It still clung obstinately to old-fashioned con-
ventions and refused to be coerced either by
Henrietta Maréchal or by the furious onslaught
of Zola and his cohort of writing men.

In the essay referred to, Zola said that a
piece of work will always be a corner of nature
seen through a temperament. He told the
truth when he declared that the "romantic
movement was but a skirmish; romanticism,
which corresponds to nothing durable, was
simply a restless regret of the old world."
Stefidhal and Balzac had created the modern
novel. The stage did not move with the other
arts, though Diderot and Mercier"laid down
squarely the basis of the naturalistic theatre."
Victor Hugo gave the romantic drama its death-
blow. Scribe was an ingenious cabinet-maker.
Sardou"has no life--only movement." Dumas
the younger was spoiled by cleverness--"a man
of genius is not clever, and a man of genius is
necessary to establish the naturalistic formula
in a masterly fashion." Besides, Dumas
preaches, always preaches. " Emile Augier
is the real master of the French stage, the most
sincere "; but he did not know how to disen-
gage himself from conventions, from stereotyped
ideas, from made-up ideas.

Who, then, was to be the saviour, according
to Zola? And this writer did not underrate
the difficulties of the task. He knew that
"the dramatic author was enclosed in a rigid
frame, . . . that the solitary reader tolerates

-164-