Louis Ménard (1822-1901) by Henri Peyre; Lettres inédites de Louis Ménard by Louis MénardReview by: A. Lytton SellsThe Modern Language Review, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 1934), pp. 216-220Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3715755 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 05:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:32:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

quently obscured by Mr Schwartz's method of taking instances at random from the whole period during which the 'Commedia dell' Arte' flourished. He refers on pp. 139-40 to the 'traditional multi-coloured costume' of Arlequin. This was assumed in the seventeenth century, it would not have been recognised by Martinelli in 1600. Many old inaccuracies are repeated. It is injudicious to describe D. Locatelli, who played as 'Trivellino,' as an Arlecchino, to suppose that Brighella was a popular mask in the sixteenth century, that scenari gave only the 'barest out- lines' and are to be identified with the prompter's plots hung in the wings, that Scala was the 'amoroso' in the Gelosi troop, that it may be deduced from Kyd's reference to the improvising players that Italians invaded England (p. 45), that only Gueulette's version of the 'Festin de Pierre' scenario survives, or that il Lasca's 'Canto di Zanni e Magnifichi' was a play (p. 33).

The book may well be read as a rough introduction to the subject, but its detail is hardly to be trusted.

KATHLEEN M. LEA. LONDON.

Louis Menard (1822-1901). By HENRI PEYRE. (Yale Romanic Studies, v.) New Haven: Yale University Press; London: H. Milford. 1932. 605 pp. 20s.

Lettres inedites de Louis Menard. Publiees et presentees par HENRI PEYRE. Paris: Presses universitaires. 1932. 133 pp.

Louis Menard's life and work touch on so many branches of nineteenth- century thought that it is surprising such a study as the one we now have from Professor Peyre was not earlier attempted. The present volume solves many problems. Not only has Dr Peyre made a thorough survey of Menard's work, but he has added considerably to our knowledge of his life, using for this purpose the reminiscences of several living writers who were familiar with the 'paien mystique,' and especially those of his niece, of his nephew, and of his old friend Dr Pettit. In addition, M. Peyre has had the exclusive privilege of consulting, in the Bibliotheque nationale, the unpublished documents bequeathed by Madame Menard, comprising Menard's lectures at the Hotel de Ville and a complete work on Les Questions sociales dans l'antiquite. The plan of the present study is synthetic: Menard's works are analysed as they emerge from his life. This biography (M. Peyre confesses to it) still shows many lacunae; but even were these more numerous than they are, we should hardly have cause to complain.

Perhaps the best service we could render to M. Peyre's book would be to consider some of the questions we have been asking ourselves about this enigmatic writer, and to indicate the answers which are now given. Why has Menard never received the recognition which one felt was due to him? Why, somehow, did he fail to achieve a definite mundane success, as Renan and Leconte de Lisle achieved it? What exactly was his influence on the Parnassians, and did Leconte de Lisle owe as much

quently obscured by Mr Schwartz's method of taking instances at random from the whole period during which the 'Commedia dell' Arte' flourished. He refers on pp. 139-40 to the 'traditional multi-coloured costume' of Arlequin. This was assumed in the seventeenth century, it would not have been recognised by Martinelli in 1600. Many old inaccuracies are repeated. It is injudicious to describe D. Locatelli, who played as 'Trivellino,' as an Arlecchino, to suppose that Brighella was a popular mask in the sixteenth century, that scenari gave only the 'barest out- lines' and are to be identified with the prompter's plots hung in the wings, that Scala was the 'amoroso' in the Gelosi troop, that it may be deduced from Kyd's reference to the improvising players that Italians invaded England (p. 45), that only Gueulette's version of the 'Festin de Pierre' scenario survives, or that il Lasca's 'Canto di Zanni e Magnifichi' was a play (p. 33).

The book may well be read as a rough introduction to the subject, but its detail is hardly to be trusted.

KATHLEEN M. LEA. LONDON.

Louis Menard (1822-1901). By HENRI PEYRE. (Yale Romanic Studies, v.) New Haven: Yale University Press; London: H. Milford. 1932. 605 pp. 20s.

Lettres inedites de Louis Menard. Publiees et presentees par HENRI PEYRE. Paris: Presses universitaires. 1932. 133 pp.

Louis Menard's life and work touch on so many branches of nineteenth- century thought that it is surprising such a study as the one we now have from Professor Peyre was not earlier attempted. The present volume solves many problems. Not only has Dr Peyre made a thorough survey of Menard's work, but he has added considerably to our knowledge of his life, using for this purpose the reminiscences of several living writers who were familiar with the 'paien mystique,' and especially those of his niece, of his nephew, and of his old friend Dr Pettit. In addition, M. Peyre has had the exclusive privilege of consulting, in the Bibliotheque nationale, the unpublished documents bequeathed by Madame Menard, comprising Menard's lectures at the Hotel de Ville and a complete work on Les Questions sociales dans l'antiquite. The plan of the present study is synthetic: Menard's works are analysed as they emerge from his life. This biography (M. Peyre confesses to it) still shows many lacunae; but even were these more numerous than they are, we should hardly have cause to complain.

