax." '* Jansenism, which "a fait un 
 furieux tort a la Muse de M. Despr^aux," has made the glory of 
 Racine in Esther and in Athalie ; for he drew from the movement, 
 not tlieological discussion, but a perception and use of the grandeur 
 and poetry of religion.^ Ph^dre, with its horror, crime, and filial 
 pain, yet moves and pleases. "Ce sont les accents de la nature 
 qui causent ce plaisir ; c'est la plus douce de toutes les voix." ^ 
 
 Moli^re, distinguished both for plaisanterie and gaiety,^ has had 
 the advantages of the precursor. He ^ has used up all the great 
 types.^ Hence it is all the more difficult for Destouches and 
 Marivaux to approach him. 
 
 The classical dictator is severely scored. ^'^ Not only has he 
 proved himself a pedant by his worthless satire on women," not 
 only has Jansenism, turning into dogmatism, spoiled his poetry, 
 but his coarse pride, his " mauvais naturel," his frequent repetition 
 of the same satirical traits are " afflicting.'' He has " un coeur 
 corrompu et un esprit qui ne sert pas assez bien le coeur." ^^ His 
 imitations of the ancients have caused it to be believed that he has 
 more e^rit than genius, but Montesquieu thinks from his sterility 
 that he has more genius than esp7'it This, however, is a mere 
 paradox which the President immediately qualifies by allowing 
 Boileau's creative genius : 
 
 »vii, 184. 
 
 ^ In making a contrast of the two statements ( "on ne divinerait pas" ), may one 
 not see a certain blindness to the deeper constituent art of poetry — the ars celare 
 artemf 
 
 3 VII, 140. 5J6id., p. 52. 
 
 *P. &F., Ti, 56. «v, 193-4. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 48. 
 
 ^ This is not stated specifically of Moli^re, but the application is evident for most 
 of the types. 
 
 8P. & P., II, 21. The list is given mp. p. 114. 
 
 i«P. & P., II, 52-3. 
 
 "Cf. sup., p. 118. "Cf. sup., p. 128. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 141 
 
 "SonLutrin est un po^me parfait : il se maintient perpetuellement centre la 
 bassesse et la sterilite de son sujet par la richesse de 1' invention. ^ II n'y a point 
 d'ouvrage qui ait ete plus difficile a faire que celui-la, et peut-^tre n'en avons-nous 
 pas de plus parfait. Nee erat quod toUere velles.'^ 
 
 The ancieats are not his models, and he walks by their side with 
 equal step.^ Among his immortal works are this Lutrin, the Art 
 poStique, " son epitre (sic) h M. de Yalincour.^' 
 
 Yoiture has plaisanterie and no gaiety ; ^ he is an " esprit fin ; ^' 
 with his finesse and affectation, he turned letter- writing from its 
 pedantic to a worldly tone/ With regard to La Rochefoucauld, 
 there is the fine saying that his Maximes " sont les proverbes des 
 gens d'esprit,'' ^ La Bruy^re is " un honnete homme qui fait des 
 Caractb-es.^^ He and the other portraitists should make pictures 
 and not likenesses, should paint men and not one man, to avoid 
 the imputation of ill intention.^ La Bruyere knew his century, 
 being, however, less of a philosophe than someJ Balzac is the 
 chosen example of pedantry in the epistolary style.^ As for Retz, 
 there is more life in his Memoirs than in Caesar's Commentaries.^ 
 Bossuet receives only this doubtful tribute — 
 
 *' Dans les Maximes des Saints, le vrai est si pres du faux que vous ne savez ou 
 vous en ^tes. Le role de M. de Meaux etait ais^ : il avait de grands coups a 
 f rapper." ^° 
 
 The TeUmaque of F^nelon is an " ouvrage divin , . . dans lequel 
 Homere semble respirer.'^ ^^ Saint-Evremond, like St. Augustine, 
 combats with words and has his spirit confined within the limits 
 of an antithesis. ^^ 
 
 For the philosophers, Montesquieu shows much admiration for 
 Descartes, even to the extent of borrowing his vocabulary. ^^ If 
 
 ^ The reconciliation will then be in attributing the sterility to the whole concep- 
 tion, the fecundity to its parts. 
 
 ^He best disproves his own argument against the moderns, cf. sup., p. 127. 
 
 3P. <fei^., II, 47. 5yii^ 162. 
 
 *P. & F., II, 49, cf. sup., p. 87. 6p_ ^ p^ 11^ 24-5, cf. sup., p. 87. 
 
 ''E. g., than Duclos to whom Montesquieu happens to be writing and whom he 
 naturally desires to compliment (vii, 367). 
 
 sp. & P., II. 49. "VII, 158 ; cf. sup., p. 49. 
 
 »P. & P., II, 51. "VII, 127 ; P. & P., II, 51. 
 
 i°P. & P., II, 53. ^^AuUmate, i, 463. 
 
142 Tlie Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 Descartes too can be accused of plagiarism, exclaims our author, 
 we must have come to a pretty pass.^ As early as the Bordeaux 
 Academy Discours,^ respect is demanded at large for those systems 
 in which principles were developed, in which "on d^couvrit ces 
 m^thodes si ftcondes et si g^n^rales." People still work only 
 after these great philosophers ; and present discoveries seem only a 
 homage to them.^ 
 
 Specifically, Descartes' system followed absolutely is improba- 
 ble.'* Yet Montesquieu, in distinguishing between the cartesiens 
 rigides and the cart^ens mitig^s who have abandoned their 
 master's rule, will himself cast his lot with the former."^ And he 
 thus rhetorically renders his tribute : 
 
 '*Ce grand system^ de Descartes, qu'on ne peut lire sans ^tonnement ; ce 
 systSme qui vaut tout ce que les auteurs profanes ont jamais dcrit ; ce syst^me qui 
 soulage^ si fort la Providence, qui la fait agir avec tant de simplicity et tant de 
 grandeur ; ce systeme immortel, qui sera admir*^ dans tons les ages et toutes les 
 revolutions de la philosophic, est un ouvrage k la perfection duquel tons ceux qui 
 raisonnent doivent s'int^resser avec une esp^ce de jalousie." 
 
 j Descartes is like a runner's coach, who may not go all the way 
 himself, but spurs on the other to arrive/ And, in the finest 
 phrase of all, a phrase which has been applied to Bacon : " Des- 
 cartes a enseign^ k ceux qui sont venus apr^s lui, k d^couvrir ses 
 erreurs m^mes." 
 
 Among his followers, much is made of Malebranche, who is 
 another of the four great poets,® who typifies the literary treatment 
 of dry subjects : ® 
 
 '* Si le Pere Malebranche avait ^t^ un ^crivain moins enchanteur, sa philosophic 
 serait rest^e dans le fond d'un college, comme dans une espece de moude 
 souterrain." ^° 
 
 He is often cited. His system is finished, and though it may 
 subsist only by its novelty where its extraordinariness would kill 
 it, yet "jamais visionnaire n'a eu plus de bon sens que le p6re 
 Malebranche." ^^ 
 
 ip. & F., II, 11. nn 1717. 5 VII, 8. * vii, 28. 
 
 ^ At least for the Observations sur VHistoire naturelle (vii, 47-8). 
 
 * Note already his fine compression in chosing words. 
 
 T. & F., II, 493. syn, 171. ^Cf. sup., p. 83. i" vir, 81. 
 
 »P. <fei?'., n, 493-4. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 143 
 
 There are Cartesians who have read only the Mondes of Foute- 
 nelle.^ " Get ouvrage est plus utile qu'un ouvrage plus fort, parce 
 que c'est le plus s^rieux que la plupart des gens soient en 6tat de 
 lire/' ^ Fontenelle has no gaiety.^ He carried on the epistolary 
 style of Voiture/ with more of knowledge, intelligence, philoso- 
 phy.^ For this personal character Montesquieu has the warmest 
 admiration. He is ^^ autant au-dessus des autres hommes par son 
 coeur qu'il est au-dessus des hommes de lettres par son esprit." ^ 
 Consequently concerning the Lettres galantes du chevalier d^Her . . ., 
 *^je suis enrag^ de voir un grand homme 6crire comme cela.'' 
 Our author writes him to ask help for a deserving man and assures 
 him, "je ne sache rien k vous dire de plus seduisant pour vous." 
 His loftiness of aim silences envy, a passion from which he himself 
 is remarkably free.^ In argument he is ingenious if not always 
 solid.^ Montesquieu and Mme. Tencin strive to dissuade him from 
 publishing his comedies, the former with the complimentary 
 flourish : " il faut que votre reputation soit bien grande, puisque 
 vous ne devez pas meme publier des ouvrages admirables.'' ^ 
 After the publication, however, the President writes more flatly to 
 Guasco that he had advised Fontenelle not to vider le sac and 
 " Pimpression de ses comMies n'a rien ajoute a sa r^putation.'^ '^^ 
 His Eloges, however, on the Czar and Newton are considered 
 worthy enough to be sent to Vienna, in order to give to Prince 
 Eugene and others a " bonne opinion de notre France." ^^ 
 
 Another Cartesian who is esteemed is the Cardinal de Polignac. 
 This person's Anti-Lucr^ce is called an " ouvrage admirable,'' ^^ an 
 
 1 VII, 82. 
 
 2 Though he continues by asserting that a work should not be judged from its 
 lightness of style, cf. inf., p. 154. 
 
 3P. <fe F., II, 49. ^P. & R, II, 49. 
 
 *Cf. sup., p. 141. ep. & F., II, 54. 
 
 ■^ '' M. de Fontenelle a tou jours eu cette quality bien excellente pour un homme 
 tel que lui : il loue les autres sans peine." 
 
 ^A propos of a discussion which the two had concerning th^ impurity of bodies, 
 P. <feP., II, 507. 11 VII, 221. 
 
 »P. &F,u, 54. 12 Foy., II, 47. 
 
 i°vn, 445. 
 
144 The Aesthetic Doctiine of Montesquieu. 
 
 " ouvrage immortel dans lequel Descartes triomphe une seconde 
 fois d' Epicure." ^ 
 
 Bayle has gained glory by the easiest road — that of destructive 
 criticism.^ He is vigorously attacked in the Esprit des Lois as hav- 
 ing insulted all religions and especially as having Jl6tri the Christian 
 faith.^ " II est ^tonnant que Ton puisse imputer h ce grand homme 
 d'avoir m§connu Pesprit de sa propre religion." Which imputation, 
 however, is quite successfully made.^ 
 
 En plein dix-huUihne, the first place must be accorded to Vol- 
 taire, between whom and Montesquieu little love was lost. If the 
 Patriarch allows that our author has restored its titles to the 
 human race ^ and calls his work the " Code de la raison et de la 
 liberty," ® on the other hand he endorses Mme. du Deffand's 
 famous mot on the Esprit des Lois — "c'est de Pesprit sur les 
 lois " ^ — and endeavors in numerous instances to detract from its 
 writer's fame.^ 
 
 The President has given good exchange for such compliments. 
 " Voltaire a trop d'esprit pour m' entendre." ^ It is of him that 
 Montesquieu declares, "le bon esprit vaut mieux que le bel 
 esprit." ^^ 
 
 Several pages, in the PensSes et Fragments are devoted to a 
 lively excoriation of the Patriarch." The more the Ligue ^^ seems 
 to be the Aeneld, the less it really is the Aeneid. Montesquieu 
 even goes into a detailed criticism of a certain couplet in this poem 
 
 ip. & K, II, 61. 
 
 2P. & F., II, 483, cf. mp., p. 121. 
 
 ^ V, 125-6. This passage has been used in support of Montesquieu's own faith. 
 It seems rather an atonement, or a sop to Cerberus. 
 
 * There are two readings here, of which that given above only seems the milder. 
 
 ^IHal. d'A, B, C, VI, 675. ^Comm. sur VE. L., v. 444. 
 
 ''Diet. phiL, II, 40. 
 
 *'Cf. Sakmann passim and inf., pp. 181-2. 
 
 ^vii, 397 — " Tous les livres qu'il lit, il les fait; apr^ quoi il approuve ou 
 critique ce qu'il a fait." Cf. M's denunciation of such manner of criticising, 
 sup., pp. 52-3. 
 
 1° VII, 419— And this esprit is a '' vice de plus "—P. & F., ii, 60. 
 
 "P. &F., II, 58-60. 
 
 *^That is, the Henriade. Cf. sup., p. 107 on epics, where it is probably the 
 Henriade that is ruled out — as Meyer thinks, ed. L. P., p. 123. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 145 
 
 and suggests how he would have written it. The Charles XII ^ 
 has one fine passage, but " Pauteur manque quelquefois de sens." 
 Again : 
 
 " Voltaire n'est pas beau ; il n'est que joli. II serait honteux pour 1' Academic 
 que Voltaire en f(it ; il lui sera quelque jour honteux qu'il n'en ait pas ^te." 
 
 But as far as his present vogue goes, the voMromanie is " trop fort 
 pour faire son effet.^^ Voltaire believes in attraction, as one 
 believes in miracles, because it is an extraordinary thing, and he 
 is anxious to show his readers prodigies, in order to '^ vendre son 
 orvi^tan." As a whole, his works are like those ill-proportioned 
 faces which shine with youth. He will never write a good history, 
 because he writes for his convent. In his tragedies, he walks in 
 gardens, where Crebillon marches on the mountains. It is doubt- 
 ful which have best done him justice, those who have given him a 
 hundred thousand praises, or those who have given him a hundred 
 blows with a stick. As a general, he takes goujats under his 
 protection. His imagination requires assistance.^ " Gardez-vous 
 de mourir le martyr de vos anecdotes, ni le confesseur de vos 
 poesies." Here is the bitterest word of all, quoted by Vian ^ 
 from the Bernadau ms. and worthily suppressed : 
 
 " C'est I'homme du monde qui dit le plus de mensonges dans le moins de temps 
 
 Finally, Montglave * has excellently summarized the reciprocal 
 attitude of these two great luminaries : 
 
 "lis s'accusaient tous deux d' avoir trop d' esprit et d'en abuser, et tons deux 
 avaient raison." 
 
 From their relations, Montesquieu would hardly be disposed to 
 feel very much more kindly toward Buffon, with whom, however, 
 he came more rarely aux prises. He speaks coldly of the Histoire 
 naturelle as unfavorably received by the scholars, whose prepon- 
 derating voice " emportera, a ce que je crois, la balance pour bien 
 du temps." ^ It is true that the work contains some beautiful 
 
 * Which is " toujours dans le prodige, ^tonne et n'est pas grand." vii, 162. 
 
 2 Cited sup., p. 81. ^HisL, p. 202. 
 
 ^Notice in Dauthereau, ed. L. P., i, xxviii, ^ yii, 329, 
 
146 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 things and, by common consent, makes very useful reading. In 
 an Academy eloge, which he thought to deliver on Buffon, our 
 author becomes, as in duty bound, more complimentary : 
 
 *'Ces grandes conceptions, dans cette mani^re hardie, noble et fiere, qui 
 ressemble si bien a celle de Michel-Ange." * 
 
 La Motte receives favorable comment, particularly for his 
 tragedy of In^ de Castro, which touched the critic himself, and is 
 the example chosen to illustrate the power of true feeling unworth- 
 ily ridiculed.^ " J^ai bien vu qu'elle n'a r^ussi qu'a force d'etre 
 belle, et qu'elle a plu aux spectateurs malgr6 eux." La Motte 
 has many critics but none who could write the least of his works.^ 
 It may be that his fame as a prosateur has harmed the reputation 
 of his verses. In the Quarrel,'* he played rather an undignified 
 part, being dragged into details by Mme. Dacier, evincing neither 
 a large grasp, nor the necessary sentiment, nor knowledge of 
 antiquity.^ In general he should be considered : 
 
 * ' un enchanteur qui nous a s^uit par la force des charmes. Mais il faut se 
 d^fier de I'art qu'il emploie. II a port^ dans la dispute ce g^nie divin, ces talents 
 heureux, si connus dans ce siecle-ci, mais que la post^rit^ connaltra mieux encore." * 
 
 In the drama, much admiration is displayed for Cr^billon, he who 
 *' marches on the mountains." ^ 
 
 "Nous n'avons point d'auteur tragique qui donne a I'ame de plus grands 
 mouvements que Cr^billon ; qui nous arrache plus a nous-m^mes ; qui nous 
 remplisse plus de la vapeur du Dieu qui I'agite." * 
 
 He puts his auditors in a transport as of Bacchantes, and prevents 
 them from judging, because he disturbs the reflective soul. To 
 this tribute is added, in another version,^ that he is the true 
 tragedian of the time, the only one who can excite the true passion 
 of tragedy ; la terreur. Montesquieu professes his sincere admira- 
 tion and respect for Catalina, the reading of which delighted him 
 
 ip. &F.,i, 267. ^P. & F., II, 56, cf. sup., p. 83. 
 
 3P. &F., n, 57; cf. sup., p. 121. * Cf. sup., p. 127. 
 
 sp. & F, II, 30. ^P. & F, I, 224. 
 
 ^Cf. sup., p, 37, ^P. & F, II, 57-8. 
 
