Of late years, moreover, it must be acknowledged that Brunetiere’s mind has given signs of remarkable broadening.  Under the influence of the doctrine of evolution, he has undertaken to class all literary facts as the great naturalists of the day have classed the facts of physiology, and to show that literary forms spring from each other by way of transformation in the same way as do the forms of animal or vegetable life.  Already three works have been produced by him since he entered upon this new line of development:  a history of literary criticism in France, which forms the first and hitherto only published volume of a large work, (The Evolution of Literary Forms); a work on the French drama, (The Periods of the French Theatre); and a treatise on modern French poetry, (The Evolution of French Lyric Poetry during the Nineteenth Century.) The second and last of these were first delivered by their author from the professor’s chair or the lecturer’s platform, where he has managed to display some of the greatest gifts of the public speaker.  Most of M. Brunetiere’s literary articles have been collected in book form under the following titles:—­(Questions of Criticism) (2 vols.), (History and Criticism) (3 vols.), (Critical Studies on the History of French Literature) (6 vols.), (The Naturalistic Novel) (1 vol.).

At various times remarkable addresses have been delivered by him on public occasions, in which he has often represented the French Academy since his election to that illustrious body.  Unfortunately his productive literary activity has slackened of late.  In 1895 he was called to the editorship of the Revue des Deux Mondes, and since his assumption of this responsible editorial position he has published only two or three articles, bearing upon moral and educational questions.

To pass final judgment upon a man whose development is far from completed is an almost impossible task.  Still it may be said that with the exception of Sainte-Beuve’s (Causeries du Lundi) and (Nouveaux Lundis,) nothing exists that can teach the reader so much about the history of French literature as Brunetiere’s works.  The doctrinal side, to which the author himself undoubtedly attaches the greatest importance, will strike the reader as often very questionable.  Too often Brunetiere seems in his judgments to be quite unconsciously actuated by a dislike of the accepted opinion of the present day.  His love of the past bears a look of defiance of the present, not calculated to win the reader’s assent.  But even this does not go without its good side.  It gives to Brunetiere’s judgments a unity which is seldom if ever found in the works of those whose chief labors have been spent in the often ungrateful task of making a hurried public acquainted with the uninterrupted stream of literary production.

TAINE AND PRINCE NAPOLEON