Perhaps the best service we could render to M. Peyre's book would be to consider some of the questions we have been asking ourselves about this enigmatic writer, and to indicate the answers which are now given. Why has Menard never received the recognition which one felt was due to him? Why, somehow, did he fail to achieve a definite mundane success, as Renan and Leconte de Lisle achieved it? What exactly was his influence on the Parnassians, and did Leconte de Lisle owe as much

216 216 Reviews Reviews

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:32:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to him as most recent critics have supposed? How far was Menard's symbolical interpretation of the religions original, and what value may it be said to possess to-day?-to these questions M. Peyre returns answers which, though they are not always what we expected, seem nevertheless well-founded and satisfying.

(1) The reasons for Menard's persistent ill-luck he sees both in his work and in his personality. Menard 'n'a jamais pu ou voulu s'adapter aux conditions de la vie moderne; il ne s'est jamais impose de discipline.' Thus it was an error on Menard's part to leave the Scole Normale, after a few months of study there, in 1842; and again, in 1859, when his mother had persuaded him to take his University degrees, and he had in fact successfully defended his theses before a jury which admired and accepted the candidate, while not always agreeing with him, it was a mistake not to seek a post in the teaching profession. The discipline of professorial duties, so far from hindering, would probably have helped him in his literary and historical work. And finally it was a mistake, in 1868-9, not to seize the opportunity of visiting Greece offered by his friend M. de Clermont.

Menard, as the reader will know, devoted a part of his career to painting, and produced, between 1863 and 1870, a good many canvases of merit, mainly representing animals and forest-scenes which he had studied at Barbizon; and his talent was recognised by Gautier and other critics, though it was not very original. For chemistry, on the other hand, he had something approaching genius. In 1846 and 1847 he had conducted experiments in the laboratory recently founded by Pelouze. It was here that he discovered collodion, a liquid compound produced by dissolving gun-cotton in a mixture of alcohol and ether-a compound of great practical value, since it is now used in surgery, in optical appliances, in the manufacture of celluloid and of photographic materials. It was in Pelouze's laboratory, too, that Menard invented nitro-mannite, in 1847. Unfortunately, the discoverer of this powerful explosive pro- duced one day an explosion which wrecked a part of the laboratory-an exploit which probably accounts for Monsieur Pelouze's deciding to part company with him. Menard might still have devoted himself to poetry- his first love-and he did indeed, from time to time, compose a little masterpiece, like the famous Pantheon which first appeared in 1863. Less well known, but comparable with the best work of Verlaine and Mallarme, is the exquisite Valse en bleu mineur. The repetitions imparting a dream- like character to the poem, the vague and suggestive music of the verse (it is in decasyllabic lines), explain why Viele-Griffin was able, with some reason, to describe Menard as the father of the Symbolists. One cannot say, after reading such pieces, that Menard was not enough of an artist; one can only regret that his inspiration did not maintain him, more frequently, on these high levels.

(2) The question of Menard's influence on the Parnassians, and par, ticularly on Leconte de Lisle, has been one of the outstanding problems of literary history. Previous critics believed this influence to be very great. Faguet and Esteve represented Leconte de Lisle as profoundily

Reviews 217

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:32:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

218 Reviews

influenced by him; while M. Desonay, in Le Rgve hellenique chez les Poetes parnassiens, went so far as to speak of Leconte de Lisle as having, in the domain of Greek studies, 'parfois p&niblement repete la le9on penible- ment apprise [from Menard]...a la fa9on d'un perroquet.' These con- clusions must now be modified in the light of M. Peyre's investigations. In his Greek poems-apart from Hypatie et Cyrille-and in his transla- tions from the Greek, Leconte de Lisle appears to have been scrupulously personal, and, as regards the style of his translations, original. But he was undoubtedly assisted in his knowledge of Greek by a scholar more learned than himself; he also shared much of Menard's intellectual out- look, his interest in religious history, and his pessimism regarding the future of mankind. But they differed on such matters as the cult of art for art's sake, Menard always insisting on the cult of the inner life, of the soul, as an object transcending the claims of art, a view in which none of the Parnassians, except Sully Prudhomme, would have joined him. On the other hand, it may be noted that two or three of Leconte de Lisle's poems were inspired by Menard, and that the latter's ideas may be definitely traced in the important preface to the Poemes et Poesies of 1855. On the Parnassian poets as a whole Menard exercised a general, but probably not considerable, influence; the vogue of Hellenism was not an invention of his: it formed part of the Romantic movement. More definite, more clearly distinguishable, was his influence on Heredia, and on Anatole France, whose Thais appears to have been directly inspired by Menard's Legende de Saint-Hilarion. But the person on whom Menard, both as man and writer, left the deepest mark was Maurice Barres; Barres took pleasure in recognising his debt, and always held Menard in the deepest affection and respect. Menard's personal 'rayonnement? over a wide circle of friends must-if one may judge from the testimony of survivors-have been remarkable; such an influence, however, is difficult to assess in a way that is really satisfying.