 ''vn, 161, 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 147 
 
 so much that he found no fault up to the fifth act.^ He submits 
 his opinion with deference, as being no connaisseur on the theatre ; ^ 
 but different hearts are made for different styles of drama, and 
 *^ le mien en particulier est fait pour celui de Cr^billon, et comme 
 dans ma jeunesse je devins fol de Rhadamiste, j'irai aux petites- 
 maisons pour CatalinaJ^ The character of this hero seems to him 
 the finest on the stage — still on the principle of de gustihus} 
 
 Of other plays, the Esope d la Cour of Boursault inspired our 
 author, he says, to be better * — a moral effect which he would also 
 plead for La Motte's Ines.^ The Mb^e confidente of Marivaux is 
 likewise recommendable for its " admirables moeurs." ^ 
 
 Boulainvilliers ^ and Dubos,^ in so far as their historical ideas 
 conflicted with those of the Esprit des Lois, are brought to task in 
 passages of some length. The first has missed the capital point 
 in his system, has written without art and with simplicity.^ He 
 had "plus d'esprit que de lumieres, plus de lumi^res que de 
 savoir." Yet his knowledge is not to be despised. The second ^^ 
 has written a seductive and artful work, a colossus whose feet are 
 of clay. There is a lengthy attempt to bring his system to the 
 ground. In that he supposes almost an absolute monarchy in 
 ancient France, " cet homme ne voyait jamais dans cette histoire 
 qu^me pension.'^ ^^ However : 
 
 ''Le public ne doit pas oublier qu'il est redevable ^ M. I'abb^ Dubos de 
 plusieurs compositions excellentes. C'est sur ces beaux ouvrages qu'il doit le 
 juger, et non pas sur celui-ci." ^^ 
 
 The allusion here is probably to the Reflexions sur la poisie et la 
 peinture, by which Dubos is more generally known. But concern- 
 ing this work, whose interest for his aesthetic theory would be 
 decidedly more prominent, the President has nothing specifically 
 to say. 
 
 * VII, 314. 2 cf. sup., p. 113. 
 
 'Follows the passage on the impressionist's prerogative, cf. sup., p. 53. 
 
 *P. &F., I, 21. ^P. &F., II, 56. 
 
 «P. & R, II, 61, cf. sup., p. 114. 
 
 ''Memoires historiques sur Vancien gouvernement de France. 
 
 ^Etahlissement de la monarchie fran^ise. 
 
 » V, 432. 10 V, 483-498. "P. & P., ii, 56, ^' v, 498. 
 
148 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 Of all the coutemporary versifiers, Montesquieu criticises only 
 J.-B. Rousseau.^ He has " feu et fiel." ^ His epithets express 
 much aud ev^en too much. 
 
 " LMllustre abb6 de St. Pierre/' who is always proposing 
 projects for the good of humanity,^ is yet reprimanded for his 
 scheme to make the nobles engage in commerce.'* But he deserv^es 
 to be called "excellent'' and the President would become his 
 follower.* This is one proof of our author's capacity for judging 
 moral merit and high service — the man as distinct from the 
 work. Another such piece of evidence is found in his estimate 
 of Rollin : 
 
 " Un honn^te homme a, par ses ouvrages d'histoire, enchant^ le public. Cest 
 que le coeur y parle au coeur ; c'est I'ami des hommes qui parle aux hommes. 
 On sent une secrete satisfaction d' entendre parler la Vertu. ... C'est I'abeilie de 
 la France."* 
 
 This Ste-Beuve thinks a correct statement and a "louange 
 memorable " ; '^ a " parole d'or et qui montre combien la vraie 
 superiority est indulgente." ^ Upon which it may be remarked 
 that it is harder to be indulgent to equals, and that test Montes- 
 quieu has not always stood.^ 
 
 There remains the Encyclopedia, The promoters of this enter- 
 prise made persistent efforts,^'' during his lifetime and after, to 
 include our author among their adherents ; but he could never be 
 reckoned as hand and glove with their C^nade, He indeed 
 contributed for them the Gout, He writes d'Alembert that the 
 great work is " un beau palais o^ je serais bien curieux de mettre 
 les pieds," respectfully declining, at the same time, to contribute 
 articles on Democracy and Despotism." He compliments that 
 
 ^ Though he urged Piron's suit for a pension with the Pompadour : "Madame. 
 Piron est assez puni pour les mauvais vers qu'on dit qu'il a faits ; d'un autre c6t^, 
 il en a fait de tres bons. II est aveugle, infirme, pauvre, mari^, vieux," etc. 
 (VII, 408). 
 
 2P. & F., II, 54-5. sp. & R, II, 55. *iv, 390. 
 
 ^i, 102. 8P. & F., II, 61. 'a de L., iv, 467. 
 
 ^Ibid., VI, 271. «Cf. sup., p. 124 and p. 144. 
 
 ^'^E. g., d'Alembert, Eloge, p. xxxiii. 
 
 'Wii, 421 — On the plea that "I'esprit que j'ai est un moule," etc. — quoted 
 sup., p. 15. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 149 
 
 writer on his Discours pr^liminaire : " c'est une chose forte, c'est 
 une chose charmante, c'est une chose precise, plus de pensfe que 
 de mots, du sentiment comme des pens^es et je ne finirais point." 
 Concerning Diderot nothing is said/ 
 
 Passing to Italian literature, Montesquieu modifies his former 
 statement^ as to the fixity of the language and the standard 
 usage of good authors, by declaring that there is no one book 
 which can serve as model : ^ 
 
 "Chacun ecrit a sa manidre . . . pourvu que I'on mette les paroles italiennes, 
 les tours sont indiff^rents." 
 
 He hardly mentions the great trio of the trecento, merely allud- 
 ing to proportionate penalties which suggest the Inferno^ Ariosto, 
 the incomparable,'^ seems his chief admiration. This poet is twice 
 compared with Ovid, for rapidity of movement,^ and in that he 
 collected and unified the chevalier tales, as Ovid did with fables.'' 
 The remarks on Macchiavelli are interesting from the fact that the 
 Italian publicist has been considered a precursor of the French. 
 Macchiavelli was prejudiced and " full of his idol.'' ^ Montesquieu, 
 though he has no objection to adopting a maxim from this " grand 
 homme,'' ^ calls him severely to task where he fails to distinguish 
 between the nature and kinds of governments : 
 
 " C'est le d^lire de Machiavel d' avoir donne aux Princes pour le maintien de 
 leur grandeur des principes qui ne sont n^cessaires que dans le gouvernement 
 despotique, et qui sont inutiles, dangereux et m6me impraticables dans le 
 monarchique. Cela vient de ce qu'il n'en a pas bien connu la nature et les 
 distinctions : ce qui n'est pas digne de son grand esprit," ^® 
 
 The Italian drama receives but slight regard. They do well to 
 have only Polichinelles and Arlequins, since "ils ne peuvent pas 
 avoir mieux.'' " < 
 
 ^ Maupertuis is mentioned for his Essai de Philosophie morale : "c'est I'ouvrage 
 d'un homme d' esprit, et on y trouve du raisonnement et des graces." ( vii, 329. ) 
 
 'Cf. sup., p. 130. Woy., I, 94-5. -^ vii, 171, 479. 
 
 5 VII, 163, cf. mp., p. 131. «P. & R, ii, 45. T. & F., ii, 47. 
 
 "^Considered to be the Duke of Valentinois — v, 414. ^ iii, 231. 
 
 i^Barckhausen, Mont, V E. L., p. 29. This passage, from E. L., Bk., iii, 9, 
 was suppressed in the current text. 
 
 "P. & F.y II, 5. 
 
160 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 Spanish literature receives only one reference ; but that is capital 
 and famous. He says of Don Quixote : 
 
 ** Le seul de leurs livres qui soit bon est celui qui a fait voir le ridicule de tous 
 les autres." ^ 
 
 This is quite in accord with the eighteenth century contempt 
 for chivalry and medisevalism. 
 
 For Portuguese, he praises Camoens, whose poem on the 
 discovery of India " fait sentir quelque chose des charmes de 
 FOdyss^e et de la magnificence de PEn^ide." ^ 
 
 There is much more concerning English authors, to whom 
 Collins^ holds that our author owes a great deal, rather as 
 "indirect indebtedness." This critic's opinion as to Montesquieu's 
 familiarity with the language and his degree of acquaintance with 
 English men of letters ^ is substantiated by Vian,^ who, however, 
 claims that he knew Pope and Swift. This last point may prove 
 significant.^ 
 
 The celebrated discussion of the English character in the 
 Esprit des Lois"^ is terminated by some serried remarks on their 
 literature : 
 
 ' Le caractere de la nation paraitrait surtout dans leurs ouvrages d'esprit, dans 
 quels on verrait des gens recueillis, et qui auraient pens^ tout seuls." * 
 
 Their satires would be sanglants^ more in the style of Juvenal 
 than of Horace. Their historians would not be dominated by 
 fear, but would be prejudiced by faction. Their poets would 
 have rather " cette rudesse originale de Pinvention, qu'une certaine 
 d^licatesse que donne le gofit " ® — rather the force of Michelangelo 
 than the grace of Raphael. 
 
 Their originality, so strongly insisted upon, approaches, for the 
 President, to singularity, when they will not imitate even the 
 ancients whom they admire,^*^ and from whom they are so far 
 
 ii, 262. ^YV, 461. niont in England, p. 363. 
 
 *Cf. mp., p. 130. ^HisL, pp. 124-5. ^Cf. inf., p. 189. 
 
 'iv, 343-56 ; cf. also the Notes mr V Angleterre {yii, 183-196). 
 8 IV, 356. 
 
 'Cf. sup., p. 45 — Indeed, their writings as a whole would show "plus d'esprit, 
 que de gout" (iv, 354). 
 10 VII, 169; cf. mp., p. 50. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 151 
 
 removed/ They are credited with great imaginative force.^ It 
 is remarkable that their barbarous language can contain such 
 pretty things.^ 
 
 There is found the same debate between the spirit's free 
 admiration of striking genius and the hesitation of the raffin^^ 
 in the criticism of individuals ; of Shakespeare, for instance, 
 who receives what is probably the fairest French classic eulogium : 
 
 **Quand vous voyez un tel homme s'dlever comme un aigle; c'est lui. Quand 
 vous le voyez ramper c'est son siecle." * 
 
 The friend of Chesterfield would also thus explain Shakespeare's 
 habit of giving "foolish'' speeches to women :^ to make women 
 talk well, knowledge of the world and of the biens^ances is 
 needed ; while book-learning will suffice to provide harangues for 
 heroes.^ 
 
 Milton is probably alluded to as participating in the " rudesse 
 originale de I'invention." '^ His religion must be considered. a 
 fiction to make his epic take.^ 
 
 Addison and his Spectator ^ with which Collins^ would have 
 Montesquieu familiar, is pretty clearly imitated in passages of 
 the Lettres persanes}^ There are also other allusions. ^^ Pope, 
 whose system our author is accused of following,^^ has the honor 
 of being the only participant in the Quarrel who felt the grandeur 
 of Homer. ^^ The dramatists, concerning whom the writer proba- 
 bly knew very little, are categorically disposed of: 
 
 "leurs pieces ressemblent bien moins a des productions r^gulieres de la nature, 
 qu'a ces jeux dans lesquels elle a suivi des hasards heureux." ^* 
 
 ip. iScF., 11,31. 
 
 2 Especially for inventions [P, & F., ii, 182). 
 
 3P. & F, II, 31. ^P, & F. , II, 48. 
 
 ^ The heroines are directly called sottes. 
 
 6vii, 184, sw/>., p. 114. ^ IV, 356. 
 
 ^P. & F., II, 19. He is again referred to, iv, 207 ; and is likened to Giulio 
 Romano, vii, 163. 
 ^Loc. eit. 10 Cf. inf., p. 189. " V, 378 ; vii, 347. 
 
 12 VI, 117, 143-4, 154. Cf. P. & F, ii, 484. M. seems to endorse the 
 "Whatever is is right," if not the natural religion doctrine. 
 
 13 VII, 158 : P. & P., II, 29-30. i*vii, 169. 
 
152 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 It seems indeed that the bulk of the President's knowledge 
 and appreciation was rather for the more solid writers of English, 
 than for that nation's stock of belles-lettres, pure and simple. 
 Collins^ is right in affirming that "to our poets, he seldom 
 refers," whether or not he is equally safe in stating that " we had 
 nothing to teach him in style and in the art of composition." ^ 
 
 Among the "heavy" authors whom Collins signalizes as of 
 special value to Montesquieu are Hobbes, Sidney, Harrington, 
 Burnet and Echard, Stowe's Survey of London, Mandeville's Fable 
 of the Bees, and travellers in large number, to nearly all of whom, 
 in fact, there are references or allusions.^ With Locke he was 
 " intimately acquainted," '* a statement which, without going into 
 details, any student of the sources of the Loh will fully substan- 
 tiate.^ Locke is directly mentioned in connection with his fondness 
 for flattery,^ is quoted with deference and called the great instructor 
 of mankind.^ More, " qui parlait plutot de ce qu'il avait lu que 
 de ce qu'il avait pens6," and Harrington, in his Oceana, did not 
 satisfactorily dispose of the personal equation.^ 
 
 He rather distrusts Bolingbroke. "Je ne me souciais pas 
 d'apprendre la morale sous lui." ® This philosopher writes with 
 warmth but is too iconoclastic.^^ Warburton, who treated Boling- 
 broke severely, whose review of the latter's philosophy is allowed 
 to contain some fine things, along with others more "imaginaires," ^^ 
 is addressed and complimented directly for his " magnifiques 
 ouvrages " and his defense of the natural religion.^^ Similar fine 
 speeches are made to Hume, who had the kindness to send a criti- 
 cism of the Lois and his Inquiry Concerning the Human Under- 
 
 ^Loc. di. ^Cf. inf., p. 189. 
 
 ^ Other such names, who are held to have produced "livres bien Writs'' are 
 Bangor, Tillotson, Praats (sic)— P. & F., ii, 33. 
 
 * Collins, Ibid. 
 
 ^ Especially for the separation of powers. See Oncken, Fuzier-Herman, Koch, 
 Pietsch. 
 
 «ii, 101. 'i, 31 ; II, 298. »\, 414 ; cf. mp., p. 53. 
 
 »P. &F., II, 165-6. ^»vii, 432. 
 
 "P. & F., II, 63. 12 yjj^ 43i_3^ 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 153 
 
 standing — "qui ne peut partir que d'un esprit extrdmement 
 philosophique." ^ 
 
 As for Shaftesbury, he is the fourth of the great poets.^ 
 
 8. 
 Technique — Style. 
 
 The root of the matter is approached by the President in what 
 may seem an undecided and even a timorous way. He is not 
 sure about all the things that ought to count ; but he is quite 
 certain about some things that ought to count, and is equally 
 positive that some other things should never count. 
 
 Is the expression in itself the main thing ? Or, more mildly, 
 has the matter of style a considerable importance ? It is in beating 
 about these questions that our author shows wavering. 
 
 A significant passage in which he lays down broadly the princi- 
 ples that he will adopt, is the following : 
 
 ' ' Un homme d' esprit est, dans ses ouvrages, cr^ateur de dictions, de tours et de 
 conceptions ; il habille sa pens^e a sa mode, la forme, la cr^e par des fafons de 
 parler eloignees du vulgaire, mais qui ne paraissent pas dtre mises pour s'en 
 Eloigner. Un homme qui ^crit bien n'^crit pas commeon a ^crit, mais comme il 
 ^crit."3 
 
 This then is the secret — individuality without exaggeration or 
 affectation, a subtle skill that is not too evident,"^ distinction and 
 superiority without unpleasing presumption. 
 
 On the other hand, Montesquieu pleads for simplicity ; ^ and 
 there it is easy to overreach oneself. He approves the book of 
 Boulainvillers as written "sans aucun art"^ and in connection 
 with laws, which should be written with simple reason rather than 
 
 ^ vir, 321, 327. It must be said, though, that Hume is mildly rebuked when he 
 attacks the church, and that Montesquieu writes with equal warmth, of his 
 character at least, to a third party ( vii, 435). 
 
 2 VII, 171. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 7 ; cf. swp., p. 54. ^Cf. the ars celareariem, sup., p. 42. 
 
 ^vii. 140.— "Une des choses qui nous plait le plus, c'est le naif ; mais c' est 
 aussi le style le plus dificile §- attraper"— because it is just between the noble and 
 the bas ; cf . sup. , p. 43. 
 
 « V, 432. 
 
154 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 with artful logic or rhetoric, he observes for general application 
 that, " Pexpression directe s'entend toujours mieux que Fexpression 
 r^flechie." ^ This perhaps may be meant only for purposes of 
 clearness ; for elsewhere he allows that a style may be studied, 
 that we learn how to write in the silence of the workshop.^ 
 
 As to the importance of form, it is true that he seems to slight 
 it, in showing easy indulgence to the critics who would change his 
 expressions,^ as in asking a correspondent to judge " m^me sur 
 les fautes de style." ^ The worth of a work cannot be judged by 
 its style ; because " souvent on a dit gravement des choses pu- 
 4riles ; souvent on a dit en badinant des v^rites tr^s s^rieuses." ^ 
 
 Yet he has recognized how much the sciences, for example, 
 gain by being treated " d'une mani^re ing^nieuse et delicate." ^ 
 Those very laws which require simplicity do not thereby eliminate 
 style — they even require other of its qualities, such as concision 
 and majesty.^ 
 
 What is really troubling the President is that he falls into the 
 very common confusion between style and ornament, instead of 
 regarding the one as the texture and the other as the finish. As 
 just seen, he has not insisted upon the interweaving of matter and 
 manner ; he is apt to regard the warp and woof of discourse as a 
 question of mere rhetoric, which may be laid on or not, from the 
 outside — according to one's fancy. From the outside, too, this is 
 naturally the thing most readily discerned and appropriated. And 
 since he is strong in his condemnation of unsupported rhetoric, he 
 is naturally not sure about style, tending to view it as a facile and 
 suspicious sort of technique. That is why he can insist, as has 
 been seen, that the subject is the all important thiug,^ and why he 
 felicitates himself, in the Temple de G'nide,^ that his description is 
 
 1 V, 403, 405. ^P. & R, II, 10, cf. sup., p. 125. 
 
 =* VII, 273. But cf. mp. , pp. 121-4. 
 
 ^vn, 273. 5 VII, 82. ^yji^ 81, 
 
 ■^v, 403, 405. But they are too often, especially the mediaeval monuments, 
 " pu^riles, gauches, idiotes ; elles n'atteignent point le but ; pleines de rh^torique, 
 et vides de sens, frivoles dans le fond, et gigantesques dans le style." — (v, 258) 
 Or else, ''froids, sees, insipides et durs" (v, 437). 
 
 «Cf. mp., p. 87. »n, 9. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 155 
 
 "non pas im ornement du sujet, mais une partie du sujet meme" 
 and that " les ornements de son po^me en sont aussi des parties 
 necessaires/^ ^ That is why he is able to penetrate the connection 
 between simplicity and majesty.^ That is why, too, he is in doubt 
 as to whether or not he likes a lofty style. A work of philosophy 
 would be a " bel ouvrage," almost equal to the Koran,^ if it were 
 adorned with high and sublime words, mingled with bold figures 
 and mysterious allegories. — 
 
 "Cependant, s'il te faut dire ce que je pense, je ne m'accommode guere du 
 style figur^. II y a, dans notre Alcoran, un grand nombre de petites choses, qui 
 me paraissent toujours telles, quoiqu'elles soient relev^es par la force et la vie de 
 1' expression." * 
 
 The " figured style " is clearly out of place " dans une narration 
 qui doit 6tre aisee.'' ^ 
 
 Montesquieu's detailed remarks on style will naturally deal 
 from his conception of the subject rather with its superficial and 
 rhetorical aspects, than with its more intrinsic and impalpable 
 elements. He has much to say about ornament, declamation, 
 antithesis and the like, and less to say about qualities or kinds. 
 
 Continuing his remonstrances against ornament, he objects 
 with equal strength to the " fleurs '^ which Livy threw upon the 
 " colosses d'antiquit^," ^ as well as to those with which Quintus 
 Curtius covered Alexander.^ He dislikes, in Voltaire, the pre- 
 tentious and the recherchL^ Modern preciousness is not always 
 true delicacy ; ^ a saillie is hardly to blame because it wounds the 
 
 ^ Here, by a curious twist, he would seem himself to advocate the idea that style, 
 considered architecturally, is a question less of decoration than of intrinsic 
 construction, and that the former must spring from the latter. This is of course 
 broadly true. But the danger is that, by a bold leap, skipping style, he has made 
 the rapprochement between the matter and the ornament. Which hardly clarifies 
 the problem. A reference to his initial paragraph, to his own ideas of individu- 
 ality, distinction and artistic creation, may show what just here he has missed. 
 
 ^v, 403. 3Cf. swp., p. 133. . *i, 312. 
 
 ^Mel in., p. 48. «n, 150. 
 
 'P. & F., II, 46-7. The first author is looked upon askance as a dedamateur, the 
 second as a rheteur. 
 
 8P. & F., II, 58. 
 
 * VII, 346. A propos of translating the Bible, where these delieatesses are out of 
 place. 
 
166 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 direct vision of a geometer ; ^ but it shines to advantage only in 
 its proper setting : 
 
 ''Les traits saillants ne doivent 6tre que sur les tissus d'or: ils sont pu^rils 
 quand le sujet est pu^ril." ' 
 
 Most decided are his deliverances against rhetoric and bombast. 
 " Le style enfl6 et emphatique est si bien le plus ais6," etc.^ Just 
 this sort of style makes the " ouvrage d'ostentation ; " * and osten- 
 tation characterizes rhetoric and oratory,^ while it should be 
 absent from a narrative of plain action.® 
 
 The King Cambyses' vein is not difficult to acquire : 
 
 "Le talent de la declamation est le plus commun de tous ; les jeunes gens qui 
 veulent ^crire commencent tou jours par la." ' 
 
 Oriental "expressions sublimes" may "bore" (sic) even to the 
 clouds.^ Elaborate figures and exclamations are derided in 
 the Academy.^ Such things are not the true language of the 
 Graces. " Ces froides exagerations," far from honoring a mistress, 
 rather dishonor "le fade passion^ qui les met sans cesse en 
 usage." ^" Worst of all, rhetoric and poetry may show the use 
 of ignoble arts, such as flattery. ^^ 
 
 The qualities ^^ of style upon which Montesquieu lays stress 
 are not exactly those which the rhetorics usually recommend. 
 Elegance or beauty is not distinctively mentioned. Force finds its 
 recipe in imaginative vividness ; ^^ excessive strength is perhaps 
 criticized in the " style bardie " of the Greeks.^'* Clearness is not 
 expressly commanded, unless simplicity and the "expression 
 directe " imply this. Facility of perception, however, and econ- 
 omy of attention are general requisites for the soul.^^ 
 
 ii, 397. ^P. &F., II, 13. 
 
 ^ VII, 176 — quoted sup., p. 43. Emphase leaves even Venus cold (vn, 469). 
 *v, 403. 5yii^ 171, 6 IV, 434. ^p, & F., i, 216. ^i, 52. 
 
 «i, 247— quoted swp., p. 101. ^° vii, 464-5. ^^ v, 488. 
 
 ^■^ Hardly to be distinguished from the qualities of Literature, cf . sup. , p. i 
 and again under Art, sup., p. 35. 
 " '* Donner des images bien sensibles fait la force," P. & F., ii, 31. 
 i*P. & F, II, 30. But tragedy "a besoin de force," P. & F, ii, 6. 
 ^5 VII, 124^5. Cf. sup, p. 43. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 157 
 
 More specifically, he would have one learn '^ a ^crire avec ordre, 
 h raisonner juste et a bien former ses raisonuements/' ^ In this 
 connection, he insists once more upon suite.^ Monotony is weari- 
 some : " le m6me ordre des p^riodes, longtemps continue, accable 
 dans une harangue," ^ and variety itself has a vicious tendency to 
 become uniformity, as illustrated in the antithetical style — " le tour 
 de phrase, toujours le meme et toujours uniforme, deplalt extreme- 
 ment.'' * 
 
 Concision is a quality which he lauds in Suetonius,^ in d'Alem- 
 bert,^ and in the law of the Twelve Tables/ " Lorsque la chose 
 dit tout, il ne faut point de nouvelles paroles."^ He seems to 
 prefer the vers serres of the Latin. ^ Brevity or length, however, 
 really depends upon the nature of the subject to be treated. " II 
 est vrai qu^il y a des occasions oil la beauts de la pens^e consiste 
 dans la brievet^." ^^ For example, in epigrams, and in close 
 reasoning. But in descriptions or in the expression of passions, 
 wordiness is in a way required." In the former case : 
 
 "On ne saurait trop ^carter le superflu : toute parole, toute idee inutile est 
 pernicieuse, parce que 1' esprit, la croyanUimportante, se fatigue ou se d^gotite." 
 
 Word-painting, on the other hand, or psychological analysis would 
 naturally be parleur, to express adequately the number of things 
 seen by the eye or felt by the heart — as well as to impress the fact 
 that the spirit " a vu une infinite de choses qu'ils n^avaient pas su 
 distinguer." ^^ He posits here one colleague of concision, which is 
 suggestiveness ; and he indicates one enemy, which is clearness. 
 All of these qualities are accounted for, and a golden mean sug- 
 gested, in the following passage : 
 
 "Pour bien ecrire, il faut sauter les idees interm^diaires, assez pour n'^tre pas 
 ennuyeux ; pas trop, de peur de n'^tre pas entendu. Ce sont ces suppressions 
 heureuses qui ont fait dire a M. Nicole que tons les bons livres dtaient doubles." ^^ 
 
 p. 86. 3 yjj^ 123. 
 
 129. fi VII, 421. 
 
 le style en doit ^tre concis." 
 
 6. i«/6tQ5., p. 42. 
 
 "76td., p. 45 ; cf. sup., p. 86. 
 
 ^^ On which he comments " Kendre plus clair." In fact, it would seem that the 
 principle of nebulous suggestion, touched on in the quotation, finds root more 
 readily in concision than in its opposite. Cf. next page. 
 i»P, tfei?:, II, 14. 
 
 ip. &F., 
 
 II, 10. ^Ci. sn 
 
 * VII, 127, 
 
 , cf. sup., p. 38. 5 VII, ] 
 
 'v, 403. 
 
 For laws generally, '*le si 
 
 8P. &F., 
 
 , II, 13. ,Ubid., 
 
158 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 This is somewhat his idea of mystery/ He applies connotation 
 to words, declaring that a large word implies a large thought.^ 
 Thereanent, he mentions onomatopeia, as in trinquer. 
 
 In regard to harmony, though the Academy is perhaps too 
 insistent upon this point,^ Montesquieu considers it of importance, 
 and believes that he himself has mastered its secret : 
 
 " Bien des gens en France, surtout M. de la Motte, soutiennent qu'il n'y a pas 
 d'harnionie. Je prouve qu'il y en a, comrae Diogene prouvait a Z^non qu'il y 
 avait du mouvement en faisant un tour de chambre." * 
 
 Diction is also a matter that demands consideration. One 
 may say whether or not a word is French, but whether or not 
 it is a ^good word,' provided it does not go against grammar, 
 depends upon " Pusage qu'un homme d'esprit en pourra faire." 
 For he is the arbiter of his usage, the creator of his diction.* 
 Our author comments at length upon the effect of single words, 
 in passages from Rousseau and Ovid.® Word value, one may 
 gather, is especially prominent in epithets and epigrams. Still, 
 from a practical and particularly from a legal standpoint : ^ 
 
 *' Les paroles ne forment point un corps de d^lit ; elles ne restent que dans 
 I'idee. La plupart du temps elles ne signifient point par elles-memes, mais par le 
 tondont on les dit. Souvent, en redisant les mdmes paroles, on ne rend pas le 
 m6me sens ; ce sens depend de la liaison qu' elles ont avec d'autres clioses. 
 Quelquefois le silence exprime plus que tous les discours. II n'y a rien de si 
 Equivoque que tout cela." ^ 
 
 Coming to figures, we have heard him reprehend that sort of 
 style,^ and reprimand the forty heads of the Academy as " toutes 
 remplies de figures, de m^taphores et d'antith^ses." ^^ Compari- 
 sons, which should show a climactic order," should progress 
 within the same class : the comparison should be made between a 
 
 ^Cf. sup., p. 41. 
 
 2 P. & F.y II, 9. The suggestive example given is : styloceratohyo'idien. 
 
 3 1, 248. Quoted sup., p. 101. *P. &F.,i, 83. 
 
 'P. &F., II, 7, cf. sup., p. 54. « P. & F., II, 15-16, 41 ff. 
 
 ^ In connection with the counting of ** indiscreet words " as forming the crime 
 of Use-majesie. 
 
 8 IV, 80. »i, 312. Quoted sup., p. 155. 
 
 10 1, 247.— Cf. sup., p. 101. 
 
 " "Ou 1' esprit doit toujours gagner et jamais perdre." — That is, in greatness, 
 or in fineness and delicacy. — vii, 140-1. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 159 
 
 manner and a manner, an action and an action, rather than 
 between disparate things. 
 
 For climaxes also transpositions are allowable, particularly in 
 poetry.^ The order of things, it is true, sometimes counters the 
 order of expression.^ 
 
 Most important, in connection with his own application, are 
 the remarks on antithesis.^ It will be found, with some surprise, 
 perhaps, that these are generally of a derogatory turn. The 
 beauty of the antithesis is a " beaute d^jpposition,'^ and he dis- 
 tinguishes clearly enough between the false and the true kinds : ^ 
 
 '' On peut remarquer ici combien est grande la difference des antitheses d'id^es 
 d'avee les antitheses d'expression. L'antithese d' expression n'est pas cach^e ; 
 celle d'idees I'est ; I'une a toujours le meme habit, 1' autre en change comme on 
 veut ; I'une est variee, 1' autre non." ^ 
 
 But an antithesis is a narrow thing,^ and it is the false and 
 easy class which so often recur, when the opposition is against 
 hon sens, or is common and trivial, or is too recherch^ej In such 
 cases, the figure causes no surprise and is displeasing and defec- 
 tive. The antitheses should be in a work by nature and not by 
 force ; " car pour lors la surprise ne tombe que sur la sottise de 
 Pauteur." His " vicious uniformity " ^ is found not only in the 
 fine arts, but in authors like St. Augustine ^ and Saint-Evremond, 
 who contrast the beginning and the end of their sentences in 
 continual antitheses. ^^ 
 
 "Letour de phrase, toujours le meme et toujours uniforme, d^plait extr^me- 
 ment ; ce contraste perpetuel devient symetrie, et cette opposition toujours 
 recherchee devient uniformity. L' esprit y trouve si peu de variete que, lorsque 
 vous assez vu une partie de la phrase, vous devinez toujours 1' autre ; vous voyez 
 des mots opposes, mais opposes de la meme maniere ; vous voyez un tour de 
 phrase, mais c'est toujours le meme." 
 
 Descriptions, it has been seen, should be intimately connected 
 
 ip. &F., II, 12. 
 
 'P. & F., n, 43. — But he has insisted, in connection with surprise, upon 
 climactic arrangement. Cf. under Art, sup., p. 41. 
 
 ^ A derivative of the great principle of contrast, cf. sup., p. 40. 
 
 * While quoting and praising Florus as exemplifying the right kind. 
 
 5 VII, 138-9. 6 P. <fe P. , II, 51. "f VII, 140. « Cf. sup. , p. 38. 
 
 ' Also quoted disparagingly for this fault, P. & F., u, 13.— Cf. P. & F., ii, 51. 
 
 " vn, 127. 
 
160 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 with the subject, not " 6trang^res et recherch^es." ^ And so for 
 episodes in general. Other such hors d^oeuvres may find place 
 here, for instance digressions, of which he says : 
 
 ' ' Je vols des gens qui s' effarouchent des digressions ; je crois que ceux qui 
 savent en faire sont comme les gens qui out de grands bras : ils atteignent plus 
 loin." 2 
 
 A preface, which seldom sins by being too short,^ is a very 
 tiresome thing,* as is also a dedicatory epistle. For the sake 
 of variety, he will dedicate his work to those who will not 
 read him.^ 
 
 1 II, 9, cf. mp., p. 86. 2 vij^ 173, 3 j^ 453^ 
 
 *i, 53. ^P.&F,, n, 177. 
 
r"-^ 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 DlSCUSSIOISr OF DOOTEINE, 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 CRITICISM OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 In discussing the doctrine, those points only will as a rule be 
 taken up which have not already been submitted in the presenta- 
 tion, as immediate explanation or essential linking. 
 
 Considering first the division on Art^ in general, some comment 
 on Montesquieu^ s view of the term, its content and significance, 
 seems advisable. His initial discrimination ^ between the indus- 
 trial and the fine arts, and the emphasis laid on the former, gives 
 at once his point of view. Art is a human phenomenon which 
 the wise statesman will allow for. He will even study its mani- 
 festations disinterestedly, without ^lan or rapture, guided by the 
 rules to which long experience has attained and by the promptings 
 of a nice taste. He will judge it chiefly for its pleasure-giving 
 capacity, and thereby for its indirect but basic utility. 
 
 The point of pleasure ^ is certainly well taken, if the word is 
 made broad enough in its implication and high enough in its 
 quality, if he means the intellectual delight, the finer emotional 
 responsiveness set in vibration by a true perception of true art. 
 But if he means all pleasures of any kind, what shall we say? 
 One may allow the extension to fantaime and perhaps to volupU^ — 
 but how with the declension to amusement and agrementf^ With 
 due respect for the importance of an appeal, for which the word 
 
 ^Sup., pp. 20 ff. 2p 20. 
 
 ' P. 21. From this point on, the words supra and infra will generally be omitted, 
 when the reference is clearly to the present work. 
 
 *P. 22. 
 
 ^ P. 23. It may be remembered that even Buffon arranged his classification^ 
 to be ''agreeable." 
 
 161 
 
162 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 ^ interesting ' is now a frequent cloak, and certainly without taking 
 a false step on treacherous moral grounds, it may still be remarked 
 that the President could easily have added a little more loftiness 
 to his conception of Art. Th^ notion that its first purpose is to 
 be pleasing and amusing, without explicit and essential reference 
 to either truth or beauty, is likely first of all to lead to a dis- 
 proportionate sense of values. The big things may no longer 
 be held the best, the most needful ; and ressorts good and harmless 
 enough in themselves, such as wit, excitement, gallantry, actuality, 
 " story-telling," may become startlingly obtrusive. 
 
 This our author realized well enough for items like esfprity how- 
 ever much he may have inclined his ear in the doing.^ It should 
 also be said that his conception admitted of the higher and ultimate 
 pleasure that may spring from pain. Else why choose terror as the 
 true passion of tragedy.^ ^ 
 
 Having made poorer pleasure the goal, he proceeds, humanly 
 enough, to doubt whether that is sufficient. The statement that 
 we would be miserable without the arts is the cultural plea.^ Yet 
 he is afraid that they are small tastes,'' coming by way of compen- 
 sation. If they are truly needs — and the argument is insidious — 
 they have thereby an evident use. The question of utility,^ though 
 he would reject it, is disturbing him throughout, and openly or 
 indirectly he refers the matter to that standard in the last analysis. 
 There is a hierarchy higher than art. At best, he passes from the 
 economist's viewpoint to that of the wise aud universal legislator, 
 who believes that art is a more or less pleasant and dangerous 
 thing, to be watched, controlled and approved where it operates 
 for the good of the state.® 
 
 With regard to special points, one may applaud his insistent 
 principle of relativity, whether as causing the subjectivity of 
 appreciation and production,^ whether as of abstract qualities,^ or 
 as sanctioning the divergences of taste.^ This gainsays iron stan- 
 dards, and means tolerance, catholicity, individualism. But here 
 there is hedging. If his suggestion of the comparative method 
 
 ^ Cf. inf.^ under Application, p. 189. 
 
 2P. 115. « P. 24. " P. 27, note 5. ^ p, 24 S. 
 
 ^ Especially in connection with luxe, p. 27. 
 
