who during the same period has raised himself to that station in society by means of his literary productions, which is so universally accorded to all who have acquired high literary celebrity in any country. “The name of Guizot was too well known before the revolution for these observations to have any reference to him.” (Cousin should not have been forgotten.) “And however much he may have distinguished himself since July, 1830, his reputation was made before. There are, however, little writers in prodigious abundance.... Never, I believe, was there any period in which the printing presses of France worked so hard as at present. The revolution of 1830 seems to have set all the minor spirits in motion. There is scarcely a boy so insignificant, or a workman so unlearned, as to doubt his having the power and the right to instruct the world.... To me, I confess, it is perfectly astonishing that any one can be found to class the writers of this restless clique as ‘the literary men of France.’... Do not, however, believe me guilty of such presumption as to give you my own unsupported judgment as to the position which this ‘new school,’ as the _décousu_ folks always call themselves, hold in the public esteem. My opinion on this subject is the result of careful inquiry among those who are most competent to give information respecting it. When the names of such as are best known among this class of authors are mentioned in society, let the politics of the circle be what they may, they are constantly spoken of as a pariah caste that must be kept apart. “‘Do you know ----?’ has been a question I have repeatedly asked respecting a person whose name is cited in England as the most esteemed French writer of the age--and so cited, moreover, to prove the low standard of French taste and principle. “‘No, madame,’ has been invariably the cold answer. “‘Or----?’ “‘No; he is not in society.’ “‘Or----?’ “‘Oh, no! His works live an hour--too long--and are forgotten.’” Now, are the writers of French literature of the present day, whose names will at once present themselves to every reader’s mind, to be deemed superior to those of Louis Philippe, who “lent their voices to the cause of treason, regicide, rebellion, or obscenity,” and were unrestrained by either “decorum, principle, or taste”? For it is most assuredly no longer true that the writers in question are held to be a “pariah caste,” or that they are not known and sought by “society.” The _facilis decensus_ progress of the half century that has elapsed since the cited passages were written, is certainly remarkable. There is one name, however, which cannot be simply classed as one of the _décousus_. Victor Hugo had already at that day made an European reputation. But the following passage about him from my mother’s book on _Paris and the Parisians_ is so curious, and to the present generation must appear so, one may almost say, monstrous, that it is well worth while to reproduce it.