(3) Menard's work as scholar and historian is principally associated with his interpretation of Greek Polytheism. It was in the study of Polytheism that he had made such a brilliant debut, in 1859, with La Morale avant les Philosophes; and Greek mythology continued to supply the leading inspiration in that fullest and most artistic expression of his thought, the Reveries d'un paien mystique. It was the great effort of his life to explain how such an apparently puerile mythology as that of the Greeks could ever have been devised and accepted by a people so en- lightened. Rejecting the rationalistic explanation of Euhemerus and the philological interpretation associated with the name of Max Muller, Menard went back to the symbolical method devised by Epicharmes and Metrodorus, developed by the Stoics, and represented in modern times by Kreuzer and Otfried Muller. He modified and developed it; and, while he did not exactly devise anything new, he went further than others by virtue of the poetry and imagination of his style, in fact by his sensi- bility-the sincere piety which he felt for all the gods, a piety which, after all, has become a need of many cultivated minds. It was natural enough that Menard should be opposed, in some measure, to Renan, and

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:32:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

violently to Max Miiller. His comment on the philological explanation is worth recalling here. He held that to regard mythology as a malady of language, 'c'est a peu pres comme si on disait que la fleur est une maladie de la plante. Encore faudrait-il admettre que le langage a donne naissance a la mythologie, comme la plante produit la fleur, ce que, pour ma part, je suis loin d'accorder.... 1 y a dans les formes vivantes que donne a la religion le genie createur des epoques primitives, quelque chose de plus serieux qu'une collection de rebus ou de calembours.' It may come as a surprise to the reader that Menard's religious syncretism was not derived solely from Kreuzer and his disciples; he probably owed it in large part to the painter Chenavard, whose misty, symbolical pictures represented the vast company of divine beings who, in various ages, have sustained and given hope to the human spirit.

There is much in M. Peyre's book of purely biographical interest, such as the story of Menard's late marriage, and of his daughter, a frail and beautiful creature whose death, in 1898, was a grievous blow to him; and lastly of his own passing, in 1901, when his friends, mindful of the feelings and ideals associated with him, placed in his hand a Greek medal bearing the effigy of Athena, as the obol for Charon who should row him over the dark waters.

M. Peyre's conclusions are moderate: Menard is not diminished by this close enquiry, but neither does he emerge as a soaring genius. One has the impression of a richly endowed being, of a greater writer than has generally been recognised, greater by virtue of personality, of thought and of style than many 'classical' authors who are regularly republished and studied. But the main impression is of a beautiful personality. Menard's political views were fantastic beyond expression; but they were generous. He seems to have been one of the kindest, most unspoiled and disinterested of men. Many critics would have succeeded in 'burying' their author under the 528 pages of text which are here accorded to him; but M. Peyre is always interesting, his touch is light and sympathetic; and, for our part, we would not have had his book diminished by a page.

The Lettres ind&ites de Louis Menard, which supplement the letters used in the above work and also the correspondence with Renouvier which M. Peyre has published in the Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale (Janvier-Mars 1932), add new strokes and colours to the picture already given. Some of these were addressed to Barres (there is an erratum here, in the Greek, on p. 131). Many of them were written to his mother and other members of his family, to whom he was very much attached. In these letters we see Menard travelling in Germany, Italy and Egypt; and they were worth reprinting, for a certain simplicity of character which they bring out, and also for their qualities of style. Menard without effort, and perhaps unconsciously, imparts a firmness and gran- deur of outline to his picture of the Roman Campagna, which recalls the manner of Poussin; from his description of the little garden and villa at Frascati arises a delicate flavour, that fixes it more deeply in the memory; while the visits paid to Alexandria and Cairo give oppor- tunities for vigorous pen-strokes and brilliant colouring, which show

Reviews 219

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:32:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Menard at the top of his form. We are very much indebted to M. Peyre for revealing to us so much of interest to the mind, and, equally perhaps, to the heart.

A. LYTTON SELLS. DURHAM.

Le Familiari di Francesco Petrarca. Edizione critica. By VITTORIO RossI. Vol. I. Introduction and Books i-iv. (Edizione nazionale delle opere di F. Petrarca, x.) Florence: G. C. Sansoni. 1933. clxxii + 204 pp. 50 lire.

