In 1899, being called upon to sum up the qualities of the leading French
critics from 1850 onwards, Faguet found himself confronted with his own
name and work. It was characteristic of his candour and simplicity that
he did not shrink from the task of describing himself, and that he
undertook it without false modesty or affectation. When he comes to
describe Emile Faguet he is as detached, as calmly analytic, as he is
when he speaks of Théophile Gautier or M. René Doumic. He defines the
qualities, acknowledges the limitations, and hints at the faults of his
subject. I do not know a case in all literary history where a writer has
spoken of himself in terms more severely judicial. He closes this
remarkable little study with words which we may quote here for their
curious personal interest no less than as an example of Faguet's style:
Laborieux, du reste, assez méthodique, consciencieux, en poussant
la conscience jusqu'à être peu bienveillant, ou en ne sachant pas
pousser le scrupule consciencieux jusqu'à la bienveillance, il a pu
rendre et il a rendu des services appréciables aux étudiants en
littérature, qui étaient le public qu'il a toujours visé. Sans
abandonner la critique, qu'il est à croire qu'il aimera toujours,
il s'est un peu tourné depuis quelques années du côté des études
sociologiques, où c'est à d'autres qu'à nous qu'il appartient
d'apprécier ses efforts.
In this connexion a phrase of the great critic may be recalled. When the
war broke out in 1914, someone who knew Faguet's absorbing love of books
sympathized with him on the blow to literature. He responded, in a tone
of reproof, "L'avenir national est une chose autrement importante que
l'avenir littéraire."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account