 'P. 29. 8p35^ 9 P. 46. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 163 
 
 tends similarly to good in that he would erect no scale/ if there is 
 more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in the classic rules, ^ if 
 he is disposed to admit great genius, visible and overweening, as 
 the arbiter ^ — yet in the main and for the large majority, classicism 
 is a tolerably safe procedure ; and the remonstrance against rulers 
 is usually a remonstrance against rules as critically applied to 
 himself 
 
 Similarly restricting, the individual is Montesquieu's implicit 
 reference of the question to his other standard of socialism, his 
 dimly expressed belief that it is the greatest good of the greatest 
 number that counts. Catholicity maintains the many more pro- 
 perly than the one ; and a centered individualism might mean a 
 worse despotism than the classic, in that it would be a misrule. 
 Yet we may thank his strong and searching mind for more faith in 
 the new type, in the individual right, than could well be expected 
 of his age.* 
 
 For the other kind of classicism, his worship of antiquity, 
 sincere and helpful as it was, is not always admirable. It is clearly 
 not ancient art that he knows and loves ; ^ nor is it the most 
 antique antiquity. " II ne connut jamais beaucoup cette premiere 
 antiquite, simple, naturelle, naive.'' ^ Faguet '' has indicated, with 
 kindly touch and most favorable interpretation, the ancient ideal 
 of the President : 
 
 ' ' II y a une antiquity d' une certaine espSce, non point fausse, mM^e seulement 
 d'un pen de convention, et vraie d'une verite dramatique et oratoire, une antiquity 
 faite de la naivete de Plutarque, de la noblesse de Tite-Live, et des regrets de 
 Tacite, et des coleres de Juvenal, et des grands cris des Stoiciens qui met dans 
 1' esprit des lettres un ideal excellent et precieux de vertu austere, de simplicity 
 hautaine, de frugalite unpeu fastueuse, d'energie et de Constance infati gables," etc. 
 
 1 P. 33. — Kemembering that he did not grasp or rightly value the total method, 
 that he gives but a bare superficial catalogue of likenesses, with no dexterous 
 transferal of vocabulary, or reciprocal setting off of qualities — to which last, 
 however, his principle of contrast should tend. 
 
 »P. 52. 
 
 ^ P. 53. — For Comeille or Homer, not fo;- Shakespeare or Voltaire. 
 
 *0f which perhaps the most forceful expression is the Chapter on Uniformity 
 (y, 412-13, and mp., p. 52). 
 
 ^Faguet, XVIII^ sitde, p. 146. 
 
 «Ste.-Beuve, C. de X., vii, 43, '' XVIU^ si^cle, p. 147, 
 
.«'■'-' 
 
 164 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 For closer judgment, it would be necessary to add Montesquieu's 
 slight acquaintance with the Greeks, his admiration for Cicero and 
 Florus/ 
 
 The relations of art with climate^ seems excellently and 
 moderately set forth, allowing a little more for the slower and 
 deeper expression of the North. It would seem best, too, to 
 allow the national character as an intermediary ground, rather than 
 to pass at once from physical dispositions and sensibilities, as 
 efficient causes, to artistic product as effect. But Montesquieu's 
 general tendency, as a budding sensationalist, was to make too 
 much of ^ nerves ' and * fibres ' and our physical organs.^ Hence, 
 thinks Lanson,'* he has the right to be hailed as a precursor, he is 
 constituting a psycho-physics, " qui d^tronera les classiques Etudes 
 d'immaterielles operations d'une ame ind^pendante de ses organes." 
 It is doubtful, however, if the President may be credited with so 
 weighty an honor. He is hardly sufficiently explicit and thorough- 
 going.^ 
 
 As to nature,^ one may heartily approve his principles of 
 discovery and selection. He is no naturalist, no believer in 
 indiscriminate presentation. The " imitating '' is rather a vague 
 and weak watchword, deprived of what specific sense it may once 
 have had. The idea that art should improve on nature — in so far 
 as such improvement implies addition as well as subtraction and 
 arrangement — can hardly be allowed. Nature is not the malleable 
 material that a I^e Notre would make her. We can hardly expect 
 much reverence for her in Montesquieu's age, when she was 
 regarded as a serviceable and unobtrusive hand-maid. 
 
 His appreciation of external nature ^ was conventional and not 
 
 ^Cf, inf,, under Literature, p. 181. ^ pp 29-30. 
 
 ' P. 28. He shared this with other aestheticians. E. g. , Villate, in his Gout, 
 makes harmony dependent on the '' jeu de nos organes" (p. 277). 
 
 * Rev. univ. , p. 394. 
 
 ^ Dubos seems the real precursor. His chapters concerning the influence of the 
 physique and of climate may have given ideas both to M. and to Villate ; cf ■ 
 Brunetiere ( ^r. de la criL, p. 144). — "Montesquieu, qui doit beaucoup, aussi lui, 
 k I'abb^ Dubos, a oublie de s'en souvenir; — et il s'est contente de le r^futer." 
 Cf. sup., p. 147. 
 
 « P. 30. ' p. 31. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of 3fontesquieu. 165 
 
 keen. D'Alembert believes him " accolitum^ a ^tudier la nature," 
 but Helv^tius doubts this strongly.^ And Doumic notes that in 
 the Voyages there is no care shown for the mountains or for Naples 
 — '' le charme ou I'horreur d'un paysage le laisse insensible/' ^ 
 
 For art's qualities, the reproach that the GoM is too abstract is 
 hardly the worst that could be made against it.^ Montesquieu has 
 usually been condemned rather for a lack of philosophy, of princi- 
 ples and leading standards, than for an excess thereof. Surely he 
 is not wrong in seeking the qualities which should characterize 
 artistic production. 
 
 He may, however, be wrong in his choice and valuation of these 
 properties. One may be ready to accord the importance of variety, 
 contrast, novelty and the like, while making more than he is dis- 
 posed to do of the primary elements — beauty and sentiment.^ 
 
 Perhaps he takes beauty for granted, or holds it too impalpable 
 for more than summary treatment and appreciative recognition. 
 Perhaps he considers, what is nearer the truth, that it is the 
 primum mobile, from which the lesser qualities evolve,^ and so 
 receives its indirect tribute through them. At any rate there is 
 found little more than an uncritical admiration of what is " beau," 
 there is made manifest no intimate and intrinsic sense of the 
 beautiful as a necessary dominance. He does not say what beauty 
 is, but what it is not.^ He even recommends a sort of hidebound, 
 common beauty, compact rather of classic regularity than of 
 individual charm. ^ 
 
 This seems deficient. So do his remarks on sentiment, which 
 likewise is not posited as the essence.^ It is allowed in connection 
 with taste,^ but his basic conception of it is either cold and physical, 
 or else affected and suggestive of the dawning eighteenth century 
 sentimentality. 
 
 ^Mont., OeuvreSf ed. Didot (Parrelle), i, 25. — ''Ses ouvrages ont-ils ce carac- 
 t^re ? et son caractere le menait-il la? " 
 
 ^ Bev.j p. 928, cf. inf., p. 167, note 8. ^ Saintsbury, quoted sup., p. 35. 
 
 ''Cf. with his list (p, 35, sup.), that of G6rard (GoUt, p. 2) — the 'sentiments* 
 of novelty, sublimity, beauty, imitation, harmony, the ridiculous, and virtue, 
 
 ^ Among which are the "idols" of Ste.-Beuve's suggestion — p. 36. 
 
 « P. 46. ^ P. 36. 
 
 ®P. 37. He gives it more place under Literature, cf. inf., p. 179. ''P. 44. 
 
166 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 That he practically omits morality need not cause any distur- 
 bance. 
 
 His views on variety as versus uniformity, on symmetry and 
 order, seem good, if not startlingly new.^ Especially is he to 
 be congratulated on seizing the great principle of contrast, in its 
 broadest and minutest applications.^ What is sometimes consid- 
 ered a happy accident or a dependent phase in artistic theory is 
 here exploited as an important ressort for values and interest. 
 This is significant in the light of his own practice.^ 
 
 Surprise, connected therewith, is hardly so well conceived,'* and 
 while the je ne sais quoi itself demands attention when saluted 
 by a Frenchman,^ the content of his " associated ideas," is not so 
 happy.^ Expense and difficulty are neither suitable objects for 
 suggestiveuess, nor charming inhabitants of the border land of 
 mystery.'^ 
 
 After his appreciation of an antiquity, comparatively simple 
 if not primaeval,^ we might expect some considerable admiration 
 of naivete. In fact, the President is delighted with the na'ifj 
 wherever he finds it.® You may picture him adoring a Dresden 
 shepherdess or playing in Trianon pastorals. He would be simple 
 above all things. But unfortunately, as he has expressed it, 
 
 ip. 38. ► ^F. 39. 3 Of. inf., p. 191. 
 
 * Brunetiere {Ev. de la crit., p. 89), connects the care for this with a leaning 
 towards even less admirable ressorts — ^^ Emphase ou Preciosite, ce que ces deux 
 defauts de 1' esprit et du style ont de commun entre eux, c'est de chercher dans la 
 surprise oii dans I'etonneraent, qu'ils confondent avec I'admiration, le principe 
 de la beauts." 
 
 * Saintsbury ridicules this — " The je ne sais quoi, in an attractive, but not tech- 
 nically beautiful girl is, it seems, due to surprise at finding her so attractive, 
 which, with all respect to the President, seems to be somewhat 'circular. ' " (n, 
 514).— Cf. inf., p. 175. 
 
 « P. 43. 
 
 ''Gerard {Gout, p. 6 f ) recommends a moderate difficulty in the performing — 
 and considers excessive simplicity displeasing. 
 
 ^Cf. sup., p. 163. 
 
 ^ P. 43. In literature, it is what allures him in the classics, especially in the 
 'Fable.' Faguet reproaches this ''iddal un peu convenu, un peu livresque, de 
 simplicity voulue, de purete et d' innocence dans les moeurs," as tending towards 
 the easy and superficial optimism reprimanded in the President. {XVI 11^ si^de, 
 p. 156.) 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 167 
 
 "comment peut-on travailler a ^tre naif?'' Thence his forced 
 contentment with the " simplicite vouhie." ^ 
 
 His first definition of taste is bad, in that he makes it the 
 criterion of pleasure rather than of beauty.^ But he has finely 
 phrased the characteristics of " natural " taste. The division into 
 two kinds seems necessary and fairly stated, only he does not 
 consider that a taste may be so excessively " acquired/' as to be 
 artificial and fausse. The choice of France's cultured courtiers as 
 the arbiters of aesthetic elegance ^ can hold good, as he later very 
 well divines, only for a certain kind of elegance. Were it not for 
 his final recognition of popular standards,* his reference of all 
 things to " tetes frisees " and the like would be a quite prepos- 
 terous claim. One wohders if the change was dictated by some 
 such remark as that of Helvetius, who comments on " on trouve 
 a la cour une d^licatesse de goiit.'^ 
 
 " Oui, s'il le regarde comme un defaut ; car tout ce qu'il dit prouverait que ce 
 gout doit etre peu siir. Hors la nature, y a-t-il un gout stir et vrai ? " ^ 
 
 The attempt has already been made to reconcile his two appar- 
 ently opposing views. ^ 
 
 Montesquieu voyageur^, Montesquieu the critic of fine arts has 
 been the subject of judgments as widely different as that of Four- 
 nier de Flaix, who would have us use him as a guide-book, "des 
 plus precieux et des plus spirituels," ^ against Faguet, who holds 
 him no artist or sesthetician at all.^ The " enchantement " on 
 which the former writer insists becomes, he thinks, a " revelation 
 complete " at Florence and Rome. Montesquieu is " enchanted " 
 
 iCf. m/.,P- 201. 2p44 3p45, 
 
 ^P. 47. ^Loc. at., 1,188. 
 
 ^Pp. 46-7. For his definitions, cf. Villate {Gout, p. 235), who is strikingly 
 close to M. — "Le Gout delicat est un discernement exquis, que la nature a mis 
 dans certains organes, pour ddmeler les diff^rentes vertus des objets qui reinvent 
 du sentiment. ' ' 
 
 "^ Voy. de Mont. , p. 9. 
 
 ^ '' Voyage tout intellectuel . . . oii le m^ditatif n'est nullement diverti par 
 1' artiste, ou la reflexion n'est nullement interrorapue par le spectacle d'un monu- 
 ment ou d'un paysage" (XVIIP siecle, p. 149). — The last point is well taken, 
 and to pardon the absoluteness of the first, one may remember that it was uttered 
 before the publication of the Voyages. 
 
168 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 to such a point " qu'il 6tablit les regies du dessin et m^me celles 
 de la sculpture." The perusal of these rules, one might suggest, 
 is very likely to disenchant the reader. The eulogist himself is 
 contradictory as to the President's valuation of antique art, 
 declaring at one moment that we could desire no better guide 
 therefor, and at the next that he is accapare only by the Renais- 
 sance. This is his domain, in which he appears " comme un 
 maitre, un inspire, un r6v§lateur." Montaigne shows unfavorably 
 in contrast and the President de Brosses as well.^ 
 
 The point regarding Montaigne had already been made by the 
 editor^ of the Voyages. As for Brosses, a glance at the Lettres 
 will show quite as much regard for things Florentine, a lesser 
 appreciation perhaps of Michelangelo, though quite as large for 
 Raphael.^ 
 
 The writer in the Revue historique voices an equally strong 
 admiration of Montesquieu's aesthetic deliverances,^ attributing to 
 him " une connaissance parfaitement au courant de toute la tech- 
 nique des arts et s'int^ressant en architecture aux proc^d^s de 
 construction autant qu'^ Feffet artistique des monuments." ^ 
 Bonnefon,^ too, credits liim with " ideas," ^ with thoughtfulness 
 and discernment, and with feeling present, though ironically 
 repressed. Cant^, laying more stress on our author's social and 
 economic observations, apparently thinks few of his artistic utter- 
 ances worth culling.^ 
 
 Of all these, Bonnefon seems nearest the mark and Fournier de 
 Flaix farthest from it. The President has doubtless some things 
 of interest to say, and shows knowledge and appreciation along 
 
 ^ Fournier de Flaix, Voy. deMont., pp. 9-12. 
 
 ^ Barckhausen, who likewise believes in Montesquieu's "passion" for the fine 
 arts, claims that some of his judgments are "astonishing," and that he felt 
 much, even when he would not express. {Voy.y i, xxi, xxxiv). 
 
 3 Brosses, Lettres, i, 240 ; ii, 63 ff. 
 
 *And an equally unconscious and significant side-light on his "procedure" 
 in architecture. 
 
 ^Rev. hist., Lix, 130. 
 
 ^Rev. d'Hist. litt.,u, 129. 
 
 ■^ Coming — which is important — " par la comparaison." 
 
 ^liuova AntoL, 1894, 567-72. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 169 
 
 certain lines ; but it would be a grave error to regard him either 
 as a competent vademecum or a catholic critic. He frequently 
 misses the right points — and where he hits them, his expression is 
 apt either to be conventional and pedestrian, or venturous on the 
 side of technique, or most frequently, a matter of mere information 
 presented in a statistical way. He is still the collector of facts, 
 the compiler of curious details not immediately relative to artistic 
 values. 
 
 Still, certain of his preferences and inferences are worth 
 remarking. First there is his feeling for the Italian^ Renais- 
 sance,^ especially as expressed in Raphael and Michelangelo. He 
 may be credited here with true discernment, however acquired, with 
 a right sense of the forceful and of the sweet, of the spiritual and 
 of the Cyclopean ; and many divagations may be allowed to a 
 taste, which has seized and balanced these contrary matters. 
 There is present perhaps a feeling for line rather than for color — 
 to color he seems not acutely sensible, as shown in his comments 
 on Titian and the Venetian school.^ There is present also a tinc- 
 ture of the conventional, a prepossession always hard to overcome 
 in regard to such popular idols as Raphael. This becomes more 
 conspicuous in his appraising of the Bolognese school,^ where he 
 defers completely to the reigning canons. 
 
 It is not difficult, remembering that modern reversion may also 
 be a fad and modern ^^ historical '^ estimates too preponderant, to 
 condone his ignorance of the Pre-Raphaelites and even his scorn 
 of the Primitives. But making all allowances for the period and 
 its prejudices, his abuse of the Gothic^ is surely intemperate and 
 unreasoned. It accords ill with his principle of taking a work 
 per se. ^ Gothic ' is with him simply an equivalent term for 
 barbarous, and this while he is forced to concede the religious 
 appositeness of the style and its actual beauty in certain of the 
 churches.^ His notions as to its historical meaning and develop- 
 ment are certainly original. 
 
 ' Not the French, which he scarcely knew. ^p^ 57 fj 
 
 ^ P. 61. He had a nicer eye for discrimination in attitude and drawing, 
 
 *P. 57. sp. 71ff. epp. 72_3. 
 
170 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 In connection with the religious relations of art, his remarks 
 on these ^ — drawn from his acquaintance either with the Greek 
 statues of deities or with the churchly studies of the Renaissance 
 — seem quite justified as a matter of history, whatever one may 
 consider the a priori connection. He does equally well in admit- 
 ting the virtual Greek origin of the arts.^ 
 
 For painting particularly, he is open to the same rQproach 
 which has been applied to his conception of literary style : ^ he 
 confuses manner with mannerism, and in seeking to suppress the 
 latter, he goes far toward suppressing the distinctiveness and 
 individuality of the former/ If we concede, as we may, that 
 ornament is not true beauty, what shall we do with the statement 
 that only great simplicity is true genius?^ May genius not be 
 rather simplex munditiis f Otherwise, what becomes of art ? ^ 
 
 One has hardly begun to sympathize with his distrust of realism,^ 
 when disconcertment comes with his attack on vaghezza^ in 
 apparent opposition to his recommendation of such qualities as 
 charm, sentiment, mystery. The importance which he attaches to 
 chiaroscuro^ is interesting as derivatory from his principle of 
 contrast. In every branch he has seized upon light and shadow 
 as a fruitful motive. 
 
 There is much relativity and thoughtfulness in his notion of not 
 taking the Greek physique as the ideal for to-day.^^ But as a 
 whole, he has little feeling for sculpture, evinces the amateur's 
 smattering, shows small delight in the antique masterpieces and 
 takes Bernini seriously." His conception of architecture, as 
 dependent absolutely upon the old Vitruvian dogmatic orders, as 
 physical or mathematical and always strictly invariable, reveals 
 
 ip. 58. *Pp. 59,72. 
 