The diligent care which Petrarch bestowed upon the collection, revision and arrangement of his letters Rerum Familiarium has been matched by the present editor. Petrarch seems to have first planned this series of letters about 1349 and only seventeen years later, in 1366, he saw it finally completed, thanks to the assistance of Giovanni Malpaghini; Pro- fessor Rossi in his turn has given more than twenty-five years of a remarkably busy life to the preparation of this edition; Petrarch aimed also at exhibiting himself as an example to his friends and admirers, and, quite apart from the inherent merit of his performance, Rossi's gigantic undertaking is an example to all scholars to come. It is no exaggeration to say that the world of scholarship must feel grateful to him for the heroic persistence of his fortunate labours quite as much as for the results he has attained. The task he had to shoulder was such as to discourage a lesser man, for there are some seventy-five manuscripts scattered all over the world, and they offer variants the import of which it is only now possible fully to grasp. The financial assistance of the Italian Govern- ment has indeed facilitated the work, but, by removing material diffi- culties, it has also invalidated all pleas of justification-thus setting a standard of absolute perfection which added much to the already heavy responsibility of the editor. In the course of these twenty-five odd years, Rossi himself has from time to time published articles which have been gathered together in 1930 (Studi sul Petrarca e sul rinascimento, vol. I of Scritti di critica letteraria di V. Rossi. Florence: Sansoni), in which certain preliminary questions were answered, and other scholars, from the tireless Foresti to Cochin, Piur and Wilkins, have either edited some letters, fixed their dates or cleared up references and allusions. It is almost superfluous to mention that no article, however trifling, has been overlooked, precisely as none of the manuscripts has failed to be taken into account, and no early edition to be consulted and evaluated.

Since Petrarch is known to have kept copies of his letters, and to have carefully revised the originals with a view to giving them a more classical appearance in their salutation and to removing such particulars as he considered to detract from the permanent value of his compositions, it is natural that we should possess a few letters in their original state such as his correspondents received and preserved them, either separately or grouped in small independent collections, amid a far greater number of manuscripts in which the letters are preserved in the form in which Petrarch successively arranged them. Thus a certain number of manu-

Menard at the top of his form. We are very much indebted to M. Peyre for revealing to us so much of interest to the mind, and, equally perhaps, to the heart.

A. LYTTON SELLS. DURHAM.

Le Familiari di Francesco Petrarca. Edizione critica. By VITTORIO RossI. Vol. I. Introduction and Books i-iv. (Edizione nazionale delle opere di F. Petrarca, x.) Florence: G. C. Sansoni. 1933. clxxii + 204 pp. 50 lire.

The diligent care which Petrarch bestowed upon the collection, revision and arrangement of his letters Rerum Familiarium has been matched by the present editor. Petrarch seems to have first planned this series of letters about 1349 and only seventeen years later, in 1366, he saw it finally completed, thanks to the assistance of Giovanni Malpaghini; Pro- fessor Rossi in his turn has given more than twenty-five years of a remarkably busy life to the preparation of this edition; Petrarch aimed also at exhibiting himself as an example to his friends and admirers, and, quite apart from the inherent merit of his performance, Rossi's gigantic undertaking is an example to all scholars to come. It is no exaggeration to say that the world of scholarship must feel grateful to him for the heroic persistence of his fortunate labours quite as much as for the results he has attained. The task he had to shoulder was such as to discourage a lesser man, for there are some seventy-five manuscripts scattered all over the world, and they offer variants the import of which it is only now possible fully to grasp. The financial assistance of the Italian Govern- ment has indeed facilitated the work, but, by removing material diffi- culties, it has also invalidated all pleas of justification-thus setting a standard of absolute perfection which added much to the already heavy responsibility of the editor. In the course of these twenty-five odd years, Rossi himself has from time to time published articles which have been gathered together in 1930 (Studi sul Petrarca e sul rinascimento, vol. I of Scritti di critica letteraria di V. Rossi. Florence: Sansoni), in which certain preliminary questions were answered, and other scholars, from the tireless Foresti to Cochin, Piur and Wilkins, have either edited some letters, fixed their dates or cleared up references and allusions. It is almost superfluous to mention that no article, however trifling, has been overlooked, precisely as none of the manuscripts has failed to be taken into account, and no early edition to be consulted and evaluated.

Since Petrarch is known to have kept copies of his letters, and to have carefully revised the originals with a view to giving them a more classical appearance in their salutation and to removing such particulars as he considered to detract from the permanent value of his compositions, it is natural that we should possess a few letters in their original state such as his correspondents received and preserved them, either separately or grouped in small independent collections, amid a far greater number of manuscripts in which the letters are preserved in the form in which Petrarch successively arranged them. Thus a certain number of manu-

220 220 Reviews Reviews

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:32:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions