事業／計画（する） Gutenberg Australia a treasure-trove of literature treasure 設立する hidden with no 証拠 of 所有権

BROWSE the 場所／位置 for other 作品 by this author (and our other authors) or get HELP Reading, Downloading and 変えるing とじ込み／提出するs) or SEARCH the entire 場所／位置 with Google 場所／位置 Search

肩書を与える: The English Novel
       From the Earliest Days to the Death of Joseph Conrad
Author: Ford Madox Ford
* A 事業／計画（する） Gutenberg Australia eBook *
eBook No.: 1203251h.html
Language: English
Date first 地位，任命するd: August 2012
Date most recently updated: August 2012

事業／計画（する） Gutenberg Australia eBooks are created from printed 版s
which are in the public domain in Australia, unless a copyright notice
is 含むd. We do NOT keep any eBooks in 同意／服従 with a particular
paper 版.

Copyright 法律s are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright 法律s for your country before downloading or redistributing this
とじ込み／提出する.

This eBook is made 利用できる at no cost and with almost no 制限s
どれでも. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the 条件
of the 事業／計画（する） Gutenberg Australia License which may be 見解（をとる）d online at
http://gutenberg.逮捕する.au/licence.html

GO TO 事業／計画（する） Gutenberg Australia HOME PAGE

The English Novel

From the Earliest Days to the Death of Joseph Conrad

by

Ford Madox Ford

FIRST PUBLISHED 1930

CONTENTS

This 調書をとる／予約する was written in New York, on board the S.S. Patria, and in the port and neighbourhood of Marseilles during July and August, 1927. For the 目的 of （判決などを）下すing it more easily understood by the English reader I have made 確かな alterations in phrases, in Paris during the last four days of 1929 and the first two of 1930.

CHAPTER ONE. THE FUNCTION OF THE NOVEL IN THE MODERN WORLD

1

One finds—or at any 率 I have always 設立する—English History 比較して 平易な to しっかり掴む because in it it is not difficult to see a pattern of what some one has called Freedom slowly broadening 負かす／撃墜する from precedent to precedent. One may or may not agree with the 声明, one may or may not like the fact, if it is a fact, that it 始める，決めるs 前へ／外へ; but at least it gives us that pattern, some sort of jumping-off place, something by which one may 手段 and co-relate さまざまな 段階s of the story. The histories of most other races are more difficult to しっかり掴む or follow because they are いっそう少なく systematized and more an 事件／事情／状勢 of individuals. One may be aware that the pre-革命 history of フラン is an 事件／事情／状勢 of 力／強力にする 徐々に centralizing itself on the 王位, and that the Fronde was an episode in that progression. にもかかわらず, the Fronde with its violent personalities, its 純粋に individual intrigues, its 枢機けい／主要なs, Queens, 反対／詐欺dés, Chevreuses and the 残り／休憩（する）, was a baffling 事件／事情／状勢 to follow, and obscures the 問題／発行する which doubtless was that, all 力／強力にする 存在 concentrated under one hat, the neck which supported the 長，率いる which supported that hat was 平易な to strike off.

But when it comes to the History of Literature—and to that of the Novel in particular, almost the exact inverse is the 事例／患者. 反して almost every country other than England—or indeed every race other than Anglo-Saxondom—has a tradition of literature in which some sort of precedent broadens 負かす／撃墜する into some other, it would appear that however docile the Anglo-Saxon may be in the 手渡すs of 政治家，政治屋s or leaders—usually of a Leftwards complexion—the moment any aesthetic discipline 提案するs itself for his direction he becomes at least as refractory as any 反対／詐欺dé and almost more intriguing than any Chevreuse.

Any sort of English writer takes any sort of pen and on any sort of paper with in his hair whatever sort of vine-leaves you will and at his 肘 any nectar from metheglin to Chateau Yquem or pale ale, 令状s any sort of story in any sort of method—or in any sort of mixture of any half-dozen methods. So, if he have any of the temperament of an artist, you have a Fielding or a Trollope, a Samuel Butler or a George Meredith, each rising as a separate 頂点（に達する） but each 絶対 without interrelation with any other.

That was never better exemplified than やめる lately when you had—all living 同時に but all, 式のs, now dead—Thomas Hardy, George Meredith, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and 示す Twain. Each was a かなりの 人物／姿／数字 but each sat, as it were, alone on his little 頂点（に達する） surrounded by his lay 衛星s, and each was 完全に uninfluenced by the work of all the others—two 独房監禁 Englishmen, two Americans and one 外国人. Whether or no there was any resultant literary movement I am about to try to trace for you, looking at the 事柄 with the 注目する，もくろむs of a craftsman 調査するing his own particular 職業.

In the 事例／患者 of any other country or race such a 訴訟／進行 would be comparatively 平易な. In フラン, for instance, living at the same time as, but all predeceasing, the distinguished Anglo-Saxons and the 外国人 of genius that I have 指名するd above, you had Flaubert, Maupassant, Turgenev, the Goncourt brothers, Gautier, Daudet—six Frenchmen and an 外国人 of beautiful genius. They all met frequently, dining together almost 週刊誌 at Brébant's—where Henry James in the wake of Turgenev dined from time to time too. With amiability, with 酸性, with passion or frenzies of 憎悪 they discussed words, cadences, forms, progressions of 影響—or the 大砲-一打／打撃s with which one 結論するs short short-stories. They were during those 会合s indifferent to fame, wealth, the course of public 事件／事情／状勢s, 廃虚, death. For them there was only one 耐えるing Kingdom—that of the Arts—and only one 共和国 that shall be everlasting: the 共和国 of Letters.

The resultant literary movement—for with their deaths it crossed the Channel—I shall endeavour to trace, and the 企業 will 関心 itself with the modern English novel. For the Art of 令状ing is an 事件／事情／状勢 as international as are all the other Arts—as International, as Co-operative and as 相互に 部隊ing. Shakespeare could not have written as he did had not Boccaccio, Petrarch, and Plutarch に先行するd him, nor could Flaubert have written Madame Bovary as he wrote it had there not been before then the Clarissa Harlowe of Richardson. Nor yet could Conrad have written Heart of 不明瞭 or Lord Jim had Flaubert not written Bouvard et Pécuchet or Alphonse Daudet, Jack.

It is, at any 率, in this spirit that, in this small monograph, I shall 現在の to you my reflections on the English Novel—which is the same thing as the Novel—and the pattern that, for me, it seems to make 負かす／撃墜する the short ages during which it has 存在するd. It will 異なる very 広範囲にわたって from the 結論s arrived at—and above all from the 見積（る）s formed by—my 前任者s in this field who have seldom themselves been imaginative writers let alone 小説家s, and who, by the exigencies of their professions, have usually been what it is the custom to call academic. That I cannot help. For the 利益 of the reader who wishes to know what is 一般に thought of these 支配するs I have tried to 明言する／公表する along with my own 異なるing 結論s what that general thought is. If, I mean, I belabour the winking lewdness of Tom Jones, I am careful to point out that most of my professional 前任者s or 同時代のs beatify Fielding because of his refreshing carelessness in most 事柄s to which decent men 支払う／賃金 attention. The young, earnest student of literature for professional 目的s should, if he 願望（する）s good 示すs, 令状 in his 論題／論文 for examination pretty 井戸／弁護士席 the opposite of what I have here 始める，決める 負かす／撃墜する. But, in the end, it is as useful to have something that will awaken you by its 不一致s with yourself as to live for ever in concord with somnolent 年上のs. It gives you another point of 見解（をとる）, though you may return to the 計画（する） from which you started. I was once watching a painter 絵 a field of medicinal poppies which from where he sat appeared やめる 黒人／ボイコット. Suddenly, he しっかり掴むd me by the wrist and dragged me up a small hill. From there that field appeared dark-purple 発射 with gold. I said: "It doesn't make any difference, does it, to your composition?" He answered: "No, it doesn't make any difference, but I wish the d—d things would not do it, for, when I have finished, I shall have to come up here and do them all over again!"

2

Since the day when Thackeray obsequiously わびるd to the world and his readers for 存在 a mere 小説家, in the 利益／興味s of a pompous social system which 法令d that the novel should not be 本気で regarded and the 小説家 himself be stigmatized as something detrimental to good order and the decorous 雇用 of spare time—since, then, Thackeray poked fun at the greatest of all his 調書をとる／予約するs which may 井戸／弁護士席 be regarded, if you will, as the greatest work in the English language, an 巨大な change has occurred in the 親族 place （許可，名誉などを）与えるd to the Novel in the Anglo-Saxon social cosmogony. Because, as 小説家, Thackeray felt his social position insecure, he must 試みる／企てる to retrieve himself by poking fun at his 調書をとる／予約する and so 証明するing that at least he did not take the Novel 本気で, his heart 存在 in the 権利 place be his 占領／職業 never so ungentlemanly. So he must needs 令状 his epilogue as to the showman rolling up his marionettes in green baize and the 残り／休憩（する） of it.

To-day, however, even the most 逃亡者／はかないもの of 小説家s takes his work more 本気で and, perhaps all unconsciously, the public （許可，名誉などを）与えるs to the more serious amongst the 小説家s an attention that 以前は it （許可，名誉などを）与えるd 単独で to 政治家，政治屋s, preachers, scientists, 医療の men, and the like. This is because the novel has become 不可欠の to the understanding of life.

It is, that is to say, the only source to which you can turn ーするために ascertain how your fellows spend their entire lives. I use the words "entire lives" advisedly.

In older days—dating 支援する to 改良 in locomotion—it was possible for anyone, whatever his 駅／配置する, to 観察する, at any 率 概略で as it were, a 完全にする cross-section of the lives from cradle to 棺 of a whole social order. In England up to the days of the 行う／開催する／段階-coach, families were 工場／植物d on the land 事実上 to all eternity and even within my memory it was nearly impossible for the 農業の labourer to move from one parish—nay, from one farm to another. One of the most vivid of my souvenirs as a boy was seeing a ploughman weep on a 広大な／多数の／重要な 負かす／撃墜する. He was weeping because he had five children and a bad master who paid him thirteen and six a week and he was utterly unable to get together the guinea that it would cost him to 雇う a farm wagon and move his sticks of furniture to another and better farm. にもかかわらず that man knew more about human lives and their tides and vicissitudes than I or any other town-dweller in an age of shiftings.

He could follow the lives of 地元の peer, 地元の squire, doctor, lawyer, gentleman-農業者, tenant 農業者, butcher, パン職人, barber, parson, gamekeeper, water-warden, and so on 権利 負かす／撃墜する to those of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 本体，大部分／ばら積みの of the 全住民, his fellows and equals. He could follow them from the time the kid-glove was affixed to the door-knocker as a symbol of birth and until the passing-bell 先触れ（する）d their 見えなくなる into the clay in the 影をつくる／尾行する of the church-塀で囲むs. And although that was more emphatically true in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain, the first home of the English novel, it was almost 平等に true—mutatis mutandis—of the earlier settled 植民地の 地区s in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs. Until, say, the 早期に forties of the nineteenth century it must have been almost 平等に difficult to 除去する from Rochester, N.Y., as from the Rochester of Dickens, and as difficult to move from the Birmingham that gave to the world the word Brummagem as a 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 of contempt, as from the Birmingham in a. Southern 明言する／公表する of the North American 共和国.

Then, with 緩和する of locomotion （機の）カム the habit of flux—which is infinitely more developed to-day in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs than in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain. In London and the 都市の 地区s that house by far the greater 本体，大部分／ばら積みの of the English 全住民 the prevalence of the seven years' 賃貸し（する） has hitherto tended to 錨，総合司会者 families in one 位置／汚点／見つけ出す for at least that length of time, but even that space is not 十分な to give a family much insight into the lives and habits of its 隣人s. In any 事例／患者 it is 重要な that novel-reading is almost infinitely more a 永久の habit in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs than in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain, and the position of the imaginative writer in so far more 満足な.

In 観察するing a social 現象 like the novel these social changes must be considered. The fact is that gossip is a necessity for keeping the mind of humanity as it were aerated and where, 借りがあるing to 欠如（する） of 十分に intimate circumstances in communities gossip cannot 存在する, its place must be 供給（する）d—and it is 供給（する）d by the novel. You may say that for the 広大な／多数の／重要な cities of to-day its place is taken by what in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs is called the "tabloid" and in England the "yellow" or "gutter" 圧力（をかける）. But these skilful sensational renderings of 単に individual misfortunes, necessary as they are to human 存在 and sanity in the 広大な／多数の／重要な cities, are yet too 高度に coloured by their 生産者s, and the instances themselves are too far from the normal to be of any 広大な／多数の／重要な 教育の value. An 時折の phrase in, say, a Peaches-Browning 事例／患者 may now and then （犯罪の）一味 true, but the sound ありふれた sense of 広大な／多数の／重要な publics is aware that these 事件／事情／状勢s are too often 単に put-up 職業s to attach any importance to them as casting light on normal human 動機s.

The servant of a country parsonage leaning over the イチイ-hedge giving on the turnpike and 説 that the vicar's wife was carrying on something dreadful with Doctor Lambert might 伝える some sort of 見解（をとる） of life, 倫理学, morals, and the 残り／休憩（する） to another young woman; but the minute dissection by commonplace-minded reporters of the 活動／戦闘s and agonies of a lady who essays first unsuccessfully to 毒（薬） her husband and finally 派遣（する）s him with a club—these minute dissections are not only usually read with a 穀物 of salt, but not 異常に, too, they are speedily forgotten. Scenes on the other 手渡す 現在のd with even a 最小限 of artistry will remain in the mind as long as life lasts: Ivanhoe must 永久的に 代表する mediaevalism for a 広大な／多数の／重要な 割合 of the inhabitants of the globe, though Scott was a very poor artist; and the death of Emma Bovary will remain horrific in the reader's mind, whilst the 殺人 of yesterday is on the morrow forgotten.

It is this 親族 difference in the permanence of impression that distinguishes the work of the 小説家 as artist from all the other arts and 追跡s of the world. Trilby, for instance, was no 広大な／多数の／重要な shakes of a 調書をとる／予約する in the 広大な／多数の／重要な 規模 of things, but an American gentleman 主張するd to me the other day that that work did more to cosmopolitanize the 全住民s of the Eastern 明言する／公表するs than any movement of an international nature that has been seen since the 宣言 of Independence. I don't know if that is true, but it usefully puts a point of 見解（をとる）—and I am not the one to 否定する it.

It is, in short, unbearable to 存在する without some 見解（をとる） of life as a whole, for one finds oneself daily in predicaments in which some sort of a pointer is 絶対 necessary. Even though no novel known to you may 正確に／まさに 会合，会う your given 事例／患者, the novel does 供給（する） that cloud of human instances without which the soul feels 危険な in its adventures and the normal mind 公正に／かなり easily discerns what events or characters in its 逃亡者／はかないもの novels are meretricious in relation to life however entertaining they may be as fiction.

That the 共和国—the 団体／死体 politic—has need of these human-filtered insights into lives is amply 証明するd by the 現在の vogue of what I will call novelized biography. Lives of every imaginable type of human 存在 from Shelley to Washington are nowadays 消費するd with singular voracity, and if some of the impeccable immortals are in the upshot ドッキングする／減らす／ドックに入れるd of their pedestals there can, I think, be little 疑問 that, in the 過程, the public consciousness of life is at once 深くするd and （判決などを）下すd more 負かす／撃墜する to the ground. And the human mind is such a curiously two-味方するd 事件／事情／状勢 that, along with 負かす／撃墜する-to-the-ground renderings, it is perfectly able to 受託する at once the liveliest 成果／努力s of hero-worshippers, denigrators, or whitewashers. The amiable mendacities of the parson who gave to us the little axe and the cherry-tree are to-day 井戸／弁護士席 known to be the sheerest 発明s; the signal という評判の to have been given at the 戦う／戦い of Trafalgar is far more soul-stirring than the actual rather stilted message that Lord Nelson composed. And even if Henri IV of フラン never uttered his celebrated words about the chicken in the マリファナ, humanity must have invented them—and that too must have been the 事例／患者 with the cherry-tree. In the days when these catch-phrases received 世界的な 受託 the public was in fact doing for itself what to-day is left to the writer of fiction.

For the practised 小説家 knows that when he is introducing a character to his reader it is expedient that the first speech of that character should be an abstract 声明—and an abstract 声明 striking 堅固に the 公式文書，認める of that character. First impressions are the strongest of all, and once you have 設立するd in that way the character of one of your 人物／姿／数字s you will find it very hard to change it. So humanity, feeling the need for 広大な／多数の／重要な typical 人物／姿／数字s with whose example to exhort their children or to guide themselves, 可決する・採択するs with avidity, invents or 修正するs the abstract catchwords by which that 人物／姿／数字 will stand or 落ちる. What Nelson 現実に 願望（する）d to say was: "The country confidently 心配するs that in this vicissitude every man of the (n)艦隊／(a)素早い will 成し遂げる his 機能（する）／行事s with 正確 and courage!"—or something 平等に stiff, formal and in （許可，名誉などを）与える with what was the late eighteenth-century idea of 罰金 令状ing. Signal 旗s, however, would not run to it: the signaller did his best, and so we have Nelson. Had the signal gone out as Nelson conceived it, not Southey nor any portraitist could have given him to us. Or had Gilbert Stuart's too faithful （判決などを）下すing of the facial 影響s of 不正に-fitting 誤った teeth been what we first knew of Washington our 見解（をとる）s of the Father of His Country would be immensely 修正するd. But the folk-改善するd or 可決する・採択するd 説s were the first things that at school or before school we heard of these heroic 人物／姿／数字s of our self-made novel, and neither denigrator nor whitewasher will ever much change them for us, any more than the probably 誤った 判決 of posterity on John Lackland who had Dante to damn him will ever be 逆転するd.