 ^Cf. on genius verstbs art, p. 81, and inf., p. 183. 
 
 *P. 60. Cf. his condemnation of ornament in architecture (pJ 72). This, 
 however, is good, as is also his recognition of the prettiness and powerlessness 
 of Versailles. 
 
 5 P. 72. «Cf. in/., p. 172, ^ ^up., p. 30,— p.60. 
 
 ^ Which, however, he may conceive of as nearer sentimentality (p. 61 ). 
 
 »P. 61. 10 P. 67. 
 
 ^^ Though he dislikes his frappant and likes its absence in Kaphael. Cf. Orna- 
 ment. 
 
The Aesthetie Doctrine of Montesquieu. 171 
 
 him in his most classic frame of mind/ Indeed, what with his 
 adherence to these tasteless proportions and his denunciation of 
 the Gothic, he shows to less advantage on the building art than on 
 any other. 
 
 In choosing Italian music and Italian operas, it may be claimed 
 that he chose the best of which his time was capable.^ The love 
 of that opera shows at any rate a love of the romantic and melodic, 
 if also of the spectacular and the facile — and he can hardly be 
 blamed for not preferring a Beethoven, when a Beethoven did not 
 yet exist. Still, he expresses a desire for the higher harmony as 
 against superficial elaborateness, thus again opposing the greater 
 simplicity and ornament. The strictly moral effect which he 
 claims for music must be questioned. His account of the subject 
 and his arguments are alike somewhat flimsy. 
 
 For landscape-gardening,^ he seeks, with what degree of legiti- 
 macy it need not here be determined,^ to use nature artistically. 
 At least, his revolt against Le Notre, his taste for English gardens, 
 his protest against wearisome and excessive regularity deserve 
 commendation. Even here he is careful to hedge. His love of 
 nature is quite another thing.^ 
 
 In sum, it appears that on broad lines — for evidently neither 
 here nor elsewhere can a halt be made to approve or condemn the 
 host of his more detailed observation s^-his expression on the fine 
 arts is chiefly valuable from a temporal or historical standpoint. 
 When he yields to the opinion of the period, as in the preference 
 of certain schools and principles of painting or architecture, he 
 must be noted : still more, when he departs therefrom, when his 
 struggling individuality gropes after the new order, the future 
 feeling for personality and protest. Or else, he is interesting when 
 he deals, however cavalierly or conventionally, with the great 
 questions of debate. He frequently poses, as a great mind must, 
 thoughts^ that demand thought, the fruitful problems of produc- 
 tiveness, perfection, vision and art's recurring cycle. 
 ' Such a topic is suggested as soon as he embarks on the sea of 
 
 P. 69. 2pp75ff sp, 78^ 
 
 Cf. sujo.,p. 164. 5 Pp. 31-2. 
 
172 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 Literature. The striking passage ^ where genius is contrasted with 
 art, and the latter identified with " manner '' indicates, even though 
 not pushed to its logical conclusion, an intransigent attitude which 
 must surely be reckoned with. He will not employ the usual 
 means of conciliation, which makes genius equivalent to uncon- 
 scious art. It is still farther from the excessively conscious, 
 elaborated art, from artificial, acquired simplicity. 
 
 Simplicity, indeed, it must have, but the greatest spontaneous 
 simplicity — ^a kind always recommendable, however unattainable.^ 
 And with this may be linked his cry of " imitez la nature," so far 
 as that has not come to be a meaningless catchword, so far as it 
 still signifies plain unimaginative truth and primary objectivism 
 and distrust of colifichets. 
 
 If this is his subtle pleading, and if thereby he means to vaunt 
 this absolute objectivism, classically or realistically stated, he is 
 vaunting a dead letter.^ How is he completely to discard the 
 personal equation, the tempemmental basis ? " Nature " is a very 
 broad word ; and one argument for impressionism would seem to 
 be that since we cannot know ^* things in themselves," let us pre- 
 sent them faithfully from our standpoint. It may be hoped that 
 in this way we approach an ultimate " natural." At any rate it 
 is natural to us. 
 
 The President, in fact, for all his positivism and empiricism, is 
 troubled by the presence of the human " machine." Man seems 
 at one instant all, at the next nothing, never an invariable object. 
 He will express or smother himself, by no fixity of standards, but 
 according as he finds himself in a moment of self-effacement or 
 of boastfulness. The expression will not depend upon the will of 
 another. Such vibration in judgment of self or the race is as old 
 as either. 
 
 If I have read too much into the Montesquivian formulae of 
 simplicity and nature, if, as would be most probable from the 
 moderation of his soul, he is not absolute against either subjectiv- 
 ity or art, he should be given a fresh hearing. Yet, as far as 
 
 ip. 81, cf. p. 166. =^P. 43. 
 
 ^ As his own doctrine of relativity sufficiently demonstrates. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 173 
 
 genius is concerned, he has certainly made the opposition — though, 
 as before, it is a principle which he will hardly make thorough- 
 going in application to individuals. He may be convinced, and 
 rightly convinced, that the divine fire is supreme. But is it alone 
 and self-sufficient, and does it disdain the aid of art? Does he 
 himself rank Raphael and Virgil, artists both, as hopelessly out 
 of the running with Michelangelo and Homer? Are genius and 
 art found incompatible in Dante or in Shakespeare ? The most 
 that can be admitted is a certain decline, when art assumes too 
 much the upper hand. In dealing with the numerous personages 
 in these pages, artists and geniuses, the President slips easily away 
 from his distinction. So far, however, as the dictum makes for 
 creative power and against artificiality, it must evidently be 
 welcomed. 
 
 One must stop likewise to applaud his principle of suggestiveness, 
 expressed in the fine maxim that a truly great thought makes us 
 see many others.^ No abler statement of the true purpose of 
 allusion, by a past master in the art, can well be found. It is a 
 question of leaving something to the reader, of stimulating him, 
 of "making him think." ^ And the just balance is struck when 
 our author recommends the golden mean between boring and 
 obscuring a reader, with "suppressions heureuses.'' ^ The sugges- 
 tiveness desired is neither that of the je ne sais quoi, nor that of 
 allusion, topical or literary, but simply the kind that by compact 
 and happy statement opens up vistas of associated thought. 
 
 By this and by many other such references, the things of the 
 mind are seen to be the permanent issue with Montesquieu. 
 Here, in connection with poetry and drama, he tries to do justice 
 to imagination and sentiment.^ He really does more than might 
 be expected. But his praise is all too brief and it may safely be 
 inferred that these qualities had no abiding place in his 
 regard. 
 
 His argument for the value of literature is interesting, in that 
 be attempts to discard the notion of an immediate utility as essen- 
 
 ip. 81. 2p86^ 3p^ 157^ 
 
 * Pp. 82-3. As in connection with art above, p. 37. 
 
174 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 tial, throwing emphasis rather on the general cultural import.^ 
 The shoemaker may occasionally leave his last, and the economist 
 his calculations. One may be glad too that he is not with those 
 who rank letters as a decadent development. He stands for a 
 recognition of milieu and believes that the best literature comes 
 with the best ages.^ He shows his tolerance and the true cosmo- 
 politan spirit in giving us to understand that each national output 
 and each genre is to be allowed and judged by its own standards.^ 
 
 He is less satisfactory in ascribing the appeal of the best authors 
 to the fact that they provide a nouveau frisson, that they stimulate 
 and satisfy our curiosity or surprise."^ It is easy to see that 
 curiosity has its highest meaning ; yet in linking this quality with 
 suggestiveness ' and in calling it the (chief) "principle of pleas- 
 ure ^' in ouvrages d^esprit,^ is he not making a little too much of a 
 ressortj strong undoubtedly, but after all lying in a reader's 
 responsiveness and hence thoroughly subjective? It has been in 
 writing u]) — or down — to a reader's curiosity that some very poor 
 stuff' lias been composed. That way lies ultimately sensation- 
 mongering and melodrama. 
 
 The " superstition of the subject '' ^ is an open question and 
 one on which the President is entitled to his views. 
 
 In his criticism and complaining of the influence of the salon , 
 conversation and esprit, he unquestionably takes high ground and 
 is apparently sincere.^ But it is clear from the space which he 
 devotes to such influences in writing, that he considers them inevi- 
 table for his age and is prepared to capitulate. He does not so 
 fully, indeed, denounce the empire of women and of conversation, 
 except as causes, the account of these being rather descriptive and 
 explanatory. He divided at the time what Taine perceived in 
 later perspective and came with sagacity to much the same conclu- 
 sions ; to wit, that any litterateur, and more especially any writer 
 in the semi-literary genres, such as science or philosophy, was 
 bound to consider his audience; that this audience, composed 
 generally of more or less ignorant though curious worldlings, and 
 
 P. 83, cf. in/., p. 202. ^V. U. ^pp, 85-6. *P. 86. 
 
 P. 41. « P. 41. ' Pp. 85 and 87. » P. 87 fiE. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 175 
 
 particularly of women, demanded to have truth brought to their 
 level ; that these demands, consisting specifically in a call for the 
 every-day language of conversation, general simple terms depend- 
 ent on current experience and familiar examples, as opposed to a 
 technical and abstract vocabulary, were binding upon any author 
 who wished to be understood, to become known and popular; 
 that, in brief, the social status and its expression controlled expres- 
 sion in literature/ 
 
 The perception of the necessity is only somewhat dimmer in 
 Montesquieu's theory. He is more disposed to regret the facts. 
 But his books are probably among those which Taine had in mind, 
 as best exemplifying the method and its results. 
 
 Our author, as became the haunter of salons that he was, does 
 not stop there with the women. He is perpetually bringing them 
 in, as subjects for artistic reference, for example in connection with 
 order,^ or mystery.^ Duparcq'' makes a deft comparison here 
 between the feminine je ne sais quoi and pudeur, as appraised by 
 the President. His statement that women form taste, though it 
 may not on the whole be gainsaid, has, it is noted,^ hardly proved 
 true in his own case. 
 
 The worldly influence is chiefly to be condemned, it appears, 
 because of its alarming productiveness in the matter of badinage 
 and esprit. His objection here reads very much like that of 
 Buffbn:« 
 
 "Mettre de 1' esprit partout, c'est la manie de nos jeunes auteurs : ils ne 
 voient pas que cet esprit, a moins qu'il ne soit tire du fond du sujet, ne pent 
 qu'en gater la representation; que semer mal a propos des fleursj c'est planter 
 des Opines. . . . S'ils eussent form^ leur gout sur de bons modeles, ils rejetteraient 
 cet esprit etranger a la chose." ^ 
 
 But with esprit,^ Montesquieu is tfuly in much the same predic- 
 
 ^ Taine, Anc. Reg., pp. 335-6 — '^Avec cette mdthode, on peut tout expliquer, 
 tout faire comprendre, m^me a des femmes, m#me a des ferames du monde." 
 
 2 P. 39. 3 P. 42. ^ Notes sur Mont,, etc., ^. Q^. 
 5 P. 45. ^De d'art d'Ecrire, quoted by Nadault de Buffon, i, 293. 
 ' Cf. the fleurs of Livy and Quintus Curtius, sup., p. 137. 
 ^Containing also the '^ superstition of subject." 
 
 3 P. 89 fif. 
 
176 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 ament as with its causes, his helpless protests ringing all the louder 
 as he succumbs. In vain he solemnly declaims against the 
 quality/ would prefer true intellect or true humor, denies its 
 connection with genius, would repudiate it for himself. He is 
 forced to admit its modern predominance and its modern hold on 
 literature. He is himself dependent upon its exercise, knows this 
 and naively acknowledges it.^ 
 
 It is largely because he has esprit and wishes to show it that he 
 passes in part so contemptuous a verdict upon books and authors,* 
 poets and critics. Many of these portraits are rather caricatures, 
 and do not embody inner conviction. Yet, in his remarks against 
 writing generally there is something of a more serious questioning, 
 the old wearied cry, the cui bono of Ecclesiastes. Writing seems 
 only commendable where there is genius ; otherwise books are 
 ordinary or bad ; the distinction between works of genius and 
 those of mere memory or erudition is made for literature in general, 
 for science* and for history.^ In which connection, one is tempted 
 heartily to indorse the points he makes against the tribe of com- 
 pilers and commentators.^ 
 
 The faults and failings, the merits too, the troubles and trials of 
 authors are not ill set forth ; ^ though still with exaggerations for 
 effect. Personally, he seems to think little of his own perform- 
 ances, showing however an ombre of literary vanity, if much less 
 of literary jealousy than is usual. ^ 
 
 The best writers and the best books ^ are not included in his 
 condemnation. No boutade, however sweeping, can vitiate his 
 love of humanities, his delight in study, which is sincere, inspiring, 
 well-reasoned. — 
 
 "Jamais les lettres . . . jamais le travail, I'^tude et les livres n'ont arrach^ £l 
 un ecrivain des accents plus sincSres, un eloge pins convaincu et pins senti." ^® 
 
 * In others. 
 
 '^He has even "une sorte de point d'honneur sur I'article de 1' esprit." — Sorel, 
 p. 11. 
 3P. 93fiE. *P. 102. 5P115, 
 
 «P. 94. 'P. 97. 
 
 8 P. 98, cf. VII, 207. (Laboulaye). 
 
 ^Though there is always debate as to the inclusiveness of the "best." 
 ^° Zevort, Mont, p. 38 — d propoa of the Discours sur les Motifs. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 177 
 
 His diatribes against pedantry ^ and stupid authority, against the 
 empire of old and devitalized facts, are but another sign of his 
 struggling individualism. The true thirst for learning is quite 
 another thing.^ 
 
 His attitude towards the Academy^ is quite normal, easily 
 explained by his actual connection with that body. As a young 
 tirailleur y he abused the institution in the Lettres persanes: and 
 " Facad^mie se vengea en le faisant Acad^micien." * He seems 
 rather to have taken to heart the advice of Malet,^ who received 
 him and thus called him to task : 
 
 ''Ainsi, pour 6tre Acaddmicien, ne croyez pas, Monsieur, n' avoir d' autre 
 fonction que de juger ce que les autres font ; et ne craignez point d'etre obligd 
 de louer ce que ne sera pas digne de I'^tre." * 
 
 Doubtless he was depayse'^ in that immortal company of 1728.^ 
 Another Academy, that of Bordeaux, which he liked a great deal 
 better, happens to be just the institution ridiculed in the Acade- 
 mistes of St.-Evremond.^ 
 
 Montesquieu's estimates of philosophy and of theology are 
 scornful and superficial.^^ It seems strange that he makes so little 
 of oratory or political eloquence, ^^ especially, as Dareste notices, 
 that he allowed this so small a place in picturing the grandeur of 
 Kome.^^ His admiration for Cicero would seem to tend in the 
 other direction. But his poor opinion of the ge7ire is probably 
 due to the same cause which led him to condemn the special type 
 of the oraison funebre. It is still ^^ la meme pens^e qui repoussait 
 les ornements et tous les mensonges de la poesie." ^^ 
 
 As to this last, it is sufficiently obvious that the President had 
 no taste for poetry,^* that is, for anything voicing the pure lyric 
 afflatus. His attitude may be partially condoned, in view of the 
 
 iPp. lOOff. 2p99, 3p, 101. 
 
 * Petit de Julie ville, vi, 173. 
 
 ^ Discours de reception d Mont. , p. 206, 
 
 *An evident retort to the ''fureur panegyriqae" of M's accusation. 
 
 'Z^vort, Mont., p. 126. 
 
 8 P. 111. ^Bemadau, Ajmales, p. 94. ^^Pp. 103-4. 
 
 ^^ P. 105. .^^Xj'Sist. ram. dans Mont., p. 14. 
 
 i=* Meyer, Com. L. P., p, 138. ' J* P. 106 ff. 
 
 / 
 
178 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 miserable quality of the poetic output of his time.^ He has, how- 
 ever, been abundantly dealt with by the critics for this deficiency ; ^ 
 and, in truth, if we allow his ovrn very wide definition of the 
 term, it will be seen that there are several kinds which he really 
 esteems. 
 
 There are first the thinkers, the " four great " ones, who appar- 
 ently were — especially Montaigne and Shaftesbury — poets of a 
 rare order. They were none the less so that, like earlier Walt 
 Whitmans, they shunned the shackles of rhyme, rhythm, harmony 
 and the like. We have only to define poetry as prose to reach so 
 inevitable a conclusion. 
 
 Yet something must be' allowed for this view too. The dictum 
 is, thinks Faguet,^ an — 
 
 "Opinion oil il y a du vrai, et beaucoup d'inattendu.* II faut entendre s^,ns 
 doute que les plus grands pontes, ^ ses yeux, sont les philosophes, les crdateurs et 
 4vocateurs d'id^es. ... On sent 15,^ I'homme de raison froide qui n'aura de 
 passion que pour les iddes." ^ ^^o<-''' ' i^^^u 
 
 Similarly Montesquieu's own reservation of the dramatists as 
 the "masters of passions'' is deemed by this (critic a recognition 
 of the French dramatists rather as moralists and orators. 
 
 For the two concessions to poetry made thus far, of the four 
 great thinkers and of the dramatists, it might be objected that 
 neither class is ordinarily esteemed as poetic of necessity or pri- 
 marily ; and again that our author, far from valuing the specific 
 provinces mentioned, has shown an utter abhorrence of philoso- 
 phers, of moralists and of orators. M. Faguet would probably 
 explain, as indeed his context implies, that philosophy and moral- 
 ity are used in the broadest sense ; that Montesquieu seems to him, 
 as indeed he would seem to anybody, to value chiefly thinkers and 
 dealers with ideas, which need not be technically philosophical or 
 
 *This is Sorel's excuse, Mont., p. 21. But cf. H^mon, Cours de litt., i, 9. — 
 " Mais ses jugeraents sont trop particuliers au temps et au gout du temps." 
 
 2 1, 41 (Laboulaye) ; Faguet, XVIII^ si^cle, p. 141 ; cf. in/,, p, 203. 
 
 ' Loc, cit, 
 
 * Which suggests that Montesquieu was merely committing an epigram. It is 
 not always easy to distinguish. Cf. inf,, p. 178. 
 
 ^ That is, in M's contempt for ''lyric extravagance." 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, VL^^ 
 
 moral; and that there is something to be said for thought in 
 poetry. 
 
 Allowing then that Montesquieu was enormously fond of 
 poetry, as exemplified in Montaigne or Cr^billon, one might 
 further ask, with some hesitation, if he cared for any other kind. 
 Whereupon, more exceptions may emerge. He had, it is readily 
 granted, some sense of the beauty of classical lines ; and he had, 
 what is better, a twilight feeling for poetic antiquity.^ With this 
 last is connected a romantic feeling for the riante ^ Fable.' ^ 
 
 With the enumeration of these four or five exceptions, some of 
 which are more apparent than real, I may leave substantially 
 untouched the initial statement that the President was, on the 
 whole, unpoetic in temperament and appreciative power. What he 
 has to say then in criticism of the genre will hardly be of much 
 value. His notions concerning " declamation '' and the necessary 
 dactyls of English verse ^ are not very informing. One may 
 however, abundantly approve his desire to disassociate poetry from 
 dogma. 
 
 He had of course nothing like the modern familiarity with 
 fiction, knowing only the roman of long adventures and prodigies, 
 together with the few specimens of the psychological, or the novel 
 of manners, which had then appeared. There is little to take 
 issue with in his philippics against the first class,* or in his appre- 
 ciation of Scarron and Mme. de La Fayette.^ For the latter kind, 
 especially for Manon, the passionate quality impresses him 
 remarkably — more than any study of character. He has nothing 
 to say concerning the semi-philosophic oriental tale ^ — which indeed 
 he is held to have inaugurated.^ 
 
 His warmth of feeling for the drama ^ must give us pause. It 
 seems a zeal quite laudable, if not thoroughly according to know- 
 ledge. Hennequin would" have him "p^n^tre de Fetude des 
 tragiques grecs." ^ Yet he recognizes only terror in tragedy. 
 
 iSorel, p. 21. Cf. sup., p, 125. 
 
 2 P. 113, 3 P. 109. *P. 111. sp, 139. 
 
 * As typified by Voltaire or by Basselas. * 
 
 'Cf. ir»/., pp. 187, 193. 8 Pp. 113-5. 
 
 ^ Etude 8ur Mont, p. 27 — a dubious proposition. 
 
180 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 How could he show a complete appreciation of dramatic excellence, 
 fifter showing so little taste for the poetic and romantic ? In fact, 
 -be himself admits his ignorance on matters of the theatre. 
 r This is not altogether to deny his taste for the drama, whether 
 
 • he felt it as so closely linked with life, action, passion, or 
 -^whether he simply leaned to a theoretical admission of the genre. 
 
 It may be observed that his conception is highly moral and 
 classical above all. Corneille and Racine are more admired than 
 Moli^re and Shakespeare ; ^ and Cr^billon is adored.^ 
 
 As for history,^ there is found not only the comprehensive or 
 panoramic conception, which might be expected from the author 
 of the RomainSy but an understanding of the dramatic or "literary " 
 kind, of the philosophic kind, and, most significant, of that history 
 of the people which has been esteemed a much later growth. His 
 sneers at memoirs ^ seem excessive to-day, with our modern reli- 
 ance upon that form of composition. 
 
 His judgments on malevolent satire ^ merit as much praise as 
 
 those on destructive criticism. Here,^ nearly every statement is 
 
 I good — whether as to the inferiority of criticism to creation, the 
 
 * art ' of it, its dependence on the decision of the people, its due 
 fairness to the author, its guiding task. The only reserve that 
 could be taken is that his warning against destructiveness springs 
 directly from a consideration of those writers who would destroy 
 him. His remarks are none the less general in application. A 
 discussion of his own place as a critic may best find place at the 
 end of the treatment.'^ 
 
 His preference for the ancients,^ his acceptance of imitation, his 
 belief in the decadence of the moderns, his insight into the fact 
 that these latter have lost in sentiment as much as they have 
 gained in philosophy and reasoning^ — these points may pass 
 without further comment. His evolution of the separate litera- 
 tures calls for closer examination. 
 
 With the Greeks,^^ he again admires decidedly more than he 
 
 » p. 139 ff. 
 
 2 Pp. 145. 
 
 3 P. 115 ff. 
 
 *P. 117. 
 
 5 P. 118. 
 
 «P. 119 ff. 
 
 ^Cf. inf., p. 201. 
 
 «P. 124 ff. 
 
 
 «P, 128. 
 
 i»P. 133, 
 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 181 
 
 knows. His praising of Homer and the dramatists has not 
 the surest touch. Aristotle and Plato are unduly depreciated. 
 Plutarch is liked, one would think, for his positive biographical 
 value. 
 
 His taste for individual Latins ^ is illuminative in a way that 
 a general adoration of antiquity could never be. Virgil appeals 
 to his classically artistic sense ; Ovid and Tibullus to his gallantry ; 
 Cicero to his sense of the grandiose and tMdtral; ^ Florus — " son 
 maitre de rhetorique et ses delices/' ^ — to his preciosity and deft- 
 ness in diction ; Marcus Aurelius and the stoic feeling to his 
 moral fibre; Livy and Quintus Curtius are condemned from 
 his theoretical opposition to ornament. 
 
 Montesquieu's utterances on French literature are subject to 
 similar limitations, enforced by his period or his personal bias. 
 Delacroix is undoubtedly too severe in wishing to eliminate alto- 
 gether these judgments, yet with modification his opinion will hold — 
 at least for the Pensees diverses : 
 
 ''Nous aurions desire qu'on eut retranche de ses Pensees diverses les jugements 
 sur les auteurs Fran9ais, parce queces jugements ne seront jamais confirm^s, ni par 
 r opinion publique ni par le gout. Montesquieu a beaucoup trop exalte Cr^billon, 
 et semble avoir voulu rend re a Voltaire injustice pour injustice." * 
 
 There is not so much to say when the President indicates a 
 preference for the early part of the Age of Louis XIV, as per- 
 haps marking the zenith of letters.'' It is natural that he should 
 have chosen this reign and just that part of this reign, for the 
 national taste, from the Regency on, revolted against the latter 
 part. But it is more difficult to make like allowance, when we 
 find no word celebrating the splendor, power, poetry and scholar- 
 ship of the French Renaissance.^ Ronsard is not an actuality, 
 which would seem to settle the question. 
 
 iPp. 135 ff. 
 
 2 Janet seems entirely justified in calling M's estimate of Cicero unreservedly 
 panegyrical. * ' Par exemple il le loue en philosophic non seulement au-dela de 
 la v^rit^, mais contre toute v^rite." M. maintains the Roman's originality in 
 philosophy and claims that he overthrew the Greeks ; whereas he only translated 
 these. The praise of Cicero's character is also quite exaggerated. {Journal des 
 Savants, 1893, p. 149. ) 
 
 ^Sorel, p. 52. ^MonL consid., p. 37. ^Pp. 28, 84. ^P. 138. 
 
182 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 The praise of Montaigne shows the preference for " ceux qui 
 pensent " against " ceux qui amusent." ^ Boileau's art is ad- 
 mired — but his spirit and his character condemned.^ The point of 
 character, indeed, is what Montesquieu chiefly considers in regard 
 to his contemporaries, admiring on this ground Fontenelle, Rollin, 
 St. Pierre.^ The last is reproved, wherein he would work against 
 our author's aristocratic views. 
 
 It is again the intellectual which he reveres in Descartes and in 
 Malebranche.^ Voltaire, if he is not quite considered a " polisson 
 de lettres,'' ^ is judged with acumen as well as with personal 
 animus.^ And Buffon is appreciated somewhat grudgingly.^ 
 
 The remark on the "rudesse" of English poetry^ is also 
 revelatory. It counts on the credit side that he is disposed to 
 allow to the English authors generally imagination and originality. 
 He is caught in doubt as to Shakespeare, being better able to 
 estimate and appreciate Pope or Addison.^ 
 
 Just here, by way of transition to style, we may note Fr^ron's^® 
 comment on the " ecrits satiriques sanglants : " 
 
 "En defendant les grfices centre 1' Anergic, I'auteur soutient sa propre cause. 
 Mais en aspirant aux gr^es franpaises, il n'a pas renonc^ a 1' Anergic anglaise." " 
 
 Force, in fact, would hardly be a French recommendation, and 
 accordingly, when it comes to style, this quality is not expressly 
 enjoined. ^^ Perhaps, again, it is because the French look upon 
 clearness and elegance as somewhat obviously theirs, that no great 
 stress is laid on these points either. But concision is still happily 
 insisted upon ; and the suppressions heureuses continue the idea 
 of the suggestive and inspiring thought.^^ 
 
 His idea of a style at dissonance with the subject is,^* it has been 
 remarked, quite in accordance with the tone of good society — that 
 of saying serious things lightly and vice versa. But it is quite 
 
 »P. 138. 2P140. 3 pp 143^143, 
 
 * Pp. 141-2. And in Locke (p. 152). 
 
 ^Sorel, p. 137. «P. 144. "^P. 145. sp. 151. 
 
 »P. 151. ^^ Remarqiies mr VE. L., p. 208. 
 
 ^^ This is d propos of M's claim, " moi je suis peintre." 
 
 i=*P. 156. 13 p^ 157^ i*P. 154. 
 
The Aesthetic Doetrine of Montesquieu. 183 
 
 opposed to the " tone of discourse/' the maintaining of a certain 
 standard of exprssion in harmony with the subject. However, he 
 desires to discount rhetorical traditions. 
 
 His best point, in connection with rhetoric, is where, after 
 renouncing all its works, he allows that declamation is an 
 usual early stage in stylistic development.^ He thus suggests, 
 contrary to his assumed formula, that the progress may be from 
 simplicity, through ornament, back to a certain simplicity again. 
 No issue can be taken with his protests against labored form, 
 against ornateness and bombast. Only, he is apt to consider any 
 style — say, a rich, controlled, or thought-out expression — as com- 
 ing under one of these heads. He seized, at any rate, the impor- 
 tant principle that sublimity falls easily into bathos.^ 
 
 P. 156. ^F.AS. 
 
184 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE— CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 It may be interesting to round off the present study by an 
 investigation of how far the foregoing principles obtained in 
 Montesquieu's own method and style. Regard will be had of 
 course to the evident fact that, within the limits of this discus- 
 sion, it will be impossible to give an exhaustive or thorough 
 review of his writings — qualities which have been aimed at in 
 the presentation of his doctrine. Nor can the linking be made 
 between any but the most important of his principles and their 
 application. 
 
 A compendious statement of his whole literary doctrine, with 
 an attempt to find the key of his system, so far as that can be 
 logically coordinated, may well precede. 
 
 I should find this key, or leading principle, in his opposition 
 of thought and amusement. The majority of his views seem 
 derivatory from this contrast. Those that are not come from a 
 second subsidiary opposition, allied or confused with the first, 
 between restrained classic art and original expression. 
 
 Let us see if such systematizing will hold. 
 
 That he makes thought the main issue appears from his desire 
 not to " faire lire, mais de faire penser,'* from his exaltation of 
 Reason as the divinest faculty, from his usual admiration of those 
 writers who were the greatest thinkers. Works of thought are 
 ouvi^ages d^ esprit. 
 
 That he makes of amusement a main issue appears from his 
 statement that we ordinarily read for pleasure alone, from his 
 allowance of esprit and the salon style, of gallantry and salacious- 
 ness. Works of pleasure are belles-lettres. 
 
 \ How often does he conciliate the two motives ? The lower will 
 
 / be subordinated to the higher, pleasure to thought. This is seen . 
 
 in his suggestion of researches for savants^ " et un trait de galan- 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 185 
 
 terie'' for the rest;^ and more brilliantly in his Invocation to the 
 Muses to lead to wisdom and truth through pleasure. If he allows 
 the means to obscure the end, both in detailed development and in 
 execution, that will be perfectly human. 
 
 From his devotion to the supreme idea comes his view of 
 suggestiveness in thought, akin to an appeasing of the higher 
 curiosity, to the use of compressed diction ; thence also proceed 
 his causal conception of history, his love of knowledge and 
 study, his care for the spirit rather than the form of laws. Here 
 primarily come into play his principles of order and suite. 
 
 His hesitancy as to pleasure, his more or less reluctant yielding 
 to its calls, become manifest not only in frequent discussions of 
 women, wit and gallantry, but in his opposition of truth and the 
 bon mot, his view of the limits of satire and epigram. The 
 qualities of variety, uniformity, curiosity and surprise, mystery 
 and naivete, are largely chosen because of their pleasurable appeal. 
 
 The subsidiary contrast, that between genius and "manner," 
 or individualism and classicism, will likewise include much. His 
 standpoint here similarly fluctuates, according as to whether or not 
 he esteems a point of style so powerfully and reasonably classic to 
 be indisputably good form. Otherwise genius will prevail, and 
 art is only artificiality and emptiness. 
 
 Accordingly, he believes in a delicate literary treatment of the 
 sciences, in a measured use of true antithesis, in using while 
 imitating nature. But loud is his denunciation of rhetoric and 
 figures, of hampering pedants, and of senseless, tasteless critics. 
 Genius is its own arbiter. A work not of genius is worthless. 
 And simple genius — to complete the cycle — is thought. 
 
 Things of a pure abstract beauty hardly concern him. Contrast 
 and charm are the only qualities falling strictly here. Imagina- 
 tion and sentiment are briefly dismissed, though he will not have 
 the latter ridiculed. Literature may be addressed to the soul; 
 but of his division he has chosen that type " dont le sujet consiste 
 dans le raisonnement." 
 
 ^ Which was Bayle's excuse. 
 
186 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 Briefly surveying his works, it will readily be seen that the 
 principle of amusement obtained in his eariier years.^ Reserving 
 for a moment the Lettres persaneSy let us consider his contributions 
 to the art of fiction. 
 
 None of these show much narrative ability ; but they do show, 
 each and all, a compromise with the disposition to the ornate, the 
 elaborate, the artificial, which theoretically he so heartily rejects. 
 The Temple de Guide and the Voyage ct Faphos were written to 
 please a princess ; and throughout they evince the flattest con- 
 cessions to the salon taste — which was also that of the hothouse. 
 
 The Temple de Gnide with its pretty conceits, its faded figures 
 and images, its false nature and its art suspect, is evidently 
 designed to satisfy the " d^licatesse de goAt " which he found at 
 court. It has no note of real feeling, no vitality, no appeal save 
 that of the cuHosa felieitas and of voluptuous suggestion. Its 
 descriptions of nature are tame and trite to a degree ; neither here 
 nor elsewhere has Montesquieu shown vividness or pictorial power 
 in representing the outdoor world. Its plot is rambling, reveal- 
 ing already its author's lack of constructive ability. This is best 
 excused by considering this production with the Voyage d Paphos 
 as connected and incomplete sketches. 
 
 Such are the evident weaknesses of the method. Perhaps 
 there is compensating gain. For certainly, insipid, cold and 
 tasteless as is most of the Temple, it is yet spirituel and pleasant 
 in places. There is some picturesque force and imagination in 
 the account of the cavern of Jealousy, in the still-life view of the 
 Sybarites. There is some daintily malin charm in the tableaux 
 of the Gods, in the closing scene with Th^mire — the charm of a 
 Boucher allegory. Better than either are the fair pages of fine 
 prose, modeled and moulded into a rigid and polished beauty, as 
 of beau mxirbre — the still cold beauty of the perfect classic phrase. 
 
 * It will be impossible, from this point on, to give the host of references, authori- 
 ties, studies, which contribute to the conclusions about to follow. I must ask the 
 reader to accept results in lieu of processes, assuring him that the former have 
 come not without much brooding over the pages of Laboulaye, as well as from 
 the perusal of some three hundred essays and monographs on the President. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 187 
 
 Then, too, no one can deny the presence of that harmony which 
 he claimed for himself.^ 
 
 Cephise et r Amour is a pretty and provoquant jeu d' esprit. Not 
 so much can be said for the Voyage d Paphos, which is wearisome, 
 silly and the worst of these productions. It is the apex of 
 passionless gallantry, tribe ornament and stale mythology. In 
 this very Voyage is found the rebuke of " ces froides exag^rations 
 qui .... d^shonorent le fade passion^ qui les met sans cesse en 
 usage.'' ^ And the remark seems eminently applicable to his own 
 production. He has also rebuked the throwing of flowers ; but 
 in these tales he throws them with both hands; and they are 
 palpably artificial flowers.^ 
 
 The principle of a lower pleasure, then, seems inadequate for 
 literary purposes. It is interesting in this same genre, to compare 
 with these stories the Arsace et Ismenie of his later years.* This 
 tale is fully as poorly constructed, has still the clinquant and the 
 appeal to the passions. But thought has now been added to 
 amusement. There is both brilliancy and profundity in reflection, 
 a restrained richness in style, a simpler and more interesting 
 manner of relation. It is more nearly a philosophic apologue. 
 The high light of humanity and idealism appearing at the end of 
 his life shines brightly here, and — chose etrange! — thereby is it 
 even given to him to display in his last story more of sentiment 
 than elsewhere, more movement and a purer passion. 
 
 One point must be touched on, in connection with Montesquieu's 
 avowed preference of gallantry to grossness.^ The first is a prime 
 motive in all of these tales — certainly there is nothing Rabelaisian 
 about the Temple de Gnide. Yet, in the sottisier at Bordeaux, if 
 we may believe Yian,^ in the two Lettres persanes '^ of the Etren- 
 nes de la St.-Jean, there are details quite at dissonance with his 
 nicer theory. When it comes to gallantry, there is a coldness in 
 
 1 P. 158. ^YU, 464, cf. mp,, p. 108. »P. 137, 
 
 *The Histoire Veritable is too poor and awkward a story to require serious 
 criticism. It is chiefly interesting as anticipating the L. P. for harem descrip- 
 tions, and in some technical points of style. 
 
 «P. 91. «^is<., pp. 181-2. 
 
 "^ Which, if any, are the contributions to this collection that I would assign to 
 his pen. 
 
188 The Aesthetie Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 his most passionate scenes that is quite repulsive. His Galateas 
 are all statuesque and his ardors rhetorical and his transports 
 unconvincing. The fade language of compliment and the vague- 
 ness of the classic vocabulary help in this effect. He is at his 
 best in the agreeably Tnalin scenes, dependent on suggestion or 
 rouerie^ as in the Gnide and in certain episodes of the Lettres 
 per sanest 
 
 That masterpiece, " le plus profond des livres frivoles ; '' ^ shows 
 what is on the whole a happy compromise between the two princi- 
 ples. The desire to please perforce compounds with the irresistible 
 idea, determined to have its way. " Manner,'* which is now a 
 brilliant style, and genius have found a common ground.^ Liber- 
 tinism, some critics would have it, and story-telling, form but a 
 cloak, a foil for thoughtful discussion. The last part of the book 
 turns preponderatingly to the consideration of grave questions, 
 social and artistic, political and economic, religious and historical : 
 the Esprit des Lois is already announced. 
 
 Yet there can be no doubt that in the mind of Montesquieu, as 
 in that of his contemporaries and in that of impartial posterity, 
 the lighter elements, whether of the Oriental trame^ the sparkling 
 epigrams and portraits, the delightful tone, the perfect grace and 
 vividness of the style, play at least as considerable a part as any 
 doctoral discussion.* What really makes the Lettres persanes is its 
 brilliancy, its esprit in the fullest sense of the word. 
 
 ^ E. g., the story of Zul^ma. This is interesting from the point of view of 
 construction. It is properly a digression containing a tale and a tale within a 
 tale — and none of the three are rounded off. Similarly, in A. & 1. the reader is 
 bewildered by the haziness and improbability of the conclusion. 
 
 ^ Villeraain, Cours de Litt. , p. 332. 
 
 3 P. 81. 
 
 * Stories are not lacking to illustrate that M. subsequently regretted his frivolity. 
 He is said to have told his daughter, ' ' Laissez cela, mon enfant ; c' est un livre 
 de ma jeunesse qui n'est pas fait pour la v6tre." (Vian, p. 64). Also, for his 
 free-thinking, there is his death-bed confession, probably apocryphal but indica- 
 tive, that he was moved to these utterances by " le gout du neuf et du singulier ; 
 le d^sir de passer pour un genie supdrieur aux prejuges et aux maximes com- 
 munes, I'envie de plaire et de meriter les applaudissements . . . ." — His words, 
 according to P. Routh (Feller, Diet Hist., ix, 56). His desir de plaire has been 
 condemned by critics, from Marivaux to Julie ville. As to espi% Castel's state- 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 189 
 
 The reign of this quality ^ comes as supplementary to, as 
 supplanting indeed, that of feminism. It appears in many 
 guises : as simple brilliancy or style of statement ; as epigram- 
 matic subtlety d la Rochefoucauld or as more abiding apophthegm,^ 
 shading into the Orphic and the prophetic utterance ; as humorous 
 exaggeration, paradoxical in both senses, and as deft irony ; as 
 realistic drollery, colloquial repartee, even poor puns ; as excoriat- 
 ing satire ^ and biting ridicule.^ 
 
 Just here it may be well to take account of one or two influ- 
 ences. That Montesquieu's Persians get some of their points 
 from the Spectator has been pretty clearly shown,^ and I think in 
 like manner, a striking analogy may be traced — whether or not 
 an influence may be predicated — between the Dean of Dublin 
 and the President, between the Lettres Persanes and Gulliver's 
 Travels.^ This is apart from the argument that the Frenchman's 
 later theory of the separation of powers derives largely from 
 Swift's Discourse of the ContestsJ That contention, plausible 
 though dangerous as all such speculations are, would, however, 
 if sustained, help forward the present argument. 
 
 All that is now submitted is that there are distinct analogies, 
 in conception and satiric treatment, between the points of view 
 ascribed to Gulliver and to the Persians. There is the same 
 perfectly straightforward and almost serious handling of very 
 familiar European things as from a foreigner's naive standpoint. 
 There is the same realism of detail, the same jocose appreciation 
 of what would strike the foreigner as remarkable. Few French- 
 
 ment, that M. wished to obliterate his reputation in that line (P Homme moral, 
 p. 99), or even his own frequent deprecation of such fame needs some discount. 
 Allowing for the more serious inclinations of age, I should still say that M. was 
 ready till the end to condone, if not to approve, both his work and his wit. 
 
 1 P. 89. 2 p^ 118^ 
 
 ^ His use, both of satire and epigram, is less kindly than recommended. Pp. 
 92, 123). 
 
 *P. 91. 5 p. 151^ and Meyer, Com. L. P. 
 
 ^Sup., p. 150. — A work apparently already talked of among his friends in 1722 
 ( Bolingbroke, Lettres, iii, 175), though not published until 1726. However, I 
 am not trying to prove an influence. 
 
 ■^ Jannsen, Months. Theorie . . . zuriickgefiihrt, and, per contra, Pietsch {q. v.). 
 
190 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 men have endeavored to convey, certainly nowhere else has 
 Montesquieu succeeded in conveying that humor which is so 
 peculiarly Swiftian : that tone of simple description w^hich hardly 
 takes the reader into its confidence, which baffles him by minute- 
 ness in fact, by solemnity in statement, which appalls him by the 
 satire of its ultimate truth. Only, Swift is the elder and more 
 terrible, having far more of gloom and dishearten ment than the 
 Frenchman cared to attain. 
 
 This much by way of illustration for a certain phase of our 
 author's wit. Another pl^se — and this time La Bruy^re is the 
 precursor — is to be found in the delicate cameo, the finely touched 
 laughable portraits, which so deliciously enliven the Fersanes. In 
 this connection, it may be remarked that Montesquieu\s belief in 
 painting types instead of individual characters ^ is well wrought 
 out in his own creation. Every portrait is as typical as Moli^re 
 — ^and as inoffensive. 
 
 With his leading characters, he is hardly so happy. He has 
 wished to avoid a " Bajazet naturalist Franyais ; " ^ but his own 
 Bajazets would be very weak if considered solely as faithful 
 pictures of Oriental potentates. It may be argued, as he has 
 argued,^ that their occidentalization, proceeding rapidly throughout 
 the book, would naturally progress with the length of their stay 
 in Europe. His " Turks " become passable Christians.* But, in 
 truth, Usbek and Rica, it has often been said, were manufactured 
 as two mouthpieces of two Montesquieus ; ^ and their individual 
 characterization concerned him but little. 
 
 An allied point is that of the Oriental coloring. This he 
 obtained, in his opinion, by luxurious harem descriptions,^ by the 
 employment of exalted language, expressions " qui auraient 
 ennuye jusque dans les nues." ^ Yet several of his fine passages 
 have the Oriental warmth as a raison d^Hre. As a rule, however, 
 there is a suggestion of irony in the very magnificence and 
 
 * P. 87. 2 P. 46. •'» I, 47, 415. * P. 87. 
 
 ^ The first as the sage, the second rather as the man of the world. 
 ^He shows imagination, to my thinking, only in these despotic visions (also 
 Hist. Verit.), and in panoramic historical surveys (esp. G. D, R.), 
 ' P. 156 ; it may read '* envoys." (i, 52) . 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 191 
 
 ampollosity of this made-to-order vocabulary. Hyperbole, to 
 which as a Gascon he was sufficiently addicted/ comes here into 
 play. The "figured language"^ in general, which even Usbek 
 would abjure in itself, the flowery language of compliment are 
 made to contribute their part. With all this, it is of course no 
 real Orient that he depicts, however well it may have satisfied the 
 Regency. 
 
 Hyperbole is not the only figure which Montesquieu uses in 
 his normal style. There are epithets and oratorical climaxes.^ 
 There is the dexterous use of detail, making a sort of synecdoche 
 which gives much vividness. There is, most important of all, 
 his fondness for antitheses. 
 
 The great principle of contrast,^ in its larger relations, has been 
 put to masterly use by Montesquieu. In this very work, there is 
 as essential point of departure, the contrast, evidently designed 
 by the author,^ between the Persian point of view and the Euro- 
 pean setting. Again, the Romains is one long sustained antithesis 
 between the Grandeur and the Dicadenee of that nation. One 
 may also find, in the Sylla et Eucrate^ a contrast between the 
 historical brutality of the hero and the dramatic, rhetorical way 
 in which his character is presented. In the Lettres persanes, once 
 more, it is the recurring contrast of grave and gay that piques our 
 interest. It may then be conceded that the President could aptly 
 apply the fecund principle in the large.® 
 
 But how when it comes to details, to such things as parallelism 
 and antithesis? There are several excellent pleas on behalf of 
 true antithesis. It can be alleged, and has been by the philoso- 
 phers from the days of Socrates to those of Hegel,^ that thought 
 
 ^ "Nombre innombrable" and "tout I'univers" are favorite expressions. 
 
 2 P. 155. 
 
 ^ P. 41. This is both of periods and phrases, with the telling word frequently 
 at the end. 
 
 ♦P. 39. 51^49. 
 
 * Another excellent example is the continued parallel of the Eomans and the 
 Carthaginians in O. D. R., ch. iv. 
 
 ' Cf. the antithetical method, the antinomies of the Kantian School. 
 
192 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Ifontesquieu, 
 
 comes by opposition ; that an idea brings as a necessary correlate 
 its logical opposite ; to which it might be added, that, whether or 
 not there is exact contrast of antonyms, each word, as a self, is 
 opposed to others of its kind as non-selves. Hence evolves what 
 seems, from the literary standpoint, a fertile cause of antitheses ; 
 a writer who has chosen one word and rejected several is tempted 
 to put down one of these last as complementary or antithetical to 
 his chosen word. Therefore, philosophically or artistically, the 
 fullest expression of the idea tends to a contrast or balancing in 
 expression. That a sentence may be signally helped in harmony 
 and rhythm by the balancing of its simpler or its complex parts 
 is evident. 
 
 This may all be very true, one is tempted to respond ; but what 
 if the antithesis is false, if words are thrown in independently of 
 thought, chiefly to make a rhythmical style ? Montesquieu him- 
 self, has made the distinction and has answered this question. 
 Only^ one would be disposed to treat more tenderly than he does 
 the case of " false " antithesis. Rhythm in itself is not such a 
 bad thing ; and the two varieties are not always distinguishable, 
 as the philosophic attempts to cover the whole field under Idea 
 may have shown. 
 
 One would be so disposed, I say, but for one thing — the anti- 
 thesis is like the snake of the fable. If once allowed j^er se it is 
 most likely to invade and pervade a whole style, corrupting it 
 from contrast to a " vicious uniformity,'' driving us to impatience 
 with its frequent recurrence, making us demand whether anything 
 is ever really meant or not. 
 
 To return from this excursus, that is exactly what has happened 
 in Montesquieu's own case. In vain he will have only the true 
 antithesis of idea; in vain he denounces Saint Augustine and 
 St.-Evremond. He is far too fond of Florus and of Cicero. 
 One may discern in his very penetration of the subject, even in 
 his protests, that he realizes half-consciously what a hold the figure 
 has acquired on him. 
 
 It is admitted that there are many true antitheses in Montes- 
 quieu's writings ; but there are too many of the other kind ; and 
 in either case, since both swell the total amount, the general effect 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. ^193 
 
 has been seriously to impair the virtue of his style by monotony. 
 The infection spreads from simple word-antithesis to a balancing 
 of parts, clauses, sentences. When parallelism and sentence- 
 balancing, things beautiful in themselves, become wearisome from 
 repetition, when the antithetical purpose is nakedly evident and 
 its artifice manifest, the principle has clearly gone to seed. The 
 reader stands in a pained attitude of attention, ready to pounce on 
 the next antithesis. He does not have long to wait. He is 
 pleased by what promises to be a gentle and fruitful contrast — he 
 finds himself involved, bemused in a threefold and fourfold 
 antithesis, continuing through an involved sentence, and perhaps 
 balanced by a corresponding sentence to form a perfectly antitheti- 
 cal paragraph. This, of course, is an extreme case. But it is 
 rare that Montesquieu stops with one simple word-antithesis. 
 That would have been too palpably easy. 
 
 It has seemed worth while to enlarge on this figure, and its 
 extensions, since it is the most prominent technical element in our 
 writer's style. Its abuse is related to his protests against uni- 
 formity and does not conspicuously make for variety. The 
 latter quality is, however, gained for the Lettres persanes by the 
 different subjects and tones which characterize successive letters. 
 
 As to the construction of the book, it properly has none. The 
 sketchy harem imbroglio is hardly a very strong chaine} The 
 lack of constructive ability, which Montesquieu has elsewhere so 
 signally evidenced, makes less difference here on account of the 
 very nature of letters. He may wander at his own sweet will to 
 any subject and proceed with any development, without seriously 
 marring the symmetry of such a work. There is no beginning, 
 no particular conduct of plot, and a hurried ending — which, how- 
 ever, is sufficiently well brought about. 
 
 The episodes, which are certainly distinct stories, are interesting 
 enough. The best seems the story of the Troglodytes, wherein 
 may be partly realized his ideal of antique simplicity.^ 
 
 The style is rather sec and brilliant than flowing. The " asth- 
 matic" sentences seem like successive stapes, whose point of 
 
 ip. 112. ^v.im. 
 
194 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 junction is nowhere. There are few connectives. An event or 
 separate fact is frequently stated in each phrase. This shows 
 already the lack of care for transitions, which will be a later 
 reproach. 
 
 There is uniformity again when he begins periods with the same 
 words several times in succession. This is a favorite habit/ and 
 with this go the long linked peroratory sentences, with climactic 
 finishes. A more serious reproach is that of occasional crudity, 
 cacophony, bad grammar and obscurity. 
 
 When all this has been said — and most of this is not in repre- 
 hension — it remains that our author has forged himself a polished 
 and trenchant instrument, flexible for defense, sharp-edged and 
 piercing in attack. His incessant care in perfecting his verbal 
 expression is shown by the successive editions, notably by those 
 published under the care of M. Barckhausen.^ 
 
 What contributes to this beauty of expression, as much as his 
 grace and finished manner, is the concentrated and powerful force 
 of his vocabulary. Not only is this most striking, but most 
 suggestive,^ containing many a nuance^ many a felicity and, it 
 must be admitted, many a piece of preciosity. He not only 
 " creates '*'* his diction at need, but is constantly in the habit of 
 exercising a " gentle pressure " on words to make them give up 
 all that they have of significance and connotation. He has, of 
 course, his favorite expressions,^ his hyperboles and Gasconisms. 
 But only in the Bomains does he surpass the Persanes for concision, 
 force and elegance of diction. 
 
 In this ehef-d^oeuvre of historical writing — muUum in parvo — 
 he has merged two historical methods, the philosophic and the 
 panoramic or dramatic.^ If at one moment he seems somewhat 
 spectacular,^ at the next he is engaged mainly in marshalling 
 
 ^ Much more awkward and monotonous in the Hist, verit. 
 
 ^L. P., G. D. B., rejet of E. L. ^ P. 157. 
 
 * P. 54. ^ Like redoutable. « P. 115. 
 
 ^ A quality much more conspicuous in S. & E., where the grandiose, the Cicero- 
 nian, the oratoire tend to dominate. Yet this may become majestic, almost 
 august. The theme is singularly suited to the impressiveness and compact 
 majesty which form one side of his style. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. — H)5 
 
 causes, and always his attitude is in the best sense human and " popu- 
 lar." This he has kept as legacy frorfi his previous worldly 
 influences. Esprit and feminism have vanished. But there is 
 still the classic compulsion to throw his thoughts into a shape that 
 may be understood and honored by an audience not specially 
 trained.^ Both idea and expression are brought within the reach 
 of all, without losing in nobility or impairing the general tone — a 
 reproach which has justly been made against the Esprit des Lois.^ 
 
 The result of the method has been a masterly piece of writing, 
 no less delightful than thoughtful, no less instructive than artistic. 
 It is a very perfect welding of thought and form, and as such 
 would seem to unite the two kinds of books.^ It is true that in 
 the last part, one becomes somewhat confused and weary, less 
 perhaps from Montesquieu^s fault than from the nature of the 
 subject, as he is forced to wander amid the chaotic ruins of the 
 two Empires. But as a complete product, let us note what is 
 now the fully established reign of the general Idea in his mental 
 processes and output. 
 
 It is largely because he has been able to grasp the leading 
 principles of every period that he has succeeded in presenting, in 
 such little space, a clear coordinated view of the whole history of 
 Rome. The work is saved from sketchiness by its aim, which is 
 not narrative. Yet, in order to avoid too abstract and dry a 
 treatment, he has relieved his philosophic view with illustrations 
 and figures * of an extraordinary force, with magnificent and 
 climactic periods, with a suggestive concision, illuminative and 
 felicitous. In his abstracting of the essence from incidents and 
 events, he puts forth generalities which do not glitter but impress. 
 His thought remains on the heights and so does his expression. 
 
 For this grave and lofty survey of an empire's course is clad 
 in a style, equally grave, noble and at times sublime. At its best 
 
 ip. 175. 
 
 ' Where, however, he again resorts to esp-tY and the saugrenu. 
 3 P. 184. 
 
 *■ Particularly metaphors and similes — with the already mentioned presentation 
 by detail (p. 190). 
 
196 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 it is a stately and harmonious organ-roll, here sonorous in quality, 
 there marked by a preud and dignified phrase, like his own 
 Roman Stoics. This indeed is a fine outcome of his classicism ; 
 a contained and finished modern development of the best Latin 
 prose. ^ Such an effect, however, is seen rather as an inspiring or 
 as a chastening element, than in a way to vitiate and weaken his 
 own individual expression. 
 
 Classicism again appears and conspicuously in his choice of 
 vocabulary — and here is the point of union with the Lettres 
 persanes. There is the same power of compression and of 
 nuances; but his "creation" of diction here is rather along 
 the line of Latinisms. He turns words, if ever so slightly, from 
 their modern to their antique signification, thus recoining them 
 with the Roman stamp. 
 
 The concision extends to sentences ; which are again almost too 
 serrSs and compact. They have at times something of a tele- 
 graphic effect, tending to the interjectional, seeming more like 
 notes and jottings.^ The paragraphs, too, are not infrequently 
 haches and brief, consisting of a single sentence and having each 
 the air of a separate treatise. Again there is the lack of transi- 
 tions. Wherever the Romains shows aridity and lacks entrain, 
 over-concision is likely to be the fault. 
 
 The paragraphs are marked by another peculiar trait. Their 
 succession is not always thoroughly logical. They hardly succeed 
 one another so much as they grow out in separate stems — each 
 following the former, not as arising from its whole thought, but 
 as suggested by some special thought back in the body of the 
 predecessor. The movement is rather inward than onward. 
 There is thus frequently a feeling of unpleasant suspense and 
 entanglement, without the sense of mental progress. 
 
 Such things cannot seriously mar the beauty of the whole. The 
 Grandeur et Decadence has well gained its place among the world's 
 Little Masterpieces. It is one of the prime products of classicism, 
 alike by its supremacy of thought and its beauty of form. 
 
 ^Extending even to Latin construction and the imitating of passages from 
 Tacitus, et al. 
 2 AU these defects are much more marked in the E. L. 
 
The Aesthetic Dodrine of Montesquieu. 197 
 
 It has been too much the fashion to regard this work merely as 
 an antechamber or annex to the spacious halls of the Esprit des 
 Lois. The Romains is quite capable of standing on its own 
 merits ; and needs perhaps less defence than its more imposing 
 and celebrated rival. 
 
 When it comes to the Esprit des Lois, one's impulse is first to 
 throw up the hands in bewilderment and stupefaction ; and, 
 secondly, to apologize for presenting cold and categorical conclu- 
 sions, which it would take hundreds of pages adequately to prove. 
 This work represents Montesquieu in his fourth stage. He has 
 passed through his eras of wordly frivolity,^ of the union of that 
 and brilliant speculation,^ of a combined classical and philosophi- 
 cal conception of history.^ He has now placed himself with 
 tolerable absoluteness on the side of thought, of erudition ; and 
 vast scholastic labors supplant the careful hours formerly devoted 
 to artistic finish. 
 
 He himself would claim that he has carried out his precept of 
 ^^ treating sciences delicately." ^ Many of his critics hold that he 
 has so done and that in so doing he has added another domain to 
 literature. Many others hold, of course, that the literary treat- 
 ment is incidental, that the mass of fact and theory, legal, political, 
 economic and social, with which the book is surcharged, makes its 
 real value. With the last statement one is inclined to agree — with 
 a difference. 
 
 From the literary standpoint, and the present standpoint is 
 necessarily that, the Esprit des Lois is a colossal failure. Or, if 
 preferred, it is a succ^s d'estime. This statement is not made 
 without due regret and all circumspection. 
 
 For, to consider closely his "delicate treatment," the literary 
 condiments which he has insinuated into the work, which he has 
 added not interfused, represent only a compromise with his con- 
 demned principle of ornament.^ He has made a hasty, ill-advised 
 and inartistic return to the ressorts of esprit and licentiousness, 
 
 1 T. G., V.dP. ^L. P. 3 Q^ j)^ ^. 
 
 ■* A procedure really adopted in several of the Discours. 
 5 Pp. 154-5. 
 
198 The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, 
 
 which marked the Persanes. Only now, such condiments are 
 more poorly prepared ; and they are markedly out of place in a 
 serious work of jurisprudence and government. Further, he has 
 attempted to relieve his subject, by the insertion of chance 
 colifichetSy by writing very short chapters, which sometimes con- 
 tain nothing at all,^ by a quantity of supernumerary faits divers. 
 His belated return to the principle of pleasure, to a desire to 
 amuse, becomes gauche and inharmonious in its manifestations. 
 
 One might pardon all this, were it not for the main offense 
 against literary presentation that ruins the book : it is lamentably 
 lacking in construction. It is a chaotic mass of good things gone 
 astray. He offends against his every dogma of order and suite,^ 
 There is no coordinate principle binding the whole ; and his own 
 hypothetical arrangements are clearly not carried out. 
 
 This is supported, as Bruneti^re^ has interestingly shown, by 
 the fact that each successive commentator comes with a different 
 interpretation, a different clue to the maze of the Esprit des Lois, 
 All are right, because each principle partly guided Montesquieu 
 in his discussion ; all are wrong, because no principle obtained 
 consistently from beginning to end. The most illuminative, 
 perhaps, of the recent divisions is that of M. Barckhausen.'* But 
 will his, or any other clue, correspond with the titles of Montes- 
 quieu's books, with the inner development of his chapters? It 
 might also be said that even if some scheme, both broad and 
 ingenious enough, were found and manipulated to fit the turns 
 and twists of the trame^s eccentric development, even then the 
 literary offense is not nullified ; for in a work of this size, the 
 arrangement should be more evidently logical and patent, not 
 requiring the ingenuity of a problem-solver to grasp its divisions. 
 
 Granted the confusion, its explanation is not far to seek : the 
 three or four souls and principles which made Montesquieu are 
 each wrestling for the predominance, the victory going to none ; 
 
 * Bk. , VIII, ch. XV. Also, the scattering fire of small paragraphs has more 
 than ever the effect of making his book seem largely a mere collection of notes. 
 
 ^P. 39. ^ Manuel,^. 295a. 
 
 * Le Desordre dans VE. L. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 199 
 
 and in such a vast field, with so enormous an array of material, 
 he has not succeeded in ordering and mastering his forces. There 
 is no vantage-point, sufficiently lofty for either author or reader 
 to obtain a coup-d^oeil of his chaos. 
 
 He has sought such a point de rep^re in his opening book, and 
 has signally failed to find it. As evidence of his little taste for 
 metaphysical thought,^ his philosophy of laws is notably one of 
 the poorest parts of the work ; it has been made a matter of 
 reproach to him that his trend is rather towards opportunism 
 than towards basing a system on some high philosophical or 
 ethical import of laws. They are defined merely as rapports. 
 
 This conception does not concern us, save in so far as it shows 
 a lack of leading principle. The first book is then a superficial 
 introduction which introduces to nothing that he subsequently 
 writes. His last two books, last four books or last six books — 
 the number varies inversely with the enterprise of the arranger — 
 are likewise conceded to be hors-d^ oeuvre^s or additions outside 
 of any plan. This again shows the difficulties which the plan- 
 maker has to contend with. ^ ^,,4. vwxVtvviVnt^ \ 
 
 His material overcame him in another way ; that is, with 
 reference to style. In contrast to his previous works, the pedes- 
 trian quality of this becomes at times marked. He plods on, 
 frequently amid arid wastes, and the aridity penetrates to the 
 founts of inspiration. Consequently, there is the effect of reading 
 a note-book, interjectional jottings that are not artistically expanded 
 and linked. 
 
 Yet there are certainly oases. There is usually the old clearness 
 in detail, the careful choice of vocabulary. And there is occa- 
 sionally the old brilliancy, profundity, strength and charm of 
 statement.^ The portrait of Charlemagne,^ even the Invocation,'* 
 are instances. It is significant that the famous chapter on the 
 English constitution ^ has been dwelt on by so many as the notable 
 feature of the book, largely obscuring all the rest. 
 
 1 P. 178. 
 
 ^ The caution must again be made that it is treatment and presentation, not the 
 thought of the work, that concerns us here. 
 3 VI, 50-1. -* IV, 359-60. ^iv, 7-23. 
 
200 The Aesthdio Dootmne of Montesquieu, 
 
 Episodes and interludes may have their value ; familiar personal 
 expressions may have their charm ; ^ but it is as a whole that the 
 work must be judged. For the scholarly part of it, there can be 
 no doubt that he shows his love of study ^ and vast knowledge. 
 Even this, however, frequently limits itself to the discovery and 
 recording of stray facts about Bantam, gorillas and the like, 
 facetiae which have been much ridiculed. The gravest accusation 
 here is that he does not put into practice that thorough and severe 
 criticism of sources which is his own recommendation.^ 
 
 Is it too rash to inquire whether, even as to matter, he shows 
 more of genius in the Esprit des LoiSy or, as he has put it, more 
 of "memory and patience?"^ If so, let us remain on the side of 
 " manner " and note that art of writing which he partially con- 
 demned finds here its final retribution. It will make us think, 
 but it will with difficulty make us read.^ This work is not a 
 masterpiepe of literature in the same sense that the Romaims and 
 the Lettres persanes are just that. It may be a masterpiece of 
 jurisprudence, political science, or even of legal and economic 
 history. But a masterpiece of literature, if literature is an art, 
 the Esprit des Lois can hardly be esteemed. 
 
 • If by way of conclusion it be demanded what can be said of 
 Montesquieu's final ranking as an aesthetician, a critic and an 
 artist, something like the following results may be submitted. 
 
 As an aesthetician, it is evident that he cannot stand as a 
 theorist of the first water. His system, if system it can be called, 
 lacks coherency and principle. He vibrates between the conflict- 
 ing standards of beauty and utility, of amusement and thought ; 
 he has no sure touchstone for the discernment of art. Taste itself 
 is for him a very variable matter, and even classicism will not lord 
 it over the whole field of production. 
 
 Yet this very uncertainty is a sign of moderation and breadth. 
 He may be called a trimmer or be successively claimed by various 
 
 ^ '' J'ose le dire," "II faut que je me fasse jour," etc. 
 
 'P. 99ff. "^V.m. ♦?. 93. sp, 22, 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 201 
 
 aesthetic schools, just as has befallen him in the field of politics. 
 If no whole doctrine has his sympathy, his relativity is in itself 
 worth while, and it will be largely in individual instances, in 
 particular utterances and relations, that his views may be appre- 
 ciated. Many of his judgments^ will be found interesting, others 
 are suggestive and even illuminative. He has reasoned where he 
 has not felt. 
 
 His taste has been variously judged ; critical opinion on the 
 whole considers its purity not above suspicion. Certainly, it is 
 that part of him on which the influence of the period, of the 
 solon particularly, exercised its most detrimental influence. It is 
 to be noted, nevertheless, that most condemnations of his taste 
 refer to his practice alone, and that his theory, as regards such 
 things as ornament, esprit and the like, is by far higher. His 
 goM bizarre may be ascribed to his age ; his own fine discernment 
 of certain fine things, in antiquity, or in the plastic arts, speaks 
 for itself. Taste, he would claim, is relative. His own, which is 
 not always fade and false, is usually that of the raffing and of the 
 man of the world, rather than of the artist. 
 
 As a critic, he is again systemless, which, according to Faguet, 
 is the true mark of the broad and impartial critic, enabling him 
 to enter freely into every man's point of view.^ His lack of 
 leading principle is much less reprehensible here than where he 
 would theorize aesthetically ; here, indeed, it rather enhances the 
 value of his judgments. These literary judgments have been 
 quoted and honored by many, especially by Ste-Beuve.^ They 
 are in truth, since individual judgments are now the thing required, 
 of proportionately more interest and value than his other aesthetic 
 deliverances. It will not of course do to depend very thoroughly 
 on Montesquieu's estimate of an author ; but that estimate may 
 well help us in coming to a conclusion, especially when — and this 
 gives his surer value — he voices, as he frequently does, the senti- 
 ment of his age or pronounces upon its authors. 
 
 "^ Sup., Bookn. 
 
 ^XVIIP siMe, p. 162— "un livre de critique divinatrice, voiia I'E. L," 
 This is not exactly literary criticism. 
 ^ Bruneti^re finds more to condemn {EU crit,, p. 248). 
 
202 The AeMhetic Doctrine of Montesquieu. 
 
 How then, it may be asked, could the President be so sum- 
 marily dealt with in histories of criticism like those of Bruneti^re 
 and Saintsbury ? Because, it might be divined, systems in these 
 works have necessarily the prime place, and a system is just what 
 Montesquieu lacked/ This lack, however, this trimming, may 
 itself assume not only a neutral but a positive value, when it 
 comes to his own fine protests against destructive criticism, his 
 view of the criti(;'s enlightening mission — precepts which he has 
 in the main followed practically. 
 
 It remains to decide whether or not he was a man of letters 
 and an artist. For the first, his intimate knowledge of the pro- 
 fession, his evident vocation for it, seems to point in a different 
 direction from his plainly expressed dislike and distrust thereof. 
 His contempt for mere authors, for poets and critics especially, 
 his condemnation of books, are not in favor of a high reverence 
 for his calling. He was more or less ashamed of his mHier. He 
 was too much of an aristocrat to be a thorough litterateur. Yet 
 his lifelong devotion, his absorption in his task declare the 
 vocation, whether or not he would admit it. He was a man of 
 letters malgr^ lui. 
 
 That of itself hardly tends to prove him an artist. What 
 further militates against this conception, is his lack of imagination 
 and sentiment, of a feeling for beauty, poetry and nature. For 
 doctrine, he interests himself in abstractions, in the plastic arts, 
 he loves antiquity ; but the first is the intellectual, analytical 
 interest, the second is the taste rather of the cultured amateur, 
 not of the connaisseur, and for the third he recognized sufficiently 
 well that the Romans were not poetically sensible nor artistically 
 supreme. For pmctice, his corrections and care of vocabulary, 
 his best and most brilliant sentences, passages, figures and finish, 
 would pronounce him of the craft ; but powerlessness of con- 
 struction, of narration, descent in tone and a fondness for paste 
 jewels leave one in doubt. The best arguments for him are based 
 
 ^ It may also be said that such works could deal only with an adequate body of 
 doctrine, and Montesquieu furnished hardly sufficient material before the publica- 
 tion of the P. <fe F. 
 
The Aesthetic Doctrine of Montesquieu, ~ 203 
 
 on his sense of the antique, the primeval simplicity, when reatij 
 he shows a "pointe de po^sie;"^ on his care for words; and, 
 more boldly, on his adaptation of his declared purpose to " faire 
 un art de la raison m^me." ^ If there can be an ^rt wholly of 
 the head, concerned with the creation and manipulation of ideas, 
 he has achieved that art. Its accomplishment brought him nearer 
 the lyric transport than anything he has known.^ 
 
 He was an artist in so far as a cultivated gentleman, in so far 
 as a thinker of great and catholic intelligence is bound to have 
 some appreciation of artistic matters. He is a creator of ideas 
 and a verbal artist of a rare order. But an artist in the subtle,] 
 manifold, perfect sense of the word, he was not, and could I 
 never be. 
 
 This is not to deny that he was many other things. I should 
 feel that this study would be altogether too specialized, were it 
 ended without one more tribute to the Titanic intelligence and 
 the pervasive influence, the very human charm of the President. 
 Great as he could be in an age where ideal greatness was unknown, 
 great morally despite his concessions, and intellectually despite 
 recent detractions, he has welded his world and that of some 
 antique or yet unborn vision into an unparalleled region, whose 
 atmosphere clarifies and heartens those who have the fortune to 
 dwell with him for a space. It is much that he has touched few 
 points of social history which he has not adorned, that he has 
 become the wise moderator as well as the legislator of nations, 
 that he has promoted the welfare of half the civilized govern- 
 ments on the globe, that he has come to his own in every land 
 of liberty. It is not altogether his fault that he could not live 
 in Arcady — nor yet in Bohemia. 
 
 ^Sch^rer, Etudes, ix, 251. 
 
 2 P. 50. 
 
 '^Invocation (iv, 359)— Faguet, pp. 190-1. 
 
VITA. 
 
 Edwin Preston Dargan was born on the 7th of September, 
 1879, in Orange County, Virginia, where he spent his early years. 
 He received his secondary education at the High Schools of 
 Charleston, S. C, and of Louisville, Ky., taking the bacalaureate 
 degree from Bethel College, Russellville, Ky., in June 1899. He 
 then went to the University of Virginia, where he remained three 
 years, taking largely graduate courses in the modern languages 
 and literatures, teaching, during the last of these years, at the 
 Rawlings Institute in Charlottesville. 
 
 The fifteen months from June 1902 to September 1903 were 
 spent abroad, principally at Berlin, Rome and Paris, where some 
 knowledge of the spoken languages was gained. Three years have 
 been passed in the Romance Department of the Johns Hopkins 
 University. The writer has studied French as a major subject, 
 Italian and Spanish as first and second minors respectively ; he 
 has held a Virginia scholarship during the first two years, and the 
 fellowship of the Department this final year. The summer of 
 1905 was spent in the libraries of Paris in the collection of material 
 for the present dissertation. 
 
 Thanks are due to Doctors Davis, Wilson and Kent of the 
 University of Virginia, for their much help and furtherance in 
 the study of literature ; to Dr. Philip Ogden of this institution 
 for illuminative interpretation of the same, particularly along the 
 line of the criticism of ideas ; to Dr. E. C. Armstrong for his 
 personal inspiration towards scholarly and exacting ideals ; to Dr. 
 J. E. Shaw for similar impulses and friendly services ; especially 
 to Dr. A. Marshall Elliott for general kindly guidance, advice and 
 assistance, both wise and cordial, shown in many ways. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, 
 or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only: 
 
 Tel. No. 642-3405 
 Renewals may be made 4 days priod to date due. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 14 
 
 Due end of t-All Quarter ^_ « - .-_ 
 wbiect to recall after- OK ■«*I0 1 « 
 
 HHTft 
 
 tD-O^S^H^M^ 
 
 ' ^ 'hu\'m- 
 
 JUN 1^2004 
 
 (NsFlTs-^OH^e-l^a Um?enS]ofO;iSrma 
 
/ ~n 
 
 1 7^(i^f