But about 1828, continues the letter, “we learned that there were romantic poetry and classical poetry, romantic novels and classical novels, romantic odes and classical odes; nay, a single line, my dear sir, a sole and solitary line of verse might be romantic or classic, according as the humor took it.  When we received this intelligence, we could not close our eyes all night.  Two years of peaceful conviction had vanished like a dream.  All our ideas were turned topsy-turvy; for it the rules of Aristotle were no longer the line of demarcation which separated the literary camps, where was one to find himself, and what was he to depend upon?  How was one to know, in reading a book, which school it belonged to? . . .  Luckily in the same year there appeared a famous preface, which we devoured straightway[19]. . .  This said very distinctly that romanticism was nothing else than the alliance of the playful and the serious, of the grotesque and the terrible, of the jocose and the horrible, or in other words, if you prefer, of comedy and tragedy.”

This definition the anxious inquirers accepted for the space of a year, until it was borne in upon them that Aristophanes—­not to speak of other ancients—­had mixed tragedy and comedy in his drama.  Once again the friends were plunged in darkness, and their perplexity was deepened when they were taking a walk one evening and overheard a remark made by the niece of the sous-prefet.  This young lady had fallen in love with English ways, as was—­somewhat strangely—­evidenced by her wearing a green veil, orange-colored gloves, and silver-rimmed spectacles.  As she passed the promenaders, she turned to look at a water-mill near the ford, where there were bags of grain, geese, and an ox in harness, and she exclaimed to her governess, “Voila un site romantique.”

This mysterious sentence roused the flagging curiosity of MM.  Dupuis and Contonet, and they renewed their investigations.  A passage in a newspaper led them to believe for a time that romanticism was the imitation of the Germans, with, perhaps, the addition of the English and Spanish.  Then they were tempted to fancy that it might be merely a matter of literary form, possibly this vers brise (run-over lines, enjambement) that they are making so much noise about.  “From 1830 to 1831 we were persuaded that romanticism was the historic style (genre historique) or, if you please, this mania which has lately seized our authors for calling the characters of their novels and melodramas Charlemagne, Francis I., or Henry IV., instead of Amadis, Oronte, or saint-Albin. . .  From 1831 to the year following we thought it was the genre intime, about which there was much talk.  But with all the pains that we took we never could discover what the genre intime was.  The ‘intimate’ novels are just like the others.  They are in two volume octavo, with a great deal of margin. . .  They have yellow covers and they cost fifteen francs.”  From 1832 to 1833 they conjectured that romanticism might be a system of philosophy and political economy.  From 1833 to 1834 they believed that it consisted in not shaving one’s self, and in wearing a waistcoat with wide facings very much starched.