As to whether the 広範囲にわたる away of the humaner classical letters in the 利益／興味s of the 適用するd sciences as a means of culture is a good thing or a bad there must be two opinions—but there is no 疑問 that by getting rid of Plutarch the change will extraordinarily 影響（力） humanity. 倫理学, morality, 支配するs of life must of necessity be profoundly 修正するd and destandardized. For I suppose that no human 存在 from the end of the Dark Ages to the beginning of the late War—no human 存在 in the Western World who was fitting himself for a career as member of the 判決，裁定-classes—was not profoundly 影響（力）d by that earliest of all 小説家-伝記作家s. And, if you sweep away Marcus Aurelius as altruist-moralist, the Greek Anthology as a 基準 of poetry, Livy as 小説家-historian, Cicero as rhetorician, and Pericles as heaven-born 政治家, you will make a cleavage between the world cosmos of to-day and that of all 先行する ages such as no modern 発明s and 研究s of the 構成要素 world have operated. For though swiftening of means of locomotion may have 奪うd humanity of knowledge of mankind, it did little to change the 種類 of generalizations that mankind itself drew from its more meagre human instances. Till the 廃止 of classical culture in the Western World the 判決，裁定-classes went on 手段ing Gladstone or the late Theodore Roosevelt by Plutarchian 基準s—but neither 地位，任命する-1918 King George V nor any 未来 大統領 of the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs can hope to escape by that 平易な touchstone. From the beginnings of industrialism till 1918 we went on rolling 一連の会議、交渉／完成する within the 巨大な gyrations of buzzings, clicks, 動揺させるs, and bangs that is modern life under the 後援 of the 適用するd sciences; we went on contentedly spinning 一連の会議、交渉／完成する like worms within madly whirling walnuts. But as a guide the 広大な／多数の／重要な 人物／姿／数字 had gone.

There is not only no such 人物／姿／数字 in the world as Washington, Nelson, or even Napoleon—but there is no chance that such a 人物／姿／数字 can ever arise again. Nay, even the 伝説の 人物／姿／数字s that remain have lost at least half of their 控訴，上告. A statue of Washington adorns the 前線 of the 国家の Gallery in Trafalgar Square, but it is doubtful if one in a thousand of the passers-by have even heard of the axe and the cherry-tree, let alone knowing anything of his tenacity, 選び出す／独身-mindedness, and moral courage. And who in the North American 共和国 has heard of Nelson and his signal? For the 事柄 of that, as I have どこかよそで 関係のある, a young lady science 卒業生（する） of a very distinguished Eastern University was lately heard to ask when she caught sight of the ドーム of the 無効のs: "Who was this Napollyong they talk so much about here?" Of course pronunciation may have had something to do with that. But it was in 1923 that the question was asked, and since then a popularizing novel-biography of Napoleon has had an 巨大な vogue in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs.

にもかかわらず it is to be 疑問d if ever again 人物／姿／数字s will be known to the whole world. It is possible that my distinguished namesake is so known because of his popularization of a cheap form of 輸送（する）, and there are prize-闘士，戦闘機s, aviators, and performers for the cinema. But these scarcely fill in the departments of public morals and 倫理的な codes the places that used to be 占領するd by Pericles, Cicero, and Lucius Junius Brutus.

I am not 令状ing in the least ironically, nor in the least in the spirit of the laudator temporis acti. We have scrapped a whole culture; the Greek Anthology and Tibullus and Catullus have gone the way of the earliest locomotive and the first Tin Lizzie. We have, then, to 供給（する） their places—and there is only the novel that for the moment seems in the least likely or equipped so to do. That at least 元気づけるs me, my whole life having been 充てるd to the 原因（となる） of the Novel—I don't mean to the 令状ing of 作品 of fiction but to the その上のing of the 見解（をとる）s that I am here giving you.

One must live in, one must 直面する with equanimity, the circumstances of one's own age. I 悔いる that the 人物／姿／数字s of Tibullus and our Saviour do not 占領する on the 行う／開催する／段階 of the lives of men the place that they did in the days of my childhood—but I have courageously to 直面する the fact that they do not. For it is obvious that it is not to the parson and hardly to the priest that one would go for counsel as to one's 構成要素 life; still いっそう少なく could the spirit of Alcestis' 演説（する）／住所 to her bed 奮起させる the young woman to-day 熟視する／熟考するing matrimony.

In short, if you look abroad upon the world you will see that the department of life that was 以前は …に出席するd upon by classical culture has to-day little but the modern work of the imagination to solace it. And that the solace of Literature and the Arts is necessary for—is a craving of—humanity few but the most 常習的な captains of 産業 or the most arrogant of professors of 適用するd Science will be 設立する to 否定する. Our 共同の Anglo-Saxon civilization to-day is a 公正に／かなり savage and materialistic 事件／事情／状勢, but it is also an 事件／事情／状勢 比較して new and untried. It is perhaps more materialistic than was the civilization of 古代の Rome and a little いっそう少なく savage than the 早期に Dark Ages. But both these former periods of human activity had in the end to develop arts and that, it is probable, will be the 事例／患者 with us. The Romans, it is true, relied for their arts mostly on Greek slaves or on such imitators of the Greeks as Horace and Virgil, and the Dark Ages almost 単独で on Churchmen who led 不安定な 存在s in hidden valleys. But the 各々の 未来s of these Ages are 価値（がある） considering for our 現在の 目的s. For the break-up of the Roman Empire for which innumerable 推論する／理由s have been 設立する by innumerable pundits remains at least as mysterious as it was before the first ancestor of Mommsen first dug up his first tile and upon it wrote his first monograph. Mommsen, to be sure, used to tell us that Rome disappeared because it had no Hohenzollern family to guide its 運命s—and that may be true enough. Gibbon ascribed to Christianity the 落ちる of the Roman Empire and People; others of the learned have laid that 大災害 at the door of difficulties of communication, of the 欠如（する） of a modern banking system, of the want of organization of the system of 皇室の 財政／金融s, or of a mysterious and unexplained slackness that overcame alike the Western and Eastern Empires—a slackness 予定 to the 楽しみs of the （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する, the ワイン-cup, of sex and the like.

But we, as upholders of the Arts, the Moralist having been pretty 井戸／弁護士席 blotted out as a 国家の or international factor by the 雪崩／（抗議などの）殺到 that in 1914 began to 圧倒する alike classical culture and 明らかにする／漏らすd 宗教, we then might just 同様に ascribe the 落ちる of Rome to the inartistic materialism of the true-Roman 国民 as to any other 原因（となる）. For the 機能（する）／行事 of the Arts in the 明言する／公表する—apart from the consideration of aesthetics—is so to aerate the mind of the taxpayer as to make him いっそう少なく dull a boy. Or if you like, it is by 除去するing him from his own 即座の 事件／事情／状勢s and immersing him in those of his fellows to give him a better 見解（をとる） of the 複雑にするd predicaments that surround him. A financier, that is to say, who turns from the bewildering and 複雑にするd antics of a maze of tape from tickers, or a realtor who turns from the consideration of corner lots and the 絡まるd and exhausting intrigues that shall make the new boulevard of his city run through land controlled by his 利益／興味s—both these 中心存在s of the modern 明言する／公表する may be 推定する／予想するd to return as it were with minds refreshed if, taking a short 一時的休止，執行延期 from their arduous and necessary 仕事s, they lose themselves for a moment in the consideration of the adventures and predicaments of the Babbitt of Mr. Sinclair 吊りくさび or the 試みる／企てるs at escape from the 議長，司会を務める of the central character of Mr. Dreiser's American 悲劇.

I 許す myself to について言及する the 作品 of friends of my own because I must have illustrations for my 主題 and those illustrations must be 作品 of to-day of 十分な 見込み to last long enough not to be forgotten at the next 落ちる of the leaf—and Mr. 吊りくさび and Mr. Dreiser are so much more my personal friends than immersed in my own particular little technical swim that they are more apposite to my 即座の 目的 than would be, say, the authors of The Sun Also Rises or of My Heart and My Flesh—or of Ulysses.

3

Arrived at that particular five-cornered 陰謀（を企てる） in the 領土 of the Novel I have foreshadowed the end of this small monograph. For, having traced the 漸進的な course of the 開発 from Apuleius to Joseph Conrad, having followed it from the Rome of Petronius Arbiter to the Spain of Lope da Vega, to the London of Defoe and Richardson, to the Paris of Diderot, Stendhal, and Flaubert—with 味方する ちらりと見ることs at the Cockaigne of Thackeray and Dickens and the Russia of Turgenev, Dostoieffsky and Tchekov—and 支援する again to the London of Conrad, Henry James, and Stephen Crane—which last two writers America will not whole-heartedly 受託する as American, whilst England won't 受託する them at all—having followed the devious course of the thin stream of 開発 of the novel from the Mediterranean to the Bay of Biscay, from the Bay of Biscay to the Port of London and so backwards and 今後s across the English Channel, I shall leave it and you with a bump and with some 悔いる at the gateway to the Middle-West—say at about Altoona. For it is there that the Novel, throughout the Ages the poor Cinderella of the Arts, is nowadays 築くing itself into the 単独の guide and 監視する of the world.

I should like to have 許すd myself to say a few words about the modern Middle-Western 開発, which is for the moment the final 行う／開催する／段階, of the art to whose furtherance I have obscurely 充てるd my half-century of 存在. But I am 非難するd like Moses only to perceive that 約束d Land. This is a monograph on the English Novel—which 含むs The House of the Seven Gables or What Maisie Knew, not on the Middle-Western Novel of to-day which very emphatically doesn't 含む—oh, say Riceynan Steps and Mr. Britling Sees it Through.

I should like to 観察する for the 利益 of the Lay Reader, to whom I am 演説（する）／住所ing myself—for the Professional Critic will 支払う／賃金 no attention to anything that I say, contenting himself with cutting me to pieces with whips of scorpions for having 許すd my 長，率いる to pop up at all—to the Lay Reader I should like to point out that what I am about to 令状 is 高度に 議論の的になる and that he must take 非，不，無 of it too much au pied de la lettre. I don't mean to say that it will not be written with almost ferocious 真面目さ. But what follows are suggestions not dictates, for in perusing this sort of 調書をとる／予約する the reader must be 用意が出来ている to do a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of the work himself—within his own mind.

If I choose to 令状 that 広大な／多数の／重要な imaginative literature began in England with 大司教 Warham in the sixteenth century and ended with the death of Thomas Vaughan, the Silurist, in the first year of the eighteenth century, to come to life again with Joseph Conrad and the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する about 1892, and once more to disappear on the fourth of August, 1914—if I choose to 令状 those extreme 声明s it is because I want the Reader mentally to 反対する to them the 指名するs of Swift, Keats, Thackeray, Browning, Swinburne, Meredith—or even those of Messrs. Galsworthy, Bennett, 井戸／弁護士席s and, say, Virginia Woolf. I want the Lay Reader to make those mental 保留（地）／予約s for himself. I should hate to be a professor, I should hate to be taken as dogmatizing, and I should still more hate that what dogmatizing I do perforce indulge in should be unquestioningly 受託するd by any poor 犠牲者.

So that if I should say—as I probably shall—that, along with all his 同時代のs, as a 建設的な artist even of the picaresque school, Dickens was contemptible, or if I say that Meredith as a stylist in comparison with Henry James was 簡単に detestable, or that the conception of novel-令状ing as an art began for Anglo-Saxondom with Joseph Conrad, or that Babbitt dealt a shrewder blow at the pre-war idealization of the 産業の system and the idolatry of materialism than Don Quixote at sixteenth-century 痕跡s of the chivalric spirit, or that The Time of Man is the most beautiful individual piece of 令状ing that has as yet come out of America, or that The Lighthouse is the only piece of British—as …に反対するd to English—令状ing that has latterly excited my craftsman's mind—the only piece since the 拒絶する／低下する and death of Conrad...if I commit myself to all these 声明s the reader must at once violently 反対する that I am a スピードを出す／記録につける-roller 令状ing up my personal friends—though I never knew, or even know anyone that knew, 行方不明になる Virginia Woolf. He must 反対する that I have forgotten not only Trollope in my aspersions on 中央の-Victorian 小説家s, but that I have also forgotten Mr. George Moore. (式のs, I always forget Mr. George Moore, who is probably the greatest and most dispassionate 専門家技術者 that English Literature has ever seen.)

He must make all these 反対s for himself as violently as possible: then, in reaction, thinking it over he will probably find that there is something in what I say. At any 率, he will have a sort of rudimentary 地図／計画する of the Kingdom of the Art of Letters in his mind. The old-fashioned 地図／計画するs had their advantages. Their cartographer left in his 計画（する）s blank spaces in places where his enemies dwelt and labelled them: "Here be Crocodiles," "Here be Stenches!" or "Anthropophagi! 避ける this Land!"—and that was useful because it told you what parts of the earth were pernicious to that type of Cartographer. So, if you were of his type, you 避けるd 領土s by him miscalled. On the other 手渡す, if you disliked the sort of fellow that that 地図／計画する-製造者 was, you adventured into the 領土 labelled "of the Anthropophagi" to find it 住むd 単独で by サイレン／魅惑的なs, into the Land of Stenches to find it distinguished by the most beneficent of chalybeate springs, or amongst the Crocodiles, who were charming people, ready at any moment to shed 涙／ほころびs over your 使い果たすd pockets, your lost loves, or your rheumatic-gout!

It is with a 地図／計画する of that sort that I am trying to 供給する you. No other sort is of the remotest value. Nor is it even possible, critics 存在 human.

I am looking at the last page of a 手動式の of English Literature 収集するd by a critic who takes himself and is taken very 本気で indeed. I read:

"His work often decadent, 控訴，上告ing to senses; a 悲観論者. 欠如（する）s 抑制; small variety in mood!"

Think of that as the last word—the very last word—of a 手動式の of English Literature for the use of the English Classes of the most numerically …に出席するd University in the Universe! Could I at my worst do worse? Or so 不正に!

For that is that writer's 批判的な 見積（る）—that is all that thirty thousand pupils of a 明言する／公表する University are given as an 評価 of—Algernon Charles Swinburne!

CHAPTER TWO. TOWARDS DEFOE

It is not part of my 目的—nor within the 範囲 of a short 手動式の would it be possible!—to trace the 影響（力） of the Golden Ass or the Satirical on the course or 開発 of the novel—and indeed their 影響（力）s probably （機の）カム into 活動／戦闘 so late that the 影響 was rather to give coloration to the pastiches of later writers like the late Mr. Walter Pater or the very much living Mr. Ezra 続けざまに猛撃する. It is the same, to all 意図s and 目的s, with such mediaeval 編集s of short-stories as the Decameron, the Heptameron or the Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles. The Decameron must in particular have been as enormously read in the course of centuries as Madame Bovary, but, except for the Heptameron and the 残り／休憩（する） of the 作品 of that tradition, it can have led to no 開発s but 単に to a few imitations such as the Contes Drolatiques of Balzac.

To our 即座の 目的 they are germane 単独で as 示すing the 願望（する）—the necessity—that humanity has always experienced for fiction of one 肉親，親類d or another, if 単に as an expedient for 明らかにするing the mind The mediaeval European intellect seems to have been able to 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がる these crystallizing shocks only in smallish doses, and in Europe it was not until sixteenth-century Spain that humanity seems to have been able to 支える its 利益／興味 for the course of a long tale—a 一連の rambling 出来事/事件s in the life of one or of one or two central characters. And again it was not until the middle nineteenth century in フラン and the very late nineteenth or 早期に twentieth that in England the mind of the public could be 推定する／予想するd to take in the （判決などを）下すing—not the narrating—of a work whose central character was not an individual of わずかに superhuman 割合s. Still いっそう少なく could it take in an 事件／事情／状勢 whose 関係者s, as に適するs a democratic age, if not all 正確に／まさに equal in the parts they play in the 事件／事情／状勢's 開発, are at least nearly all as 普通は 類似の in aspirations, virtues and 副／悪徳行為s as is usual in one's surrounding humanity.

Let us for a moment consider the difference—if difference there be—between the 明らかに artless tale and the novel that 実行するs my 鮮明度／定義 of the 機能（する）／行事s of the work of fiction in the modern 団体／死体 politic. The artless tale, then, is nothing but a conte—a thing told to keep the hearers gasping or at least engrossed. Told 口頭で it is usually short, but professional story-tellers have been 設立する—as in the 事例／患者 of the group-authors of the Arabian Nights—to make them very long indeed. And the habit of telling very long tales that are 事実上 serials still 固執するs in Eastern bazaars.

You may say that listening to tales for the mere 目的 of 存在 thrilled or engrossed has nothing to do with the 伸び（る）ing of vicarious experience, so that the stories of the Decameron or the ordinary novels of 商業 were and are of no value to the 団体／死体 politic, but a little reflection will show that the 逆転する is the 事例／患者 in practice. Human experience is built up by the 普通の／平均（する）ing out of a 広大な／多数の／重要な many 事例／患者s—some inclining, as it were, to the extreme 権利, some to the extreme left, and the 大多数 probably approaching the normal.

