The years have passed, and critics have fully justified this plea.  The most convincing argument is undoubtedly the examination of the plays themselves.  Leaving out of account le Pere prudent and Annibal, the following more or less arbitrary classification may serve to show the predominating note in each comedy:—­

I. Surprises de l’Amour.—­The two Surprises de l’Amour (1722 and 1727), la Double Inconstance (1723), le Denouement imprevu (1724), le Jeu de l’Amour et du Hasard (1730), les Serments indiscrets (1732), l’Heureux Stratageme (1733), la Meprise (1734), le Legs (1736), les Fausses Confidences (1737), la Joie imprevue (1738).

II.  Comedies de caractere.—­La Fausse Suivante (1724), le Petit-maitre corrige(1734), la Mere confidente (1735), les Sinceres (1739), l’Epreuve (1740).

III.  Comedies de moeurs.—­L’Heritier de Village (1725), l’Ecole des Meres (1732), le Prejuge vaincu (1746).

IV.  Comedies heroiques.—­Le Prince travesti (1724), le Triomphe de l’Amour (1732), la Dispute (1744).

V. Comedies philosophiques.—­L’Ile des Esclaves (1725), l’Ile de la Raison (1727), la Colonie (1729).

VI.  Comedies mythologiques.—­Le Triomphe de Plutus (1728), la Reunion des Amours (1731).

VII.  Comedies feeries.—­Arlequin poli par l’Amour (1720), Felicie (1757).

VIII.  Fantaisie.—­Les Acteurs de bonne foi (1757).

Comedies which have been lost, wholly or in part, cannot be classified; but the following list may be of value for reference:  —­L’Amour et la Verite (of which the prologue only has come down to us), la Commere, l’Heureuse Surprise (possibly the same as la Joie imprevue), l’Amante frivole, la Femme fidele (fragments of which play have been printed by Larroumet [pp. 313-319] and by Fleury [pp. 365-371]).

From this classification it will be seen that by no means all of Marivaux’s comedies could be termed Surprises de l’amour, although some of his best come within that category.  There is a whole series of plays, to which Larroumet[112] calls attention, in which Marivaux has left the real for the imaginary world.  There are times when we are almost inclined to admit with Lemaitre “that fancy’s wing, which bears so high and so far the poet of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, has at least grazed the powdered brow of Marivaux.” [113]

The poetic fantasies of the latter certainly recall the fanciful creations of the great English poet.