本人自身で, on the 直面する of it, I せねばならない be glad if, in the 利益／興味s of 非，不，無-商業の literature, the novel of 商業 could be 抑えるd, but as a 事柄 of fact I should be the first to lament such a 大災害. Humanity, in fact, needs care-解放する／自由な entertainment—and in search of it it seldom goes very far wrong. That is 証明するd by the fact that, ever since 調書をとる／予約するs were 調書をとる／予約するs, the 広大な／多数の／重要な public has devoured with avidity only two 肉親，親類d of work—the very worst from the point of 見解（をとる） of the literary artists, and the very best! The four most popular 調書をとる／予約するs the world over at any given moment since, say, eighteen-sixty have always been the 巡礼者's 進歩, Madame Bovary and two sempiternally changing 作品 of egregious silliness and 人気. But 反して the いわゆる popular 調書をとる／予約するs change with the turn of each year, the more serious 作品 continue to stand at the 長，率いる of the best-販売人s of the world year in and year out.

That is a consideration to which we may return; the point that I wish to make here is that when contes and nouvelles of the type to be 設立する in the Decameron were of an almost boundless 人気, not only had the serious novel no 存在 but the reprehension that the Victorian moralist and industrialist 表明するd also 設立する then no 表現. As I am never tired of relating, my grand-aunt Eliza was the first utterer of the famous 説: "Sooner than be idle I'd take a 調書をとる／予約する and read"; but that utterance, perfectly normal and 拍手喝采する about 1860 when it was first 現在のd to the world, is to-day 純粋に risible and could not in serious earnestness be uttered in the 世帯 of any family more comfortable in its circumstances than those of the lower-paid 手動式の labourer.

It would have been 平等に 考えられない at any date from the tenth century to the 早期に nineteenth. During those nine centuries, in fact, the professional moralist was only too glad to enlist the services of the fiction-teller under the sacred 旗，新聞一面トップの大見出し／大々的に報道するs of 約束 and Good 作品, and although に向かって the end of the eighteenth century the habits of young ladies who lay day-long on sofas reading the thousandfold novels of popular 女性（の） authors from Aphra Behn to Sarah Fielding—although that habit was lightly satirized by dramatists and occasionally 天罰（を下す）d in the sermons of nonconformist divines, these occurrences were very 時折起こる and altogether too infrequent to form a 国家の habit. Indeed, until the nineteenth century was under way it might even be 前進するd that the writers of such 作品 of fiction as the 巡礼者's 進歩, Rasselas, or Robinson Crusoe were 熱望して sought as 同盟（する）s by the professional, ecclesiastical, or nonconformist moralist.

And that was even more pronouncedly the 事例／患者 in days still earlier when in Europe a 全世界の／万国共通の and all-powerful church dictated the morals of gentle and simple alike. Indeed, whatever may or may not be said of Catholicism in the way of 賞賛する or 非難する, it cannot be 申し立てられた／疑わしい that when she was all-powerful she was ever afraid of the Arts or afraid to 雇う them for her own 目的s. The Moralities of the 修道女 Hrotswitha, the mystery plays and mummings of every town-guild in the Middle Ages, are alone 圧倒的な 証拠 that the church, 代表するing the professional moralists of five or six centuries, was only too glad to avail itself of forms of art as an 不可欠の means of spreading her teachings. Nor indeed until the Puritan Divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries turned upon the art of fiction as 現在のd on the 行う／開催する／段階 did that form of art do anything other than bend itself willingly to the services of morality. For you might say that the 演劇 of Wycherley and Killigrew was as much a 抗議する against the 圧迫 of the then professional moralist as any spontaneous movement for the 供給（する） of lecherous fiction to the public. The greater part of the plays of the Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists—by far the greater part—consisted of 作品 of 深遠な—and やめる 従来の—moral 目的; the earlier 演劇, and even the pace-egging and mumming of country shows, were nothing but pietistic pronouncements put as picturesquely-and as alluringly spiced with alliterations in the prosody and low comedy in the 陰謀（を企てる）s—as the fiction-writers of the day could contrive. Hell always yawned before the audience beneath the high trestle-boards and 行う／開催する／段階s of these shows; in the 飛行機で行くs Heaven and its denizens were always 明白な, whilst in what would to-day be called the wings there waited perpetually 明白な, on the one 手渡す the Devil ready to pitchfork the wicked into the lower story of the 行う／開催する／段階—and Man's Good Angel to 行為／行う him to the Better Place. And clowns and characters called 副／悪徳行為s were always ready to 耐える the drubbings that, enlivening the public, were the 部分 of the mildly wicked and foolish.

No, decidedly the mediaeval and 早期に renaissance art of fiction, やめる as much as Matthew Arnold, was on the 味方する of the angels.

It might be 同様に here to point out that until the 復古／返還 and its comedies brought scenery and 試みる／企てるs at scenic realism to the 行う／開催する／段階, the Play and the Novel were 事実上 the same form. Or it might be better to put it that the Novel was the direct 開発 of the play—a 開発 made possible by the art of printing. In 影響 the plays of Shakespeare were novels written for recitation, and that, 自然に, was still more the 事例／患者 with the 作品 of Shakespeare's 前任者s. And it is 重要な that as reading became more ありふれた with the 設立 of Edward VI's grammar schools, the play itself became いっそう少なく a 事柄 of rantings and by degrees even a medium for 罰金 令状ing. Gorboduc and Ferrex and Porrex or Ralph Roister Doister were 製品s of either a stilted classicism or of a boisterous, native spirit of knockabout buffoonery, puns, and ribald jests. The classical 動機 問題／発行するd presently into a 方式 of over-written elegance that speedily 証明するd itself unreadable: then Lyly gave place to Shakespeare.

It has always seemed obvious to me—as a 私的な 有罪の判決 for which I have no wish to do 戦う／戦い and which I have no wish to 軍隊 on the reader as any more than a suggestion—that Shakespeare himself regretted the literary chastity of his muse. I mean that Shakespeare, as gentleman and one wishing to sport his coat-of-武器 in the very best social and scholastic circles, deprecated the passing of the まとまりs and of bombast and wished that the popular taste would have let him make a living by 詩（を作る） in the style of the 強姦 of Lucrece and the more florid poems that decorate the last pages of 版s of his 作品. His speeches to the players in Hamlet and all his life as far as it is known would seem to 示す that. But it is not until you can bring yourself to regard not 単に the plays of Shakespeare but the whole 地位，任命する-Lylian Elizabethan and Jacobean 演劇 as novels written for recitation that the 広大な／多数の／重要な mystery of Shakespeare's life seems to become reasonably explicable. For the 広大な／多数の／重要な mystery of Shakespeare as 小説家 is 簡単に: "Why did Shakespeare never 訂正する his proofs?"

Beside this amazing enormity all questions as to the 身元 of Mr. W. H. or the Dark Lady or Mary Fitton or of the 動機s of the sonnets become paler and more ineffectual than any ghosts. For they at least don't 事柄. But that the greatest writer of all time should not have taken the trouble ever to read his own 作品 in print, preferring to retire to Stratford, 告訴する out his coat armour and so, on his 利益（をあげる）s as theatre owner, become titularly and 合法的に a Gentleman—that, if you think about it and have ever known an author, is the most amazing 現象 known to the history of Literature. Napoleon at St. Helena, 改名するing himself Monsieur Dupont and shuddering at the について言及する of Austerlitz, would not be more astonishing. For this 小説家 never blotted a line and never saw his work through the 圧力（をかける）!

On the 直面する of it the plays of Shakespeare read extravagantly 井戸／弁護士席 but, on the modern 行う／開催する／段階, play extravagantly 不正に. I have never in my life been more bored and appalled than at having to sit through an uncut 業績／成果 of Hamlet, given by the most 公式文書，認めるd performers in the world in 前線 of a gigantic real 城. It was terrifying and it lasted from nine at night till four in the morning. There was the real 城, the real moon, real armour dating 支援する to Shakespeare's days, real 旗，新聞一面トップの大見出し／大々的に報道するs of the 時代; real 兵士s played the 軍隊／機動隊s of Fortinbras—and to 追加する a touch of reality of another sort, in the middle of the 業績／成果 real 共産主義者 groundlings 論証するd for Saccho and Vanzetti!

But the point was that, with the real 城, pump and the 残り／休憩（する）, all Shakespeare's descriptions became intolerable pleonasms and gave a singular unreality to the characters that uttered them. For normal humanity does not talk of patines of 有望な gold when considering the night skies: it says "Look at the 星／主役にするs," and かもしれない 追加するs: "Aren't they jolly?" The 星／主役にするs in fact do the 残り／休憩（する）: and in this given 事例／患者 the 城 of Avignon, the Rhone, and the moon were admirably 用意が出来ている to 取って代わる all that anyone's descriptions could do.

On the other 手渡す, I have never in my life been so 圧倒するd as by a ranted 業績／成果 given by 有能な actors in modern dress in a rather 明らかにする modern studio that had galleries 一連の会議、交渉／完成する it—a 条件 pretty 井戸／弁護士席 再生するing that of the Shakespearean 行う／開催する／段階. Hero and ヘロイン and subordinate characters bellowed rhetorical periods, floods of bombast; they threw their 武器 about, raved, fell 負かす／撃墜する, and staggered to their feet. The 影響, as I have said, was 圧倒的な; no such other utter 悲劇 has ever 現在のd itself to the world for three hundred years; the grief of the ヘロイン was so insufferable that you could not sit in your place; when the hero died you groaned aloud. Yet the play was only Kyd's Spanish 悲劇, 最高位の as a pretty poor work and to-day very difficult to read.

Shakespeare, on the other 手渡す, does read extravagantly 井戸／弁護士席 through the greater part of his work—but large 部分s of the plays must 支払う／賃金 the 刑罰，罰則 of all 作品 ーするつもりであるd for one medium and 現在のd in another. The sheer silliness of many—of most of his 陰謀（を企てる）s except in the Chronicle Plays—their sheer silliness and 怠慢，過失 regarded from the point of 見解（をとる） of the art of the novel, become technical 長所 when it is a 事柄 of recitation; bareness of 陰謀（を企てる） is then a necessity, the mind having no time to turn 支援する and 選ぶ up 単に 示唆するd 手がかり（を与える）s. And of course a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of his work must have seemed to a man of his own delicacy of temperament much more the merest 令状ing 負かす／撃墜する to the groundlings or coarse flatterings of those in 当局 than that caviare to the general that he hoped to 供給する.

So that his inattention to the printing of his plays may very conceivably have proceeded from sheer disgust at them—a でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind not unfamiliar to the artist when 見解（をとる）ing his work in the light of his own ideals. Or of course it remains open to us—all things in the 事例／患者 of Shakespeare 存在 open to us—to consider that he really regarded his work as 商業の trivia that had much better be ignored in the later 行う／開催する／段階s of his aggrandizement to the 明言する／公表する of gentility. That でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind is so usual in the British 小説家 and ever since novels have been translated or written in England has 証明するd so 悲惨な to the art itself that it is やめる 考えられる that the first—and the greatest—of them all may have 株d in that 国家の characteristic.

Be that as it may, the 主張 that the Elizabethan and Jacobean play answered in 前進する the call from the public for the novel that was so soon to come may very 井戸／弁護士席 be regarded as fact. And indeed the same may be regarded as true of all pre-Elizabethan or rather pre-Edwardian English literature. Or it might be more just to say that, the Grammar School spreading at once the capacity and the taste for reading, the 高めるd 国家の wealth of the age of Drake and countenanced piracy in Elizabeth's day made the 購入（する） and dissemination of 調書をとる／予約するs a 可能性 amongst a very much wider class of the public.

We may then regard the 支配する of thumb 鮮明度／定義 of the novel as a printed 調書をとる／予約する of some length telling one tale or relating the adventures of one 選び出す／独身 personage as reasonably 許容できる. In that 事例／患者 you get an instance at once of 供給（する） created by 需要・要求する and of that 供給（する） 存在 （判決などを）下すd possible by the fact that education and 構成要素 生産／産物 arrived almost 手渡す in 手渡す. For although printing was 利用できる as a means of spreading knowledge almost a couple of centuries earlier, the exiguity of 構成要素 wealth and leisure, the 騒動 and the scarcity of 労働 of the centuries of pestilence, dynastic wars, and 騒動 that に先行するd the 会社／堅い 設立 of the Tudors on the 王位 infinitely 延期するd and indeed 無期限に／不明確に put 支援する the clock of culture in these kingdoms.

概略で speaking, we may say that Chaucer, the first English writer of 支えるd imaginative pieces, was also the first English writer for the 圧力（をかける）—a writer, that is to say, for the individual reader in his closet rather than a 作曲家 of lays, ballads, roundels, or even epics, for recitation. The dictum should be 受託するd with 警告を与える. That it is on the whole just is にもかかわらず demonstrable by the comparison of the Canterbury Tales or Troilus and Cresseide with say the Faerie Queene or Drayton's Polyolbion. That the work of Chaucer is readable, 反して the epics of Spenser and Drayton 事実上 反抗する perusal, is not 単に a 事柄 of difference of greatness in the 各々の authors. Chaucer was an infinitely greater writer than either of his 後継者s: his character-製図／抽選 is 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の, his sense of beauty 圧倒的な, his minutely 観察するing mind 立ち往生させるs off the 可能性 of dullness in his pages. And read to himself by an individual reader the work of Spenser is intolerably pompous, allegorical and dull, and that of Drayton all too 歩行者 because of his 欠如（する） of any 力／強力にするs of 選択. But, if you will read the longer 作品 of Chaucer aloud you will find him a little difficult to follow 簡単に because of that very minuteness of 観察 and that very 欠如（する） of dullness; the others, on the other 手渡す, 伸び（る） immensely by reading aloud or by recitation—both Spenser and Drayton taking on a sort of jolly robustness that is even to-day by no means disagreeable and that may 井戸／弁護士席 have been enormously engrossing in the mouth of a good reader reading to audiences that had little to do but listen and 欠如（する）d the 力／強力にする of reading for themselves.

In the 事柄 of the 消費 of literature, in fact, the English world had gone 支援する several 世代s between the ages of Chaucer and Spenser—if, that is to say, you regard the 進化 of the printed 調書をとる／予約する and the arrival of the novel as 進歩, for it is やめる open to you to regard the 見えなくなる of oral poetry and the epic as retrogression. にもかかわらず, it is 公正に／かなり true to say that Chaucer with Caxton, the first printer, as an intimate wrote far more definitely for the 圧力（をかける） than did any of the Elizabethan imaginative writers. Except in the 内部の style and the outward 影響 of his work there is of course no 証拠 that Chaucer considered definitely that the coming of the printing 圧力（をかける） called for a change in the technique of the imaginative writer—but it would not be utterly fanciful to imagine that he did at least consider himself a writer 運命にあるd to have a 広大な／多数の／重要な number of individual readers rather than 広大な audiences 運命にあるd to listen to recitals of his work.

To what extent I am 権利 in 前進するing the suggestion that Eastern and Eastern-European audiences had tougher brain-stuffs than their Anglo-Saxon 同時代のs, at any 率 in the 事柄 of listening to recitals of tales in prose or 詩（を作る）, the reader may decide for himself. The suggestion is にもかかわらず handy as 現在のing a 確かな not unuseful image. We may say that the printing 圧力（をかける） killed alike the epic and all forms of metrical romance, or we may say that the epic and the metrical romance are essentially foreign to the taste of the Occidental reader—and the second 声明 is in 影響 単に a repetition in other 条件 of the first.

Into that I do not 提案する to go. It is 十分な to say that when I do make the 主張 I find myself, as it were 突然に, in company with the academic critic of to-day and yesterday. At any 率, やめる 正統派の 当局 have not 異常に 主張するd that Romaunts or Romances were, in England at least, ーするつもりであるd for the personal reading of the mediaeval courtly and clerical individual, whilst the shorter lays, virelais, ballads, and the like were 目的（とする）d, as 存在 いっそう少なく 疲労，（軍の）雑役ing, at popular and 非常に／多数の audiences. This seems to be 単に ありふれた sense. On the other 手渡す, very long metrical or prose compositions did 同時に 控訴，上告 to Oriental audiences and it is not unusual in academic circles to 述べる the Canterbury Tales themselves as "Oriental in origin," which seems queer but may for the moment pass.

What, however, I am anxious to 設立する—at the 危険 of a 確かな prolixity—is the fact that an appetite for fiction 量ing also to an 表現 of a necessity has, at least since the Dark Ages till the 現在の day, distinguished all humanity. The 推論する／理由 probably is, as I have already hinted, that we need accounts of human life not so much as 事柄 from which to draw morals for our own particular 事例／患者s but rather as something that will take us outside ourselves and, as it were, to a 高さ from which we may the better 観察する ourselves and our 隣人s. The moral is usually thrown in by the moralist who にもかかわらず 主張するs or at any 率 主張するs that moralizing is the 単独の 目的 of his life and work. But the Morality Plays of the 修道女 Hrotswitha, the Mysteries of every English town from Salisbury to Lytham, the terrifically moralizing novels from Guzman d'Alfarache to the history of Moll Flanders, were 簡単に 証拠 of the fact that humanity did not want moralizing and did want fiction. They 代表する the moralist throwing up the sponge and trying to get a pinch of salt on to the tail of that difficult bird, man. It is obvious that large audiences in days of 完全にする 退屈 could be 設立する for the sermons of ranting 修道士s and violent 改革者s. But even at that the 控訴，上告 was 大部分は fictional and what the audiences went to hear—as was the 事例／患者 with, say, Savonarola—was rather 半分-hysterical and lively descriptions of the sufferings of souls in eternal 炎上 than any doctrinal discourses on the life and teachings of Him Whose message was: "Neither do I 非難する thee!"

So, 徐々に, fiction 現れるing with timidity from under the wing of the Church itself took such prentice flights in the direction of pure （判決などを）下すing of life as picaresque novels like Don Quixote. It is, however, doubtful if the adventures of the knight of la Mancha would have got past the 索引 had not the Church been called in in the person of the parish priest who in the end 燃やすs the poor hero's 調書をとる／予約するs of romance; and from that point of 見解（をとる） Cervantes may be regarded as 簡単に 製図／抽選 the cord of 従来の morality closer 一連の会議、交渉／完成する the necks of the unfortunate public. The romance of The Seven 支持する／優勝者s of Christendom had to be 燃やすd not because it was a silly 調書をとる／予約する but because its morality was insufficiently puritan, the Church of Rome in the throes of the カトリック教徒 Reaction having to 証明する itself at least as puritan as the Anabaptists of Münster. So the 団体／死体 that 許容するd Rabelais good-naturedly had to invent an 自動車 da fé ーするために を取り引きする Amadis de Gaul; and Cervantes, for all the world like a seventeenth-century Thackeray, had to attune his satire to the 麻薬を吸う of a 反応するing church. Fiction, in short, had to 支払う／賃金 an always greater 尊敬の印 to morality as it escaped from 存在 the mere servant of 設立するd 宗教.

In 影響 the Church—and then the Churches—said to the novel, the play, the romance, and the ballad: "We are too busy cutting each other's throats and inventing newer theologies, to bother any more about artistic 生産／産物s. In the 合間 we will 除去する the 利益 of clergy that used to 保護物，者 those who could manipulate a pen. You may 令状 and compose what lay fictions you like, but the rack, the faggot or the pillory will …に出席する you if you publish anything that we don't like." And the 小説家, always a timid creature and in England 熱心な of social consideration, was quick to take the hint. So Don Quichotte de la Mancha, the only gentleman produced by the genius of Cervantes, and indeed by all the genius of that age, had to become a pitiable lunatic. Yet it is impossible that a man of the perspicacity of the writer of that work could not have seen that the Don, wiping curds from his benign and tranquil countenance, was godlike in comparison to the crooks and 甚だしい／１２ダース 小作農民s—the cats and monkeys!—that surrounded him. にもかかわらず the Don must go!

With those Spaniards, then, the novel approached some sort of （判決などを）下すing of life and that sort of （判決などを）下すing was soon enough to make its 外見 in England. It crossed the Bay of Biscay and the Channel with a picaresque work of a prodigious 人気 in its day—Guzman d' Alfarache or the Story of a Rogue. いっそう少なく picaresque in the true sense of 存在 the strung-together life of a picaro or professional どろぼう—いっそう少なく picaresque than the immortal Lazarillo de Tormes and いっそう少なく achingly 悲劇の as a 贈呈 of the life of the 売春宿 and ワイン-shop than Celestina, the work of Hermann Alemannos, whose 指名する betrays his Teutonic origin, was much more ふさわしい to the Anglo-Saxon taste than either one of the other three Spanish 調書をとる／予約するs that I have selected for について言及する.

The true Spanish genius is for us 明白に too 厳格な，質素な. Our public could, it is true, guffaw over the discomfitures of the knight of the Woeful Countenance and the manoeuvre by which Lazarillo gets rid of his blind master who himself was the most ferocious of scoundrels; and the 自殺 from the tower in Celestina may have excited disagreeable emotions in the English reader who preferred to think that 罰 for sins was a 事柄 of the hereafter. But the remorseless, essentially Spanish 黒人／ボイコット and white of the greater novels was no more for the English public or the English litterateur than are Titus Andronicus and Pericles when they can get the Comedy of Errors or the Midsummer Night's Dream.

Guzman d'Alfarache, on the other 手渡す, was a wilderness of enormous passages of trite morality enlivened here and there with episodes of cozening and purse-cutting and it has always been a 事柄 of 憶測 to me—for I have known these 作品 ever since I was a very small child—to what extent the seventeenth-century public really liked the moralizings, to what extent it was 単に hypocrisy, and to what extent, again, readers were really tricked by the tiny ha'-pennyworth of 解雇（する） into 消費するing the intolerable 量 of very 乾燥した，日照りの bread. 明白に in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries mere length was not a deterrent, because there was an 巨大な 量 of time for 空いている minds to fill in and 比較して very few 調書をとる／予約するs. So that just as in distant 植民地s we will read home newspapers with all the 宣伝s they 含む／封じ込める three and four times over, so the 支配するs of the James's, Charles's, and 早期に George's would 受託する almost anything that could be read or listened to and probably from 存在 attuned to prolixities they would have disliked anything crisp if anything crisp had been to be 設立する.

That is perhaps a vain 憶測, but a short consideration of the first 広大な／多数の／重要な English 小説家, who was for a time at least nearly 単独で 小説家, would lead one to believe that such was indeed the 事例／患者. Defoe was born about the time of the 復古／返還 of Charles II—that is to say, in 1660 or 1661—and died in 1731, 老年の in consequence about seventy. And it is 利益／興味ing to 公式文書，認める that his novels were all produced in the last twelve years of his life—as an expedient for procuring bread and butter after 破産 produced by too ingenious 憶測s both 財政上の and philosophical.

That gets rid of the theory we might さもなければ have entertained that he was a 復古／返還 小説家 in the sense that the friends of Charles II were 復古／返還 dramatists. にもかかわらず, the active 部分s of Defoe's life were so passed in the seventeenth century that it comes 自然に to think of him rather as Jacobean than Georgian or eighteenth century. It is, that is to say, not in the pomposity of the eighteenth century that Captain Singleton or 陸軍大佐 Jack or Moll Flanders seem to be 着せる／賦与するd. They were rather 動きやすい, swaggering, piratical creatures seated on バーレル／樽s and smoking their yards of clay than strutters in brocades and ruffles. And probably Defoe's ideal was the 相当な London merchant, sturdily 工場／植物d over his stout calves on square feet. That was his ideal because he had himself lamentably failed in 達成するing to it.

His 財政上の ideas are said to have 設立する favour in 後継するing ages; his 計画（する）s for 増加するing the 国家の 歳入s, like Swift's, it is said, would have been admirable could they have been 可決する・採択するd. So his moralities are practical rather than theological—it was to the respectable 選挙権／賛成s of the merchants that his pious passages 演説（する）／住所d themselves. Thus his moralizings may have been いっそう少なく hypocritical than those of most of his 同時代のs, his 前任者s or 子孫s; but the aspiring after respectability was 非，不，無 the いっそう少なく as 示すd.

What, however, is in him the most 利益／興味ing from our special point of 見解（をとる） of tracing the 開発 of the art of the novel is the fact that Defoe may be called the first English or foreign writer to 努力する／競う after some sort of 満足な 条約 for the novel. He 目的（とする）d, that is to say, at 存在 納得させるing—at 納得させるing his reader that he was reading of real adventures 始める，決める in the, as it were, 公式の／役人 biographies of real individuals. Such fictitious 文書s as The Apparition of Mrs. Veal, the Memoirs of a Cavalier, or the History of the 疫病／悩ます in London are very 近づく to historic 偽造s and ought perhaps to be regarded as fictitious journalism. For, whatever else he was or wasn't, Defoe was the first 広大な／多数の／重要な 新聞記者／雑誌記者.

His Review of the 事件／事情／状勢s of フラン, which was a 定期刊行物 news-小冊子 充てるing itself to 外務 and what to-day we should call Town Topics, was no 疑問 Defoe's introduction to fiction. When, that is to say, foreign news ran out he filled in his space with the chronicles of an invented Scandalous Club and there, a little in the style of La Bruyère and still more in the style of the later Tatlers, Ramblers, and 観客s, he 現在のd the Town with わずかに scandalous anecdotes of characters 純粋に fictitious or 示唆するd faintly by 井戸／弁護士席-known living men.

From that to inventing 誤った news as in the 事例／患者 of the Mrs. Veal fascicule and from that again to the 生産／産物 of sham autobiography like Robinson Crusoe is a very obvious progression. Few 新聞記者／雑誌記者s would make it to-day, but to-day news 存在 more ありふれた is more easily checked. Be that as it may, there is no 疑問 that, whether it were his 意向 or no, he did 発展させる a 条約 for fiction that up to a 確かな point was 効果的な enough. That he ーするつもりであるd so to do there is not, as was on the other 手渡す the 事例／患者 with his 広大な／多数の／重要な 後継者 Samuel Richardson, any 証拠. On the contrary, there is a good 取引，協定 of 証拠 that several of his 作品 of fiction were really ーするつもりであるd as mystifications or 詐欺s on the public.

That does not 干渉する with the artistic 長所 of his work, which was very 広大な／多数の／重要な. For whether you 始める，決める out to hypnotize the public into believing for the time 存在 that they have …に出席するd at a scene, or trick them into believing that they have read real memoirs when the memoirs are fictitious, the artistic, if not the 倫理的な, results are nearly equal. There is, however, this difference:

If you should read Salammbo and should be asked if you had ever been in Carthage before its 破壊 by the Romans you might almost answer in the affirmative with truth, 反して in the same 規模 of things if you were asked if you had been 現在の at the 解雇する／砲火／射撃 of London and had read Defoe's History you could not answer more than that you had read a very authentic account by an 注目する，もくろむ-証言，証人／目撃する. And inasmuch as an authentic （判決などを）下すing—a （判決などを）下すing made with extreme artistic 技術—will give you more the sense of having been 現在の at an event than if you had 現実に been corporeally 現在の, 反して the reading of the most skilful of literary 偽造s will only leave you with the sense that you have read a 調書をとる／予約する, the artistic （判決などを）下すing is the more 価値のある to you and therefore the greater 業績／成就. I once heard a couple of French 海洋 engineers agreeing that although they had 横断するd the Indian Ocean many times and had several times passed through, or through the fringes of, 台風s, neither of them had ever been in one till they had read Conrad's 台風. And indeed I have myself had the singular experience of looking out at 夜明け from a テント-flap and seeing the テントs of a sleeping army running up into 深い 支持を得ようと努めるd. And having just been reading Stephen Crane's Red Badge of Courage, which opens with the description of the 夜明け breaking on the テントs of a sleeping army, for some minutes I was 混乱させるd, not 存在 able to understand why the one or two men that I saw about were dressed in our khaki instead of in the blue of the 連邦の 軍隊／機動隊s of the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs during the Civil War. That is what I mean by 説 that one might answer with truth that one had been 現在の at a （判決などを）下すd scene although one might never 肉体的に have been 現在の there. For to me it is 確かな that I was at that given moment more 現在の at the 準備 of a 戦う／戦い somewhere 近づく Gettysburg in the 'sixties of last century than 現実に amongst British 軍隊／機動隊s in support at a 戦う／戦い that was then 訴訟／進行 in the ベルギー Salient in September, 1916.

To produce that or 類似の 影響s is the ambition of the novel of to-day.

Two centuries before—by, say, 1716—the novel had proceeded but a very little way. I should say that Bunyan in the 巡礼者's 進歩 and still more in The 宗教上の War had gone as far as any writer till that day and dying in 1688 he 心配するd Defoe as 小説家 by at least a 世代. 表面上は the 巡礼者's 進歩 is an allegorical work just as the English Bible is a theological or even a doctrinal one; but just as in the Morality Plays which were produced by professionally 宗教的な writers or actors and the Mysteries which were 宗教的な spectacles produced and 行為／法令／行動するd under the direction of 聖職者のs by members of the professedly lay Guilds—just as in those 生産／産物s the real attraction was the imaginative 贈呈 of realities rather than the pious aspirations of authors or 生産者s, so it is 堅固に to be 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑うd that the realistically human 控訴，上告 of the 巡礼者's 進歩 far outweighs the moral or 宗教的な 利益／興味s. Indeed in The 宗教上の War, which is an allegorical 贈呈 of the eternal struggle between the unseen 軍隊s that make for good and evil on earth, the 贈呈 of seventeenth-century 戦争 is for long passages so 現実主義の that one might 告発する／非難する Bunyan of having thrown up the moral sponge and of taking a pagan 楽しみ in fighting for fighting's sake. He （判決などを）下すs, in short, 戦う／戦いs of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 反乱 in which he took part or on whose 郊外s he was 現在の. He （判決などを）下すd them and did not 令状 about them.

But the moral fervour and 猛烈な／残忍な 誠実 of Bunyan are so far above 疑惑 that the mere fact that at times he was carried away in a sheer 爆発 of the artist's spirit and love of terrestrial 面s for the mere sake of those 面s—his moral fervour is so 広大な／多数の／重要な and so deserving of 尊敬（する）・点 that no slightest 強い味 of hypocrisy can attach to him any more than it can attach to the 翻訳家s of the English Bible. And, if we except Smollett and かもしれない Samuel Richardson who was the real 広大な／多数の／重要な precursor of the modern novel, we cannot say as much for any other English 小説家 who wrote before the later years of the nineteenth century. For it is impossible to absolve such writers as Defoe, Fielding, or Thackeray from the 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 of deliberately 令状ing with their tongues in their cheeks passages of virtuous aspirations that were in no way any aspirations of theirs and that in consequence very 本気で detracted from the value of their 作品 as art.

With Bunyan that was not the 事例／患者. He 願望（する）d to inculcate 確かな moral teachings and he had the sense to see that the best way to inculcate a doctrine and to get it 深い into the brain and 骨髄 of the reader was to make him be vicariously 現在の at scenes the contemplation of which would 原因（となる） 確かな moral or practical ideas to arise in the mind. And the deservedly prodigious—the deservedly unrivalled popular 控訴，上告 of the 巡礼者's 進歩 is 十分な 証言 at once to the 巨大な 技術 and the unparalleledly simple moral fervour of its author. For the reader …に出席するing on the episode of the Slough of Despond is 現実に in a bog a little way away from his native town and the man who reads of 巨大（な） Despair is in all truth 直面するd with either Gog or Magog of the Lord 市長's 行列 in the very flesh. At any 率, it is to be remembered that, the world over, together with the Imitation of Christ and Madame Bovary, the 巡礼者's 進歩 is the most read 調書をとる／予約する in Christendom. And this we must put 負かす／撃墜する to the artistic 技術—to the 力／強力にする of 贈呈 and of （判決などを）下すing of the author.

For there is no other criterion of art but success, and the more 継続している the success the better the art. I wish to strike that 公式文書，認める very 堅固に because as soon as one begins to talk about an art misinterpretations come creeping in and one is at once 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑うd of at the least 主張するing one's 所有／入手 of superior knowledges or—let us say—of high-hafting one's 隣人. Nothing is いっそう少なく true. The knowledge of the art of novel 令状ing is open to every one who takes the trouble to like one 調書をとる／予約する better than another and the literary tastes of men are 公正に／かなり 同一の the world over and throughout time. The 広大な／多数の／重要な art of the world is 設立する in 調書をとる／予約するs that are familiar to millions, if not the world over, then, at any 率, 負かす／撃墜する several ages of several continents.

The difference between Bunyan and his 前任者s is one more than anything of whole-heartedness and if there is only one work of fiction—for one can hardly call the Bible a work of fiction—if there is one work of prose fiction in England that, written before the birth of Bunyan, has 生き残るd to our time it is Malory's Morte d'Arthur and that 生き残るs because Malory whole-heartedly and unassumingly collected such legends of the Arthurian cycle as he liked and wrote them 負かす／撃墜する 簡単に and without 繁栄するs. さもなければ, 非，不，無 of the pre-Elizabethan prose romances could to-day be read with any other than archaeological 楽しみ, nor could any of the prose fiction which began to be mildly abundant in late Elizabethan and 早期に Jacobean days. I suppose you might read Deloney's Jack of Newbury with some 楽しみ if you were 利益／興味d in Elizabethan guild or 世帯 mysteries. But I cannot imagine anyone reading for 楽しみ either Euphues or Greene's Menaphon, either 宿泊する's Rosalynde or even Sidney's Arcadia. One may ちらりと見ること at them from time to time, more or いっそう少なく ーするために keep one's 結局最後にはーなる against the literary archeologist, but they would all, 含むing Amadis de Gaul, 証明する intolerable as 調書をとる／予約するs for "reading in"—to use an old phrase which meant a long, long, engrossed perusal. Nash's Jack of Wilton has been compared to Don Quixote, but there is no sense in reading the Englishman's satire of forgotten manners when one can re-read Cervantes' satire on things that are at the root of the human heart.

The difference between Malory and the earlier romances or Euphues or Menaphon is 簡単に the difference in the 親族 誠実s of their authors. Malory 記録，記録的な／記録するs what a simple mediaeval knight liked and to some extent how he looked at the world: it is modest and, its author 存在 wrapped up in his 支配する, the work has no 注目する，もくろむ to the 方式s of the time—or to 陳列する，発揮するing the cleverness of the writer. You can engross yourself in the Morte d'Arthur if your tastes 嘘（をつく） in the least in Malory's direction and, except that finally you may arrive at the 結論 that he was a modest and pleasant gentleman, you need never give the author a thought.

With Amadis de Gaul or Euphues, on the other 手渡す, you are for ever thinking of the cleverness of the author. And you are meant to think of the cleverness of the author, and so you are in the 事例／患者 of Rosalynde and an enormous 割合 of the Elizabethan 演劇. The prose and even the blank 詩（を作る） of that age sparkled with trope, metaphor, image, simile, plays upon words, conceits and every type of 言葉の felicity, so that the last thing that comes to the mind in the 事例／患者 of almost any work of that age is the 支配する 扱う／治療するd of.

Hundreds of thousands—nay millions—of readers have read the 巡礼者's 進歩 and Robinson Crusoe without giving a thought to or even knowing the 指名する of Defoe or Bunyan. I asked the other day in フラン a child who was reading about Crusoe who had written it and she replied: "Je crois que c'est par...par Madame de Ségur...Ou 非，不，無: peut-être, Madame d'Aulnoy. Enfin, je n'y ai jamais pensé." And that is about the highest compliment that could be paid to Defoe. I may 同様に 追加する the same child's comment on the story itself. She did not much like Robinson Crusoe because, she said, the sufferings 描写するd in it were true. She liked, like all children, to read of sufferings, bloodsheddings, and horrors but only as long as she could believe that they were invented, 反して she was of opinion that the 長引かせるd loneliness and 恐れるs of Crusoe had 現実に occurred. 類似して she 設立する the story of the Crucifixion insupportable. The root of all adult 批評 is to be 設立する in those 発覚s.

As long, that is to say, as a work remains in fashion you can be contented to read it ーするために remain in the fashion yourself. It 事柄s very little to you that 反して Robinson Crusoe is just Robinson Crusoe, or Othello just Othello, Euphues is Lyly's Euphues, the Groat's 前へ／外へ of Wit Greene's Groat's 価値（がある） or the Spanish 悲劇 Kyd's Spanish 悲劇. For it is impossible to talk of almost any sixteenth-century work without prefixing the author's 指名する, if the 指名する is known—簡単に because the attraction, and even the attraction that it once had, lies and lay in the 言葉の juggleries of the author. I must have read Euphues once at least 権利 through and have looked into it several times—but I have not the least idea what it is all about. And even although I have read Lyly's Campaspe once or twice, I remember only that the 陰謀（を企てる） is a classical 陰謀（を企てる） and the lyric:

Cupid and my Campaspe played
At cards for kisses, Cupid paid...

The fact is that with Elizabeth English became a supple and easily employable language and, making the 発見 that words could be played with as if they were oranges or gilt balls to be 投げ上げる／ボディチェックするd half a dozen together in the 空気／公表する, mankind 急ぐd upon it as colts will dash into suddenly opened rich and 平易な pastures. So it was, for the rich and cultured, much more a 事柄 of who could kick heels the higher and most 繁栄する tail and mane than any ambition of carrying 重荷（を負わせる）s or 製図／抽選 負担s.

In the end, however, what humanity needs is that 重荷（を負わせる）s should be carried, and 供給するd that things get from place to place the 指名する of carter or horse is of very 第２位 importance. If it is in the fashion we will go 負かす／撃墜する to the meadow and watch the colts cavorting: but all the while we are aware that the 商売／仕事 of words as of colts or of the arts is to carry things and we tire reasonably soon of watching horse-play! For if I say: "I am hungry," the 商売／仕事 of those words is to carry that （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） to you, and if you read the Iliad it is that the art of that epic may make Hecuba 重要な to you. Consider the prose of Cranmer!

CHAPTER THREE. TOWARDS FLAUBERT

It may at first sight seem curious that a section of a small work 充てるd to the English—and of course the American—Novel should be captioned with the 指名する of a French 小説家. But in the first place the art and still more the でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind of the 下落する of Croisset are so 深い-embedded in the art and でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind of the English and still more of the American 小説家 and all thought of the 広大な／多数の／重要な, Nordic work of "that poor dear Gustave," as Mr. Henry James used to call him, is so cast out of all French literary practices or aspirations to-day that if Flaubert is not an English 小説家 his Titanic and Norman ghost has no place at all. To 明言する／公表する one of those half-truths that are infinitely illuminating, you may say that without Madame Bovary, Babbitt could never have 存在するd and without Bouvard et Pecuchet there could have been no Way of All Flesh. For all I know Mr. Sinclair 吊りくさび may never have read a word of Flaubert and I will bet my hat that, for the 目的s of this discussion, the shade of Samuel Butler would 宣言する that he knew no French at all. But the point is that, without those two 作品 in French, those two 国家の monuments in English could hardly at this time 存在する or 重さを計る with the public since the public would not be 用意が出来ている for them.

Let us go a step その上の and 宣言する that without Cranmer we should have had another three centuries to wait for Flaubert, Henry James, Stephen Crane, Joseph Conrad, Mr. John Galsworthy, and my friend "Red" 吊りくさび. For without the English 祈り 調書をとる／予約する and its 信奉者 in date and style the English Bible, with or without Cranmer's 抑えるd preface, and without the 信奉者s in date and style of Defoe, Bunyan, and Samuel Richardson, how should we have to-day any English prose, novel-form or any English でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind? Or any Anglo-American Concord literature; or any British Empire or any Anglo-Saxon anything?

You may say that that is stretching things a little. And yet I do not know that it is. Let us make 譲歩s. If you will 譲歩する to me my little point about the 降下／家系 of the English Novel from Cranmer's 祈り 調書をとる／予約する and the English Bible—which cannot 事柄 to you at all, I will willingly 譲歩する to you that it was the phraseology if not the doctrine of the 調書をとる／予約する of ありふれた 祈り and the でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind of the Old Testament As By 法律 任命するd that gave to England the Empire of India and to the world the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs of North America, those two 向こうずねing 製品s of English stiff-necknedness and 非，不，無-theological Bible-reading. For how without the 調書をとる／予約するs of Kings could either Clive or, say, Andrew Jackson have 設立する heart or courage to continue in their courses? Of course a thought or so might be given to North's Plutarch that was published in 1579.

Be that as it may, what I am here getting at is the fact that 先行する and underlying the ornate florescences of Lyly and the prodigious formlessnesses of Spenser and 先行する and underlying the incredible 言葉の felicity and neat plottings of Shakespeare himself went the stream of dogged, 脅迫的な prose and the realist's native imagery of those two 宗教的な 編集s. And that subterranean stream immensely fecundated—to make no larger （人命などを）奪う，主張する—at once the Anglo-Saxon 国家の character and the literature that is to be 設立する in the English language.

I am aware that here we are on ticklish ground and that 改革者s and the 前進するd 一般に 否定する with a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of heat that literature has any 影響（力） at all on peoples. I remember once 存在 furiously lectured by the most moral and one of the most 前進するd of English 小説家s—存在 furiously and minatorily taken to 仕事 because mildly and to make conversation I 申し立てられた／疑わしい that Don Quixote had something to do with the passing of the sham chivalric spirit in Europe. The lecture was indeed so furious that, 存在 a 非，不，無-combative person and caring nothing about the 事柄, I have from that day to this rather given up considering the 支配する at all. You see, my friend the 小説家 was so 悪名高くも virtuous and benevolent that hitherto I should have hated to 傷つける his feelings by 前進するing that anyone could be 影響（力）d by any 調書をとる／予約する at all. For what he 申し立てられた／疑わしい, like an apostle 発表するing some 肉親，親類d of creed, was that populaces 影響（力） literature—that Cervantes was produced because a 普及した spirit of mockery for chivalry, real or sham, was so abroad in the world that Don Quixote was written 単に in answer to a 需要・要求する, as articles on the Calcutta Sweepstake are written about the time when Derby Day approaches.

As to that I am no 当局 and the reader must settle for himself whether that 女／おっせかい屋 or that egg （機の）カム first—I mean whether the spirit of the English populace 需要・要求するd first the English 祈り 調書をとる／予約する and the English Bible and 需要・要求するd afterwards in 予定 course the 巡礼者's 進歩 and Robinson Crusoe, or whether the English Bible so 影響（力）d the English people that they 需要・要求するd in 予定 course the 作品 of Bunyan and Defoe. Or as a third proposition: Did the English Bible so 影響（力） Bunyan and both so 影響（力） Defoe that in the end the 製品 was Pamela, the short tales of Diderot, the novels of Stendhal, Flaubert, and his 後継者s and so on until the novel of to-day was arrived at?

As I have said, I do not immensely care about the 事柄. Bunyan may never have read the Bible, Defoe may never have read Bunyan, or Richardson Defoe. But it makes such a convenient pattern to assume that writers are descended the one from the other that I mean to assume it and the reader must 修正する the theory how he will.

Regarded from that point of 見解（をとる）, in pre- as in 地位，任命する-Elizabethan days and underlying Elizabethan days themselves, you did have that 厳しい but decorated prose and that 決意 to rely on illustrations, parables, and images drawn 単独で from 構成要素 to be 設立する about normal people the world over and throughout time; 同時に, on the surface of things you had a courtlier and more (a)手の込んだ／(v)詳述するd prose which had the Sublime as its ideal and nothing いっそう少なく vulgar than passages modelled on Juvenal or the plays of Plautus for its light 救済. The Bible says: "Take us the little foxes, the foxes that eat our grapes" as an illustration of love, and "He shall 料金d his sheep" as the highest 表現 of the divine functionings of the Saviour. The Faerie Queene cannot を取り引きする any fox or any hound of lower extraction than Cerberus and the only redeemer who could have saved the world for the writers of Romances was, in his panoply, King Arthur with Lancelot, Gawain, and the 残り／休憩（する） of his apostles all pricking over the plains of Camelot.

So let us say that it was to the homespun illustrations, the simple imagery and the 厳しい diction of the Bible that we 借りがある Bunyan—for 明白に Bunyan read the Scriptures, year in and year out, during a lifetime of Bedford Gaol, of 迫害 and 騒動, 反して the only remains of the courtlier 方式s are 設立する to come from North's Plutarch which 影響（力）d profoundly Shakespeare and かもしれない Sir Thomas Browne. But Shakespeare 明白に could not have any 後継者s and Browne 設立する 非，不，無 till R. L. S. （機の）カム to be his sedulous ape. So that the 影響（力） of North's translation remained, if 深遠な, at least rather 倫理的な than literary—until it was finally 追い出すd by the 見解／翻訳／版s of the Langhornes and Church's of days much more modern.

Our space not 存在 boundless we must now skip to Richardson. For Richardson I have the profoundest 尊敬（する）・点 that 量s as nearly as possible to an affection—if that is to say it is possible to have an affection for a man whose death に先行するd one's birth by one hundred and twelve years. I do not わびる for the fact that Pamela is my personal favourite, 反して the graver critics and mankind in general prefer Clarissa. By that the reader need not be guided, but he should certainly 支払う／賃金 a good 取引，協定 of attention to the 作品 of Richardson—and indeed to Richardson himself.

That tranquil person （機の）カム into the world in 1689—twenty-seven or eight years after the birth of Defoe and one year after the death of Bunyan. But 反して both of his 前任者s seem to strike 公式文書，認めるs almost 完全に of the seventeenth century, Richardson seems to be 絶対 of the eighteenth and, with him, sentimentality was born in the world of the novel. That perhaps was necessary to an age that banished if not 従来の, then at least doctrinal, moralizings to its collections of sermons in 容積／容量 form. For them of course there was a prodigious 需要・要求する.

Of course, too, it would be wrong to 主張する that moralizing 設立する no place in the novels of Richardson since the high moral 目的 breathes from every pore of his pages. But it was not with moralizing that he made his 最初の／主要な 控訴，上告 as had been the 事例／患者 with Bunyan, nor was it likely that had he so done he would have 設立する many readers. No, it is his sentimentalizing that is his E string.

Against that I have nothing to say. Anglo-Saxons are sentimentalists before everything and in all their arts, and it is probable that without sentimentality as an 成分 no Anglo-Saxon artist could work: certainly he could have no 控訴，上告. To produce 国家の masterpieces in paint Turner must bathe his canvases 深い in that gentle fluid; the English lyric is a marvel of sentimentality and so is English 国内の architecture with its mellow—or mellowed!—red brick, its dove-cotes, its south 塀で囲むs for netted fruits. So the first of modern 小説家s must be one of the greatest of sentimentalists. And on those lines his 控訴，上告 is 全世界の／万国共通の and everlasting.

Only to-day an American left the ship on which I am 令状ing in the port of Lisbon and, I happening to について言及する because he was in my mind the 指名する of Richardson, this American—professor at that and practitioner of a sister art—this American gentleman 保証するd me solemnly that he read Clarissa Harlowe at least twice every year and cried often during each reading. Now there must be some 推論する／理由 for this 現象, which appears very singular. It is not, however, rare, for the hottest literary discussions I have ever had in England—where, of course, the discussion of literature is not in good form—have been with laymen like professors or lawyers as to the 親族 長所s of Pamela and Clarissa.

For me, I read Richardson for a hearty and wholesome dose of sentimentality and if one does that one may 同様に have that 質 laid on as thickly as it will go. And it seems to me that the history of a serving-maid who resists her master's 成果／努力s at seduction and 最終的に 軍隊s him to marry her is a more sentimental 事件／事情／状勢 than that of a young lady of 質 who 許すs herself to be seduced by a 比較して commonplace Lothario. For myself I have always felt inclined to 元気づける over the success of the one young 女性（の） rather than to weep for the tribulations of the other. Pamela certainly seems to be the more 冒険的な character of the two.

Still, one should perhaps not read Richardson for his 冒険的な 質, and that sort of thing is really no 事件／事情／状勢 of 地雷. The main point is that Samuel Richardson is still read and read with enthusiasm. I have even met persons who were engrossed by the conversations in the Cedar Parlour of Sir Charles Grandison.

That Richardson's tender muse was at times too much for the robuster and more 冷笑的な taste of his age is 証明するd by the fact that Fielding's first famous novel was begun as a parody on the first famous novel of Richardson. By that date the novel of 商業 was 井戸／弁護士席 on the way to the market and young ladies lying on sofas reading the 最新の fiction or furiously sending their maids to the 広まる libraries for the next five 容積／容量s of their 最新の favourite—such young ladies were familiar features of the social landscape. Literature had, in fact, become a sound, if not an immensely lucrative, proposition.

And it is pleasant to think that, happy as he was in everything that he touched, Richardson was not only 小説家 but printer and publisher and やめる a warm 商売／仕事 man in either capacity. He was, too, a favourite 特派員 and companion of innumerable young ladies who 協議するd him as to their amatory predicaments and because of that he is not only the first 小説家 in the modern sense of the word but also the first literary feminist. You might call him an eighteenth-century Henry James and not go so far wrong.

At any 率, he stands alone as a modern 小説家 and had in England neither appreciable imitators nor 競争相手s until the arrival on the scene of the author of the Barchester Towers series.

Except for Smollett—whom it is hopeless to 推定する／予想する Anglo-Saxon readers to 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がる or to 消費する, the main stream of 開発 of the novel passed once more to the Continent of Europe. Smollett begat Captain Marryat, who was one of the greatest of English 小説家s and is therefore regarded as a writer for boys, Smollett himself 存在 most prized by the purveyors of 調書をとる／予約するs called "curious" in second-手渡す 目録s.

Before, however, considering Diderot, Stendhal, Chateaubriand, and Flaubert, all avowed 信奉者s of the author of Clarissa, it might be 同様に to think a little about Fielding—as at once a dreadful example of how not to do things and as the begetter of Thackeray and the 製品 that it is convenient to call the nuvvle as …に反対するd to the novel. For at about the date of the births of Napoleon, Wellington, Ney, and many others who began the modern world, and just a little after the death of Richardson, and just a little before the birth of the North American 共和国, and still a little more before the Caesarian 操作／手術 that produced the French 共和国, 際立った cleavages began to make themselves 観察するd in the fields of 令状ing, these 結局 hardening themselves into the three main streams of the Literature of Escape from the everyday world; into the 商業の 製品 that Mamma selected for your reading, that it is convenient to call the nuvvle and that formed the 巨大な 本体，大部分／ばら積みの of the reading 事柄, and finally into the modern novel which does not 避ける the problems of the day and is written with some literary 技術. This last Richardson begat.

And it is convenient to say that Defoe, in spite of his moralizations, was the first writer of the Literature of Escape, just as Smollett and Marryat may be 述べるd as carrying it on and the young H. G. 井戸／弁護士席s and the young Rudyard Kipling as bringing it—at any 率 一時的に—to a 勝利を得た の近くに.

Were it not that they were avowed moralizers of a middle-to-lower-middle-class type, the Fielding-to-Thackeray lineage of writers might also be regarded as purveyors of the Literature of Escape, but their continually brought-in passages of moralizations are such a nuisance that they cannot be ignored. Though they were both amateurs in the sense that neither knew how to 令状 or cared anything about it, Thackeray at times 事業／計画（する）d his scenes so wonderfully that now and then he trembles dreadfully excitingly on the point of passing from the 行う／開催する／段階 of purveyor of the nuvvle to that of the real 小説家. And it is to be said for Fielding that although Tom Jones 含む／封じ込めるs an 巨大な 量 of rather nauseous special-pleading, the author does pack most of it away into solid wads of hypocrisy at the headings of Parts or 一時期／支部s. These can in consequence be skipped and the picaresque story with its mildly salacious 詳細（に述べる）s can without difficulty be followed. One might indeed almost say that Fielding was a natural story-teller, 反して Thackeray was 非，不，無 at all. Fielding at least, like a story-teller in a school 寄宿舎, does manage to lose himself in 詳細（に述べる）s of people running into and out of each others' bedrooms in hotel 回廊（地帯）s at night—something like that. But Thackeray never could: the dread spectre of the Athenaeum Club was for ever in his background.

And I imagine that the greatest literary 罪，犯罪 ever committed was Thackeray's sudden, apologetic 急襲 of himself into his matchless account of the manoeuvres of Becky Sharp on Waterloo day in Brussels. The greatest 罪，犯罪 that anyone perhaps ever committed! For the 動機 of most 罪，犯罪s is so obscure, so pathological or so fatalized by hereditary 証拠不十分, that there is almost nothing that cannot be 容赦d once one has dived beneath the 静める surface of things. But Thackeray as child-殺害者 can never be forgiven: the deeper you delve into the hidden springs of his offence the more 許すことの出来ない does he appear.

I had better perhaps explain the 原因（となる） of all this emotion for the 利益 of the lay reader who has not yet got at what I am 令状ing about.

The struggle—the aspiration—of the 小説家 負かす／撃墜する the ages has been to 発展させる a water-tight 条約 for the 枠組み of the novel. He aspires—and for centuries has aspired—so to 建設する his stories and so to manage their surfaces that the carried-away and rapt reader shall really think himself to be in Brussels on the first of Waterloo days or in Grand Central 駅／配置する waiting for the Knickerbocker 表明する to come in from Boston though 現実に he may be sitting in a 茎 lounge on a beach of Bermuda in December. This is not 平易な.

Of the three major 小説家s that we have hitherto 診察するd each in his own way had a try, consciously or unconsciously, at 成し遂げるing this conjuring trick. Bunyan tried to do it—and 後継するd remarkably 井戸／弁護士席—by the simplest of story-teller's 装置s. He just told on in simple language, using such simple images that the reader, astonished and charmed to find the circumstances of his own life typified in words and glorified by print, is 掴むd by the homely narrative and carried clean out of himself into the world of that singular and glorious tinker.

Defoe, on the other 手渡す, in the conscious or unconscious 成果／努力 to 達成する a 条約 for the novel, 可決する・採択するd the biographical or autobiographical form, relying on the verisimilitude of the 詳細（に述べる）s that he invented to 確認する the reader in the belief that his characters had really 存在するd and so to awaken the sympathy that makes 調書をとる／予約するs readable. And had he 所有するd a little more 力／強力にする of 発射／推定 or a little more subtlety in 現在のing his 人物／姿／数字s and had his 令状ing been a little いっそう少なく 歩行者 his 作品 might have 伸び（る）d and held the 力／強力にする to 誘発する a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 more enthusiasm than they 現実に do.

Richardson, going a good 取引，協定 その上の, has left it on 記録，記録的な／記録する that he was 現実に bothered by the problem of the novelistic 条約 and that he racked his brain a long time before arriving at the one he finally 可決する・採択するd. He asked himself, that is to say, how the reader was to be 納得させるd that the author—and by analogy still more his characters—how could they know all the 詳細（に述べる）s that go to making up a 調書をとる／予約する? If, to 減ずる the 事柄 to its most elementary form, Sir Charles Grandison is walking in the イチイ Walk, how can he know what characters are 現在の and what conversations are 存在 carried on in the Cedar Parlour, and since, to 満足させる the reader, the author is to be supposed to be cognizant of all that passes in his novel, how is he to know 同時に what is happening in both places?

That at least is what bothered Richardson and what has bothered all other 小説家s since his day, though until やめる lately no English 小説家 made any serious 試みる／企てる to attack the problem. The method that Richardson with characteristically homespun ありふれた sense 結局 worked out was 簡単に to cast the whole novel into correspondence, the characters 交流ing letters as to events and as to their psychologies with other characters or with anyone to whom a letter could be handily 演説（する）／住所d. In that way any character who was needed to know anything could be given the （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） and the author had only to let it be supposed that he had an unusual knack of getting 持つ／拘留する of the correspondence of other people to 納得させる the reader for all eighteenth-century 目的s. For in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as every one knows, every one from Madame de Sevigné 上向きs and downwards 演説（する）／住所d to every one else letters of prodigious length and in the most excruciating 詳細（に述べる）—and Richardson himself, as we have seen, had a prodigious knowledge of the prodigious letters that eighteenth-century young ladies could 演説（する）／住所 to even unknown 特派員s once their hearts and feelings were touched. So that although to-day the letter is one of the worst of methods that 存在する for telling a story if the dictates of probability are to be considered, Richardson may be considered to have done very 井戸／弁護士席 indeed with his peculiar form.

To its disadvantages in other 手渡すs we shall come in 予定 time, but 一方／合間 enormous 賞賛 is 予定 to the author of Pamela for having given the 事柄 any thought at all. And in any 事例／患者 his is a 人物／姿／数字 so 同情的な and so craftsmanlike that we do 井戸／弁護士席 to love him. He is sound, 静かな, without fuss, going about his work as a carpenter goes about making a 議長，司会を務める and in the end turning out an article of 最高の symmetry and consistence. I know of no other 人物／姿／数字 in English literature—if it be not that of Trollope—who so 示唆するs the two 最高の artists of the world—Holbein and Bach.

It would be hyperbole to 示唆する that Richardson is as 広大な／多数の／重要な in his art as either of the other two. He had neither their 力／強力にする over their 構成要素s nor their sense of the beauty of natural things. Our 感謝 to him にもかかわらず should be 広大な／多数の／重要な, for he worked with the simplest 構成要素s and manoeuvred only the most normal of characters in the most commonplace of events and yet contrived to engross the minds of a large section of mankind. How to do that is the problem that, Richardson having been dead a century and a half, still engrosses the 小説家.

And what more than anything is impressive about his 人物／姿／数字 is that one knows almost nothing about it: he is as little overdrawn as are his characters, 反して the besetting sin of almost all other English 小説家s from Fielding to George Meredith is that they seem to 削減（する） their characters out with hatchets and to colour them with the 小衝突s of house-painters and, never, even at that, 存在 able to let them alone, they are perpetually 押し進めるing their own 直面するs and winking at you over the shoulders of Young Blifil, Uncle Toby, the 未亡人 Wadman, 刑事 Swiveller, the Marchioness, Becky Sharp, Evan Harrington, and the 残り／休憩（する）. That is usually 拍手喝采する by 正統派の Anglo-Saxon 批評 and to talk of the gallery of portraits left by this or that 小説家 is considered to be high 賞賛する indeed. But, as a 事柄 of fact, the overdrawing of characters is 単に a symptom of the laziness and contempt for their 乗り物 that is the too usual hall-示す of the English writer of nuvvles. And that it should be tremendously 拍手喝采する is a symptom of the disdain that the English critic really feels for the novel. If English 絵 consisted of nothing but the caricatures of Rowlandson, Gillray, or Cruikshank, the art-critic would discover very soon that that grew monotonous, but since it is 単に a 事柄 of prose-fiction it is easily 受託するd as good enough; that which is too stupid to be said in any other way 存在 consigned to the novel.

Of course if you choose to consider Swift and, say, Beckford as 小説家s you do arrive at something that you must, as you might say, chew upon—at something that has some mental dignity; and Smollett 現在のs you with problems of humanity that are at least 価値（がある） consideration. And 自然に 広大な／多数の／重要な 決定的な spirits like Dickens, floundering away in oceans of words and eccentricities, will from time to time 攻撃する，衝突する upon collocations of words and 対決s of characters that are unsurpassed in the literature of any time or nation. But from the death of Swift to the 出版（物） of The Way of All Flesh there is very little to be 設立する in the English novel that is not わずかに unworthy of the whole attention of a grown-up man—say of a grown-up Frenchman.

I have adumbrated somewhere—in some previous 悲観論主義!—the perturbation that must beset any Anglo-Saxon who 願望（する）d to point out to almost any grown-up foreigner of 普通の／平均（する） 知能 the glories of the English novel before, say, the day of the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する. Let us then 診察する with a little more attention the 長，指導者 lights of that 会・原則 between, say, 1745, the year of the death of Swift, and, say, 1890, when the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する was 井戸／弁護士席 on the way.

Swift himself is 明白に one of those 独房監禁 人物／姿／数字s like, in their different ways, Shakespeare or Smollett or the author of The Way of All Flesh. In a sense he 似ているs Bunyan, that is to say he wrote allegories which, as a literary genre, are usually tiresome and unconvincing; but in his 事例／患者, as in that of Bunyan, his 猛烈な／残忍な 力／強力にするs of 観察 and （判決などを）下すing carry him, as it were, in spite of himself, into the realms of realism. It is to be 疑問d if Swift ever 目的（とする）d—as did, say, Mr. H. G. 井戸／弁護士席s in, say, The First Men in the Moon,—at giving the reader the sense of vicarious experience. にもかかわらず he got there all the same and the corrosive nature of his misanthropy almost 援助（する）s the sense of reality with which he 圧倒するs us. The "目的" of Gulliver's Travels was no 疑問 philosophic, as the 目的 of the 巡礼者's 進歩 was moral; but Lilliput is as real to us as the Slough of Despond and the Yahoos are the 人物／姿／数字s of the most horrible experience of every man who has come across them.

So that if to your intelligent—and of course わずかに 冷笑的な—foreigner you 現在のd Gulliver and left it at that he might remain edified or horror-struck （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as his individual でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind were 悲観論者 or the other thing. But supposing you were to 現在の him with the Steele-cum-Addison 共同 of the Tatler or the 観客 or with Tom Jones itself, which was written about a ４半期/4分の1 of a century later than Gulliver and thirty years or so after the last number of the 観客 appeared in 1714: and supposing you 追加するd—yes, certainly, suppose you 追加する Tristram Shandy and the Sentimental 旅行, the first appearing or 存在 written between 1760 and 1767 and the second 存在 published in 1768! Keep up your sleeve Tobias Smollett whose Humphry Clinker was published three years after the Sentimental 旅行 and in the year of Smollett's death at the age of fifty. And let us 結論する this 即座の 調査 of ours as ending with the awful 指名する of the Wizard of the North who was born in the year of Smollett's death and lived to be sixty.

As we have seen, Defoe in his Advice from the Scandalous Club, that was a "feature" of his 定期刊行物 Review of the 事件／事情／状勢s of フラン, very little 心配するd—but by five years, indeed—what may be regarded as the fiction of the Addison-Steele 共同. One is so apt to regard Defoe as of the seventeenth and Addison as of the eighteenth centuries that this appears rather astonishing, but 現実に the Review ran from 1704 to 1715 and the Tatler 加える 観客 from 1709 to 1714. Defoe's 出版（物） was so essentially 商業の and the other two so essentially social that the 事柄 is rather one of chronology than comparison.

The fact that the novel had not yet begun as a 商業の "proposition" to come into its own 減ずるd Addison and Steele no 疑問 from the 階級 of 小説家s to those of draftsmen of "characters." The novels of Defoe were "偽のd" memoirs and the other fiction of the period mostly consisted of 平等に "偽のd" memoirs of persons of 質, 法廷，裁判所-mistresses, and the like. And the "characters" and sham correspondence about social questions of the day that characterized the 観客 may 井戸／弁護士席 be considered as 開発s of those popular, fictitious 生産／産物s. Sir Roger de Coverley, Will Wimble, and the 残り／休憩（する） are as it were the characters of a novel, standing about and waiting for 雇用 as the leaden 兵士s of a child を待つ their owner's orders to 落ちる in.

The idea of 支えるd fiction might indeed, if you liked and if you analysed the 事柄 very closely, be said not by any means yet to have reached the public consciousness, and though for us Clarissa may seem to be the first of novels, its peculiar form—of correspondence—may 井戸／弁護士席, in the public mind of its day, have given it the 面 of the last of the spurious memoirs. And, considering the nature of the 未来 影響（力） of Richardson over the French realists from Diderot to Flaubert, it may be more 正確な to regard that 面 as the truer one. For, in 影響, the French realist movement from Diderot's Le Neveu de Rameau to Le 紅 et le Noir and again to Madame Bovary may in the last event be regarded as much more a movement for the 生産／産物 of fictitious memoirs than the narration of 支えるd tales, the difference between Richardson, Flaubert, and Joseph Conrad or Turgenev 存在 簡単に one of form. Richardson, that is to say, tried to 保証する you that Clarissa was a real person by the mechanical 装置 of publishing her letters, whilst Flaubert and his school try to hypnotize you into believing in their characters by methods of 発射／推定 rather than of narration.

And the trouble with the English nuvvelist from Fielding to Meredith is that not one of them cares whether you やめる believe in their characters or not. If you had told Flaubert or Conrad in the 中央 of their 熱烈な composings that you were not 納得させるd of the reality of Homais or Tuan Jim, as like as not they would have called you out and 発射 you, and in 類似の circumstances Richardson would have showed himself 極端に disagreeable. But Fielding, Thackeray, or Meredith would have cared 比較して little about that, though any one of them would have knocked you 負かす／撃墜する if they could, supposing you had 示唆するd that he was not a "gentleman." So would any English 小説家 to-day.

That of course is admirable in its 影響 on Anglo-Saxon literary-social life where anyone taking pen in 手渡す becomes ipso facto an esquire for all 使用者s of type-令状ing machines. But it is bitter bad for the English novel.

It is bitter bad for the English novel because—as is the 事例／患者 with all human 企業s—the art of the novel is so difficult a thing that unless a man's whole energies are given to it he had much better さもなければ 占領する himself. For if Shakespeare's ambitions for coat-armour had antedated instead of coming after The Tempest, where should we be today? We have to thank our 星／主役にするs that he was probably first a lousy, adulterous, poaching scoundrel—like Villon!

The lot of the 小説家 is, in fact, hard—but not harder than that of any other man. If you put it to パン職人s, tram-conductors, 政治家，政治屋s, or musicians that they must be first パン職人s and the 残り／休憩（する） and then gentlemen, they will sigh, but 収容する／認める it. It is almost only the English 小説家 who will aspire at 存在 first gentleman and then craftsman—or even not craftsman at all since it is not really gentlemanly to think of 存在 anything but a gentleman.

This is an incisive way of putting a truth that might perhaps be more wrapped up in social or 構成要素 generalizations, but it is 非，不，無 the いっそう少なく a hard truth, and if you consider the 事例／患者 of Fielding, connected with the best families, placeman and diplomatist in a small way, and compare him with Smollett who was socially nothing at all with no chance of a change, you will see that truth all the more 明確に.

God forbid that I should say anything really condemnatory of any 調書をとる／予約する by any brother-小説家, alive or dead. One is here to commend all that one can commend and to leave the 残り／休憩（する） alone. But there are few 調書をとる／予約するs that I more cordially dislike than Tom Jones. That is no 批判的な pronouncement but 単に a 声明 of a personal prejudice: one may dislike grape-fruit and yet 認める its admirable 質s, or one may, as I do, dislike the 質 of goose-flesh that reading Mr. George Moore will 会談する on one's 肌 and yet 認める Mr. Moore as easily the greatest of living 専門家技術者s.

But as regards Tom Jones my personal dislike goes along with a 確かな 冷淡な-血d, 批判的な 激しい非難. I dislike Tom Jones, the character, because he is a lewd, stupid, and 背信の 現象; I dislike Fielding, his chronicler, because he is a bad sort of hypocrite. Had Fielding been in the least 本物の in his moral aspirations it is Blifil that he would have painted attractively and Jones who would have come to the 電気椅子, as would have been the 事例／患者 had Jones lived to-day.

Of course that is 単に 説 that Fielding liked a type that I dislike—but what appalls me in 見解（をとる） of the serious, 冷笑的な foreigner that I have postulated our taking about with us is the 極端に thin nature of all the character-製図／抽選, of all the events and of all the 大災害s. Is it to be 本気で believed that Tom Jones's benefactor would have turned upon him on the flimsy nature of the 証拠 adduced against him, or, 平等に, is it to be believed that Tom Jones's young woman would have again taken up with him after all the 注目する，もくろむ-openers she had had, she 存在 代表するd as a girl of spirit? It 簡単に isn't in any world of any 真面目さ at all. The fact, in short, is that Tom Jones is a papier-mâché 人物／姿／数字, the 大災害s the merest 発明 without any pretence at 存在 納得させるing and even the mere morality of the most leering and 悲惨な 肉親，親類d.

For myself, I am no moralist: I consider that if you do what you want you must take what you get for it and that if you 否定する yourself things you will be better off than if you don't. But fellows like Fielding, and to some extent Thackeray, who pretend that if you are a gay drunkard, lecher, squanderer of your goods and fumbler in placket-穴を開けるs you will 結局 find a benevolent uncle, 隠すd father or benefactor who will にわか雨 on you 捕らえる、獲得するs of tens of thousands of guineas, 広い地所s and the 手渡すs of adorable mistresses—those fellows are dangers to the 団体／死体 politic and horribly bad 建設者s of 陰謀（を企てる）s.

It is all very 井戸／弁護士席 to say that such happy endings were the 条約 of the day, that you find them in the School for スキャンダル, The Vicar of Wakefield and in every eighteenth-century romance that you 選ぶ up out of the twopenny 調書をとる／予約する-box, and it is all very 井戸／弁護士席 to say that the public 需要・要求するs a happy ending. But the really 広大な／多数の／重要な writer is not bound by the 条約s of his day, nor, if he 願望（する）s to give his reader a happy ending, need he select a wastrel like Jones as the 受取人 of his too easily bestowed favours.

If, in short, we are to regard Fielding as a serious writer 令状ing for grown-up people, we must regard him also as a rather intolerable scoundrel with perhaps Jonathan 穏やかな to his credit. But Jonathan Wild is of another 部類 and, neither winking nor leering, might be regarded as the finger on the 塀で囲む, pointing out what happens to the Tom Joneses of the world if their 事例／患者 is regarded with any 真面目さ.

But the fact is that for a century and a half after the death of Fielding nothing in the Anglo-Saxon world was その上の from anyone, either 小説家 or layman, than the idea that the novel could be taken 本気で. It was a thing a little above a fairy-tale for children, a little above a puppet-play; and, if not 現実に as damned socially and clerically as the actor who could not be either received at 法廷，裁判所 or buried in consecrated ground, the 小説家 was 事実上 without what the French call an état civil because his was not a serious profession. In England that 明言する／公表する of things still 付随するs. In the demobilization forms after the late War the 小説家 was 現実に placed in the eighteenth 部類—along with gipsies, 浮浪者s, and other 非，不，無-生産力のある persons; and my last public 行為／法令／行動する in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain 存在 to 許す my 指名する to be placed on a 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） of 投票者s, when I gave my avocation to the political スパイ／執行官 as 存在 that of a 小説家, he exclaimed: "Oh, don't say that, sir. Say 'Gentleman'!" He was anxious that his 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） should appear as serious as possible.

That 存在 the 明言する／公表する of things and the 小説家 存在 human for you cannot be a 小説家 and 欠如（する） the ordinary aspirations of the human 存在!—for that century and a half the Anglo-Saxon public had the novels that it deserved. I do not mean to say that generous spirits 欠如（する）d amongst the 階級s of fiction-writers. That 広大な／多数の／重要な genius, Dickens, thrashed 圧迫s and shams with the resplendent fury of an Isaiah; and that singular megalomaniac, Charles Reade, did, with It Is Never Too Late to Mend, really 後継する in 修正するing the system of 独房監禁 confinement in English gaols. And you have had Uncle Tom's Cabin. But those 作品 of 宣伝 had either no literary value at all or when, as in the 事例／患者 of Dickens, they did have the literary value that genius can infuse into work however 欠陥のある, their work itself 苦しむd by the very intensity of their 改革（する）ing passions.

That 傾向 alone has 奪うd the novel in Anglo-Saxondom of almost all the artistic or even the social value that it might have had, since it became a 乗り物 for 妨げるing the comfortable classes thinking of unpleasant 支配するs whilst 現在のing their agreeable somnolences with the warming 可能性s of considering their 隣人s' defects. It became, that is to say, the week-day, 地位，任命する-prandial sermon preached by a family divine above all anxious to 避ける giving offence to those who 供給するd his daily bread. And gentlemanly 改革者, the British 小説家 consciously or unconsciously remains to this day—in the 広大な／多数の／重要な 本体，大部分／ばら積みの.

That Dickens, on the other 手渡す, had, any more than Bunyan, any arrière-pensée at all should never for a moment be thought. His was an agonized soul shuddering at the 拷問s that, as a poor child, he had seen （打撃，刑罰などを）与えるd on the sufferings of 非，不，無-comfortable humanity in the horrible days—for the under-dog!—of the last years of the 統治するs of the Georges and of the 早期に years of the 統治する of Queen Victoria. All the horrors of insanitation, filth, child-労働, 監禁，拘置 for 負債, the gallows for こそどろ, the hulks and the 残り／休憩（する） he had himself 証言，証人／目撃するd or 耐えるd and at these horrors he 攻撃するd with the mad enthusiasm of a wolf that snaps at the insupportable whip of the trainer. His novels were probably—at least in the beginning—比較して nothing to him; if he could have 設立する any other way he would have 注ぐd out his feelings as readily in that. But, happening on the novel and having a matchless 命令（する） of English, he took the simple course of 現在のing you with villains all 黒人／ボイコット, heroes all white and ringletted ヘロインs all pink. He had to see—though that is to 逆転する the colours—the world ーに関して／ーの点でs of Legrees, Uncle Toms, or Amelia Osbornes.

That, in 影響, was the beginning of the end, the novel becoming the 乗り物 for the 改革（する） of 乱用s. And it is astonishing how short has been the career of the novel as an art compared with that of pottery-moulding, baking, weaving, or any other human avocation. You may say that it began with Richardson and ended—for the time 存在 and as far as Anglo-Saxondom is 関心d—with Oliver 新たな展開, which, 意味ありげに enough, appeared in the first year of Victoria's spacious 統治する.

Richardson, that is to say, did have an artistic 条約 of sorts, did try in some way to （判決などを）下す life, did 取引，協定 almost 排他的に in neither very moral nor very immoral personages, but there almost all 試みる／企てるs at （判決などを）下すing life or the normal almost （機の）カム to an end. The Vicar of Wakefield, "公式文書，認めるd for 潔白 and 楽観主義," says my 公式の／役人 guide to dates, was an 明白に Richardsonian pastiche; Henry Mackenzie's Man of Feeling may be said to have 誇張するd Richardson's tearful sentimentality; and Smollett ("示すd by coarseness and brutality") whose first 調書をとる／予約する was published eight years after the 出版（物） of Pamela and in the same year as Clarissa, undoubtedly had a 発射 at （判決などを）下すing the same world that Richardson （判決などを）下すd. It is not as absurd as it may seem to say that Pamela 示唆するd Roderick 無作為の; it certainly 示唆するd Madame Bovary—and Babbitt!

It would, however, undoubtedly be absurd to 示唆する to the public that Smollett was a greater artist or a greater 小説家 than either Fielding or Dickens: and yet, if the novel is to be regarded as a （判決などを）下すing of life, there is not much way out of it. He remains, however, and will probably always remain, an 孤立するd 人物／姿／数字. He was bitter, and as he （判決などを）下すd what he had seen and since what he had seen had been coarse and 残虐な, those will be the epithets that Anglo-Saxondom will for ever bestow on him. He wrote about the sea in a period glorious for England's sea-history—but in spite of that he could hardly be regarded—as is Marryat—as a writer for boys. The life of which he 扱う／治療するd was too remote from to-day for the reader 利益／興味d in the renderings of the life of to-day to read of it with any enthusiasm; he was little いっそう少なく virulent than Swift and, if he is even いっそう少なく read, he receives even いっそう少なく lip-service. So no 疑問 he is contented.

Marryat—as a writer read by boys, men 存在 already too dulled in the sense at twenty to 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がる him—has probably, through the boys, 演習d the greatest 影響（力） on the English character that any writer ever did 演習. His magnificent gifts of 製図／抽選—not 誇張するing—character and of getting an atmosphere have so worked that few of us have not been to sea in フリゲート艦s before the age of eighteen and come in some way in 接触する with 非，不，無-comfortable men and women. I have seldom been so impressed as when, the other day, I re-read Peter Simple for my 楽しみ. It was to come into 接触する with a man who could 令状 and see and feel. For me, nothing in War and Peace is as 価値のある as the boat cutting-out 探検隊／遠征隊s of Marryat and for me he remains the greatest of English 小説家s. His 指名する is not even について言及するd in the 手動式の of literary dates with which I have just been refreshing my memory.

I do not, however, dwell at any length on either Smollett or Marryat because, 広大な／多数の／重要な as for me they seem, they still remain individual 人物／姿／数字s leaving very little trace on the traditions of English literature—and that indeed was the 事例／患者 with Fenimore Cooper who was one of the most beautiful pure stylists that the English language has yet excited into 令状ing. There is in The Two 海軍大将s a passage descriptive of もやs rising from the sails and cordage of 戦艦s as seen from the turf of cliff-最高の，を越すs at 夜明け, that remains for me one of the incomparable passages in the language. And, whilst I am about the 事柄 of pure style, I may 同様に explain here why lately I について言及するd that I was then 令状ing in Lisbon harbour. That 明らかに egotistic excrescence was 予定 to the fact that I liked to remember that—no, not Fielding—but Beckford once lay in Lisbon harbour and wrote most beautiful prose there. Beckford is known only as the author of Vathek, which is, to be sure, most remarkable as a 小旅行する de 軍隊—and which is usually bound up with Rasselas in popular reprints; but he is also the author of Letters from Portugal which might almost be regarded as a novel, such an admirable autobiographical portrait do they give of their writer in his adventurous 進歩 from the city of Camoens and Vasco da Gama to the 修道院 of Batalha.

Prose, I suppose, is to some extent the 商売／仕事 of a writer on the English Novel, so I suppose I may be 容赦d my digression about Beckford and make the 公式文書，認める that if I 手配中の，お尋ね者 to put together a small, exquisitely pleasing fascicule of admirable because simple English prose I should take a passage from the 抑えるd Preface to the Bible, a passage from Henry V's 演説（する）／住所 to his 兵士s before Agincourt, one from Clarendon, one from Gulliver, one from Johnson's Life of Drake, the passage from Cooper that I have について言及するd above, and one from the Letters from Portugal, one from Maine's 古代の 法律—and then one from any 調書をとる／予約する of W. H. Hudson. The English language is not very distinguished for its prose, but that would make a very admirable little 容積／容量! One might almost 追加する the 開始 description of the village from White's Selborne.

It is of course impossible to exhaust the topic of the English novel from Fielding to Henry James in a few paragraphs of a small 調書をとる／予約する. But the topic of main 現在のs of that literature is more easily got rid of 簡単に because there are 事実上 no main 現在のs at all. There are some good writers, but of a Tradition 事実上 no trace. The writers who spring most すぐに to the imagination as 存在 somewhere 近づく in their 作品 to the main stream of the international novel—for the Novel is after all an international 事件／事情／状勢—the most unforgettable writers of that type are two or three women. That I suppose is because, whilst the men ran about 活発に 意図 on 証明するing that they were gentlemen or in 改善するing the ungentle world, the women had to 証明する that they were not unladylike and so remained at home and looked at life, without any very 即座の 目的（とする） at publicity or even at 出版（物）.

At any 率, if you take 行方不明になる Burney's Evelina, 行方不明になる Edgeworth's 城 Rackrent, 行方不明になる Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Mrs. Gaskell's Mary Barton, George Eliot's Scenes from Clerical Life, and 行方不明になる Brontë's Villette, you do get something of a kinship, if not much of a tradition, and if you 追加する to them the Barchester Towers 一連の Trollope and the 作品 of 示す Rutherford and George Gissing you do get, too, some 試みる／企てるs at （判決などを）下すing English life that are above the attention of adults with the mentality of French boys of sixteen. At （判決などを）下すing, that is to say, rather than at the mere relating of a more or いっそう少なく 独断的な tale so turned as to 確実にする a complacent 見解（をとる） of life and carried on by characters that as a 支配する are—six feet high and gliding two インチs above the ground!

That is, of course, an 独断的な generalization as to all the English nuvvles that string out from, say, Scott to, say, the late Marion Crawford. But if 広範囲にわたる it is not 完全に 不公平な. 明白に even Scott's Antiquary is 価値（がある） consideration if one had the time, or The Cloister and the Hearth, or let us say Lorna Doone. That last work I read over twelve times when I was a boy and from the beginning: "If any man would hear a plain tale told plainly, I John Ridd of the parish of Oare" to the end; I dare say I could recite half the 調書をとる／予約する to-day. But then Blackmore was a market-gardener! Let me lay on his altar these alms for oblivion, for I suppose that few people to-day read of the Doones of Badgeworthy or of how John Ridd took his Lorna home in the 広大な／多数の／重要な snows.

In short, if you omit Dickens and Thackeray as 巨大な amateurs who wrote from time to time very admirable passages, and if you do not like the 作品—from Evelina to New Grub Street—that I have について言及するd in my last paragraph but two, the 量 of work that you can read in English produced between 1799 and 1899 or so will seem 極端に small—supposing you to be of any at all adult tastes or of any 真面目さ of approach to literary 事柄s.

If, on the other 手渡す, you are indifferent to whether you are 納得させるd by what you read and care little with what you 占領する your spare time and 願望（する） to fill up your hours with an 占領／職業 calling for as little mental 集中 as, say, a game of ゴルフ, I dare say you could agreeably narcotize yourself still with （頭が）ひょいと動く Roy or The Tower of London or The Woman in White or, say, Rudder Grange.

CHAPTER FOUR. TO JOSEPH CONRAD

Thus in 中央の-Victorian years there 設立するd itself for all the world to see—The English Nuvvle.

And inasmuch as this 現象 was really, in the last event, 連合させるd—and no 疑問 unconscious—socio-political 宣伝, it was 受託するd by the whole world—and by the whole world even more than by England. For if, as it were, you shut your 注目する，もくろむs and consider what images are brought up before you by the words The English Novel you will see a Manor House, 住むd by the Best People: Sir Thomas, amiable but not 有望な; Lady Charlotte, benevolent, charitable, in an ample crinoline, an Earl's daughter; the 行方不明になるs ジーンズ and Charlotte as pure as dew within lily-chalices; Mr. Tom—not 絶対 満足な; Mr. Edward, always 満足な; pigeons, shorthorns, a rose-garden, a still-room, a house-keeper, a rectory. And you will see a whole countryside, a whole continent, a whole world so 行為／行うd that those amiable but not 有望な personages shall lead amiable, idle, and almost blameless 存在s in an atmosphere of curtsyings and cap-touchings. It was a world-ideal: you 設立する 世帯s modelling themselves upon it in the 政府 of Kiev, in the 明言する／公表する of Massachusetts, in Pomerania, in the department of the Var. So that God's Englishman of the novels of William 黒人／ボイコット—God's drooping-bearded Englishman with his crinolined or be-bustled consort, carrying 飛行機で行く-fishing 棒s and croquet mallets, became the type which the whole world sighingly aped. For these nuvvlesto which nobody surely could 反対する—were read in Sarajevo as in Potsdam, in Washington as on the Berkshire 負かす／撃墜するs. They were 作品 written for the would-be gentry by the 近づく-gentry which latter, if their 調書をとる／予約するs 証明するd 十分に 許容できる, might almost aspire to such 設立s as they 述べるd and, in the second 世代, to authentic gentrydom. The writer himself, like Shakespeare, would as a 支配する have to content himself with a 認める of 武器 from the College of 先触れ（する）s. But one could always, if one were a 小説家, dazzle one's mind with the idea that Edward Bulwer Lytton, author of The Last Day of Pompeii, became successively Sir Edward Bulwer, and Lord, Lytton, and Benjamin Disraeli, also a 小説家, Earl of Beaconsfield and favourite of his 君主.

The nuvvles, 自然に, 異なるd in 支配する and even いつかs in 治療. The Woman in White was, I think, written in letters for all the world like Clarissa; Esmond—which 述べるd the 設立するing of a 郡-family in Virginia, U.S.A.—was autobiographical; or you might have several characters each speaking in solid autobiographical wads; or several diarists. There was, in fact, no literary 条約 in particular—there was only the point of 見解（をとる）. Romola and Far From the Madding （人が）群がる had to be 認めるd as of the same 倫理的な family as Pelham or Lorna Doone or they would not do at all.

Occasionally 乱すing breaths swept across the trout-ponds. The newest novel of Thackeray might 原因（となる） a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 of trepidating discussion under the breath, or the 最新の 熱烈な outpouring of Dickens might 原因（となる） Mamma to ask dear Papa whether Lucy and Emily ought really to be 許すd to read it. Steerforth and Little Em'ly （機の）カム very 近づく the Knuckle: but the （競技場の）トラック一周-dog died amongst such lamentations and the first ヘロイン so delicately, and such 精製するd 天罰 overtook alike Steerforth and the young woman that, if Copperfield itself was put on the 索引 of the young ladies' boudoir, 荒涼とした House which "introduced Society" could not be kept from the fair denizens of that bechintzed 聖域. I believe, however, that 広大な／多数の／重要な 期待s, the last of Dickens' 作品 to show his 熱烈な compassion for the underdog, had a pretty rough passage.

I （機の）カム into the world myself at about the hey-day of this 国家の 現象, but, by the time I had any real literary consciousness, its 最高位 was beginning to be already challenged. My own mother enjoined on me the reading of Silas Marner, The Mill on the Floss, Wuthering 高さs, Sidonia the Sorceress, Lorna Doone, The Woman in White, The Moonstone, Diana of the Crossways, and Far From the Madding （人が）群がる. But then my mother was "前進するd" and never wore a crinoline. My father thought Dickens was vulgar and though he did not forbid me to read he certainly deprecated my 表明するing any enthusiasm for—荒涼とした House. He thought too—I don't know why—that Robert Louis Stevenson was meretricious, except for the Inland Voyage. My grandfather, who was かなり more "前進するd" than either my father or my mother, first recommended me to read—when I was about seventeen—Madame Bovary, Tartarin de Tarascon and Tartarin sur les Alpes. He was pleased when at school they gave us the Lettres de mon Moulin of Daudet and a little later made me read Roderick 無作為の, Humphry Clinker, Snarleyyow, Midshipman 平易な, Waterton's Wanderings in South America, which was all the same as a novel. My uncle William Rossetti gave me The 城 of Otranto, Caleb Williams, Frankenstein and another novel of Meinhold's—The Amber Witch. I 相続するd from my uncle Oliver Madox Brown a large number of translations from the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish. Trollope I had to find out for myself, oddly enough. I suppose my own family were too 前進するd to care to 支持する the reading of 発射／推定s of the lives of the cathedral clergy. That, at any 率, was the reading of a boy of from twelve to eighteen of 公正に／かなり 前進するd family in the 'eighties of last century. It will be 観察するd that, with the possible exception of Wilkie Collins' two 調書をとる／予約するs, these were all 作品 that would not 普通は be read in Middle Class families, either because of social outspokennesses, individuality of 見通し, or difficulties of style. But even for my family it was then possible to go too far. I remember my mother 存在 本気で perturbed because at the age of thirteen or so I was kissed at a tea-party by Mrs. Lynn Lynton whose gleaming spectacles certainly 脅すd me and whose novels 支持するd the 反乱 of the Daughters of that day-and, if it had lain within the ideas of 権利 and wrong of my family to forbid anyone to read anything, I should certainly have been forbidden to read the 作品 of Rhoda Broughton, who 支持するd the giving of latchkeys to women.

Nemesis was by then on the way.

The newer ideas began with the cheapening of the 製品s of the 圧力（をかける）—and I dare say that cheapening was a good 取引，協定 急いでd by the 著作権侵害者ing of American 作品. I remember still with delight the shilling 版—it was bound in scarlet paper—in which I first 購入（する）d at the age of fourteen in a place called Malvern 井戸／弁護士席s, Artemus 区's の中で the Mormons, Sam 悪賢い's The Clockmaker, 示す Twain's Mississippi 操縦する, Carleton's Farm Ballads, and ever so many other American 調書をとる／予約するs which I suppose must have been 著作権侵害者d or they could scarcely have been sold for a shilling. And, though I was ready at the （裁判所の）禁止（強制）命令s of my family to read Lope da Vega or Smollett, nothing would have induced me to spend sixpence on taking out from a 広まる library the three-容積／容量 novels of William 黒人／ボイコット, Besant and Rice and the other purveyors of the nuvvle when by saving up my pocket-money I could buy for a shilling—or ninepence 逮捕する—the Biglow Ballads or Hans Breitmann.

So that of the novel of 商業 of those days I really know very little—and I do not think that there is very much about it that anyone need know. That it 存在するd in 広大な／多数の／重要な numbers in three 容積／容量s apiece was obvious. In every little town in England there was in those days a 広まる library and in every 広まる library in every town were 棚上げにするs on 棚上げにするs of obfusc bindings—but even the literary textbooks of to-day give you no more 指名するs for the Victorian period than Dickens, Thackeray, George Eliot, the Brontës, Charles Kingsley, Robert Louis Stevenson (who died in 1894), George Meredith and Thomas Hardy. So that even the 公式の／役人 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） is a pretty meagre one and if I rack my brains really hard I cannot 追加する many 指名するs to it. I have already given you 黒人／ボイコット, Blackmore, Besant and Rice who 共同製作するd—and of writers of かなりの 長所, 示す Rutherford and Samuel Butler, but neither of these really belong to the period—and Jane Austen really に先行するs it, though we may 井戸／弁護士席 say that she 起こる／始まるd the novel of the country-house that was followed—at such 広大な／多数の／重要な intervals—by the 群れている of 商業の writers.

That all the 商業の writers who solidly turned out solid three-deckers produced 絶対の rubbish need not be assumed. 行方不明になる Braddon, authoress of Lady Audley's Secret, did honest, sound journeyman's work, year in, year out, during a very long life—and 明白に such a writer as Mrs. Gaskell will not ever be 完全に forgotten, if only on account of Cranford. I wish, myself, that more 負わせる 大（公）使館員d to her Mary Barton, a grim-and indeed an extraordinarily painful—account of 中央の-Victorian 労働 troubles.

And of course there is Trollope.

Trollope and 行方不明になる Austen—like Shakespeare and Richardson—stand so 絶対 alone that nothing very profitable can be said about them by a writer analysing British fiction in search of traces of main-現在のs of tradition. They were both so aloof, so engrossed, so contemplative—and so 熟達した—that beyond 説 that some people prefer The Warden to Framley Parsonage and Sense and Sensibility to Pride and Prejudice, and that others think the 逆転する, there is very little to be said. These at least are authentic writers: they neither ゆらめく out into passages that are all 最高の-genius—as in Dickens' passage about the 乾燥した，日照りの leaves at Mr. つつく／ペック-匂いをかぐ's 支援する-door, nor do they descend to the intolerable banalities of the endings ofCopperfield or Vanity Fair. But, as in the 事例／患者 of Turgenev, the aspiring writer can learn very little of either. These 小説家s 令状 井戸／弁護士席, know how to 建設する a novel so as to keep the 利益／興味 going with every word until the last page—but after that all you can say is that they were just temperaments, and 静かな ones at that. Inimitable—that is what they are. You could imitate Oscar Wilde—but never Trollope giving you the still, slow stream of English country and small-town life. Nor could anyone else ever give you such pure agony of 利益／興味 and engrossment as you can get out of the 財政上の troubles over a few 続けざまに猛撃するs of the poor clergyman in Framley Parsonage. I shiver every time that I think of that 調書をとる／予約する.

But once those 尊敬の印s are paid it is astonishing to look 支援する on the course of the novel in England from the earliest times to say,1895, Bunyan, Defoe, Richardson, Fielding, Smollett, and then the few Victorians of whom we have been 扱う／治療するing. It is an astonishingly small 刈る, even if you let me 追加する Marryat and 追加する for yourselves the other 独房監禁 人物／姿／数字 of 示す Twain, one of the greatest prose-writers the English language has produced.

In the 合間, across the Channel, the main stream of the Novel 追求するd its slow course.

It had begun with Richardson. His vogue with the French would be 理解できない if we were not able to consider that the French 革命 was, in the end, a sentimental movement, basing itself on 市民の, parental, filial, and rhetorical virtues. If the French beheaded Marie Antoinette it was in order that Monsieur Durand, stay-製造者 of the Passage Choiseul, might be 十分に 井戸／弁護士席-fed to utter tearful homilies to his children; for homilies uttered by 餓死するing 小作農民s with their bones 押し進めるing through their 肌s and rags—such homilies would little impress their children with the solid advantages of virtuous careers. And the moment you consider pre-革命の フラン from that angle the 控訴，上告 of the author of Pamela becomes 即時に blindingly （疑いを）晴らす.

At any 率, Diderot wrote Rameau's 甥 as a direct imitation of that work of Richardson and a whole school of the 同時代のs of Diderot imitated Rameau's 甥. The 影響（力）, again, of Richardson is plainly 明白な in Chateaubriand—for without Richardson how could he have written long passages like: "How sad it is to think that 注目する，もくろむs that are too old to see have not yet 生き延びるd the ability to shed 涙／ほころびs," and the like. And if the Richardsonian 影響（力） upon Stendhal does not so すぐに spring to the 注目する，もくろむ, we know from Stendhal's letters that it was 極端に 深遠な.

It was to Diderot—and still more to Stendhal—that the Novel 借りがあるs its next 広大な／多数の／重要な step 今後. That consisted in the 発見 that words put into the mouth of a character need not be considered as having the personal 支援 of the author. At that point it became suddenly evident that the Novel as such was 有能な of 存在 regarded as a means of profoundly serious and many-味方するd discussion and therefore a medium of profoundly serious 調査 into the human 事例／患者. It （機の）カム into its own.

It is obvious of course that before the day of Diderot authors had put into the mouths of their characters 感情s with which they themselves could not be imagined to sympathize. But that was done only by characters 示すd "villain," all the 同情的な characters having to utter 感情s which were either those of the author or those with which the author imagined the solid middle classes would agree. Young Mr. Blifil, Mrs. Slipslop, and the 残り／休憩（する） might say very wicked things, but they were so 明白に wicked and absurd that no one could take them with any 真面目さ either as pronouncements or as worthy to be taken as the author's opinion: Mr. Allworthy or Amelia Dobbin, on the other 手渡す, could never utter anything without the reader having to exclaim: "How virtuous!"...And consider the 構成要素 success that always を待つd the good!

By the time the thirty years or so that stretched between 1790 and 1820 had impinged on the world it had 徐々に become evident, on the Continent at least, that so many 異なるing codes of morality could synchronize in the same 時代, in the same nation and even in the same small community—it had become so evident that if Simeon Stylites and Oliver Cromwell were saints, Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha and several Chinese philosophers were very good men, that the Novel, if it was at all to 表明する its day, must 表明する itself through 人物／姿／数字s いっそう少なく amateurishly 黒人／ボイコットd than Uriah Heep and いっそう少なく sedulously whited than the Cherryble brothers.

Changes in literary methods are brought about very slowly and permeate more slowly still into the taste of the more or いっそう少なく unlettered classes who （不足などを）補う the 本体，大部分／ばら積みの of the 望ましい readers for an author. As a 支配する the 過程 begins with the younger writers who find tiresome or ludicrous the 受託するd work of their day; a little later the more experienced of readers, tiring in their turn of 受託するd methods in the 作品 they 消費する, turn with 救済 to the younger writers, the professorial and 設立するd critics still 雷鳴ing violently against the younger schools. For, everywhere but in England, schools 設立する themselves as soon as restlessnesses betray themselves in artistic circles. The more experienced readers, in spite of the critics, spreading abroad amongst the larger classes of the 比較して unlettered the taste for the newer 方式s, at first that larger class become 変えるs and then the professional critics whose bread and butter depends on their に引き続いて the public taste. So a school is 設立するd and for a time 持つ／拘留するs its own. Then it gives place to other 方式s.

That is the やめる invariable 過程 with all the 製品s and all the methods, of all the arts. But 自然に, as the arts grow older, their practitioners have a better chance of 発展させるing newer and sounder methods, for the number of their 前任者s has 必然的に 増加するd. Bunyan must 発展させる his method for himself; Defoe could 熟考する／考慮する Bunyan; Richardson, Bunyan and Defoe; Diderot, Richardson and his 前任者s; Stendhal could draw on the experience of four 世代s; Flaubert on that of five; Conrad on that of six. This of course is a source of danger to 女性 brethren, for in each 世代 an enormous 量 of insipid art is turned out by inferior students receiving their 指示／教授／教育 at the 手渡すs of academic 指導者s. That cannot be helped. But the fact remains that to a real master 所有するd of a real individuality the 熟考する／考慮する of the methods of his 前任者s must be of enormous use. Anyone at all 教えるd, reading the work of Conrad, must find 証拠 of an almost lifelong and almost incredibly minute 熟考する／考慮する of writers 先行する him and the 量 of reading and of 熟考する／考慮する—for they are not the same thing—that must have gone to the making of the author of Ulysses, who is certainly the greatest of all prose virtuosi of the word—that beggars the imagination!

So it happened that in フラン from, say, the 'fifties to the 早期に 'nineties of the last century, you had a place of dignity 設立する for the hitherto despised Novel—and in consequence you very speedily 設立する an 受託するd 条約. For once an 占領／職業 is discovered to be dignified you will very soon find that 捜査官／調査官s of methods are at work upon it. The game of marbles was, in my hey-day, regarded as an 占領／職業 単独で for little boys; but with the 会・原則 some few years ago of an international 選手権 it （機の）カム in for the most serious of 熟考する／考慮する by grown men, and the photographs of last year's world-contest that a little time ago filled the public prints, showed the competitors to be white-長，率いるd, grey-bearded, or very rotund of 人物／姿／数字. The 支持する／優勝者 was 結局 設立する, as far as I can remember, in a gentleman of sixty and over.

So with Le 紅 et le Noir it became evident to the world that the novel of discussion or of 調査 was a 可能性 and, with that 発見, the 広大な／多数の／重要な novels began to come. The discussions to be 設立する in the very few 作品 of fiction by Diderot were 自然に 実験の and amateurish. Like Richardson he was tremendously on the 味方する of the more or いっそう少なく patriarchal and 市民の angels. にもかかわらず, he could give you a parasite talking in favour of his profession or a rogue 正当化するing his courses with a 誠実 and a reasonable ingenuousness that 異なるd 極端に from the 誇張するd speeches of the villains of the Fielding, the Dickens, or the 商業の, nuvvle. Stendhal, on the other 手渡す, 存在 what one might call a 冷淡な Nietzschean—or it might be more just to say that Nietzsche was a warmed-up Stendhalean—Stendhal, then, swung the balance rather to the other extreme, tending to make his detrimentals argumentatively 熟達した and his 慣例的に virtuous characters banal and impotent.

At any 率, with or after Stendhal, it became evident that, if the novel was to have what is called vraisemblance, if it was so to （判決などを）下す life as to engross its reader, the 小説家 must not take 味方するs either with the virtuous whose virtues 原因（となる） them to 栄える or with the vicious whose very virtues 運動 them always nearer and nearer to the gallows or the pauper's 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な. That does not say that the author need 棄権する from letting his 慣例的に virtuous characters 栄える to any thinkable extent. For however scientifically the 事柄 be considered, 構成要素 if not 知識人 honesty, sobriety, continence, frugality, parsimony, and the other 構成要素 virtues will give any man a better chance of fourteen thousand—続けざまに猛撃するs or dollars—a year than if he should be, however intellectually honest, financially unsound, or a drunkard or a dreamer or one who never 会談 about the baths he takes. The publisher, in fact, has a better chance of both terrestrial and skyey mansions than the 小説家.

にもかかわらず, the 小説家 must not, by taking 味方するs, 展示（する） his preferences. He must not show his publisher as all 向こうずねing benevolence and 井戸／弁護士席-soaped chastity without pointing out that his fellows, the unwashed, incontinent, wastrel Villons of the world, いつかs practise コマドリ Hoodish generosities and いつかs smooth with their 作品 the pillows of the agonized and sleepless. And in between the 餓死するing Chatterton and the august house of, say, Longmans, Norton, Hurst, Rees, and Co.—who did not publish Chatterton—he must place and 始める，決める in 動議 the teeming world of averagely sensual, averagely kindly, averagely cruel, averagely honest, averagely imbecile human 存在s whose providentially 任命するd 使節団 would seem to be to turn into the stuff that fills graveyards. So that it is not so much the 機能（する）／行事 of the 小説家 to 持つ／拘留する the balance straight as, dispensing with all 規模s or 器具s for 手段ing, to show all the human 存在s of his 創造 going about their avocations. He has, that is to say, to （判決などを）下す and not to tell. (If I say, "The wicked Mr. Blank 発射 nice Blanche's dear cat!" that is telling. If I say: "Blank raised his ライフル銃／探して盗む and 目的（とする）d it at the quivering, 黒人／ボイコット-重荷（を負わせる）d topmost bough of the cherry-tree. After the 報告（する）／憶測 a spattered bunch of scarlet and 黒人／ボイコット quiverings dropped from 支店 to 支店 to pancake itself on the orchard grass!" that is rather bad （判決などを）下すing, but still （判決などを）下すing. Or if I say Monsieur Chose was a vulgar, coarse, obese and presumptuous fellow—that is telling. But if I say, "He was a gentleman with red whiskers that always に先行するd him through a doorway," there you have him （判決などを）下すd—as Maupassant （判決などを）下すd him.)

It was Flaubert who most shiningly preached the doctrine of the 小説家 as Creator who should have a Creator's aloofness, （判決などを）下すing the world as he sees it, uttering no comments, falsifying no 問題／発行するs and carrying the 支配する—the 事件／事情／状勢—he has selected for （判決などを）下すing, remorselessly out to its 論理（学）の 結論.

There （機の）カム thus into 存在 the novel of Aloofness. It had even in フラン something of a struggle for that 存在 and the author of Madame Bovary which was the first 広大な／多数の／重要な novel 論理（学）上—and indeed passionately—to carry out this theory, had to 直面する a 犯罪の 起訴 because in the opinion of the 政府 of Napoleon III a 調書をとる／予約する that is not 活発に on the 味方する of 構成するd 当局 and of 設立するd morality is of necessity dangerous to morals and 破壊分子 of good 政府.

That 見解（をとる）—it is still 大部分は entertained by the academic critics of Anglo-Saxondom—is of course imbecile, but it is not without a 確かな basis in the 感情s of ありふれた humanity. It is normal for poor, badgered men to 願望（する） to read of a sort of 代表者／国会議員 type who, as hero of a 調書をとる／予約する, shall 勝利 over all 障害s with surprising 緩和する and as if with the 支援 of a deity. In that way they can dream of 平易な ends for themselves. So they will dislike authors who do not 味方する with their own types. And as 構成するd 政府s and academic 団体／死体s are made up of what the French call hommes moyen sensuels, such 会社／団体s will do what they can to 妨げる 小説家s from not taking 味方するs with agreeable characters.

To the theory of Aloofness 追加するd itself, by a very natural 過程, the other theory that the story of a novel should be the history of an 事件／事情／状勢 and not a tale in which a central character with an attendant 女性（の） should be followed through a 確かな space of time until the 調書をとる／予約する comes to a happy end on a 公式文書，認める of matrimony or to an unhappy end—代表するd by a death. That latter—the normal practice of the earlier 小説家 and still the normal expedient of the novel of 商業 or of escape—is again imbecile, but again designed to 満足させる a very natural human 願望（する） for finality. We have a natural 願望（する） to be kidded into thinking that for nice agreeable persons like ourselves life will finally bring us to a 行う／開催する／段階 where an admirably planned 郊外住宅, a sempiternally charming—and yet changing—companion, and a 十分なこと of bathrooms, automobiles, gramophones 無線で通信するs, and grand pianos to 設立する us 井戸／弁護士席 in the 最前部 of the class to which we hope to belong, shall 証言，証人／目撃する the long, uneventful, fortunate and effortless の近くにing years of out lives. And our 願望（する） to be kidded into that belief is all the stronger in that whenever we do 診察する with any minuteness into the lives of our fellow human 存在s 事実上 nothing of the sort ever happens to them. So we say: "Life is too sad for us to want to read 調書をとる／予約するs that remind us of it!"

But that is the justification for the novel of Aloofness, （判決などを）下すing not the 独断的な felicities of a central character but the singular normalities of an 事件／事情／状勢. Normal humanity, 奪うd of the 可能性 of 見解（をとる）ing either lives or life, makes 自然に for a 悲観論主義 that 需要・要求するs 救済 either in the 麻薬s of the happy endings of falsified fictions or in the anodynes of superstition—one habit 存在 as 致命的な to the human 知能 as the other. But there is no need to entertain the belief that life is sad any more than there is any 利益 to be derived from the contemplation of fictitious and banal joys. The French 小作農民 long ago 発展させるd the 支配する that life is never either as good or as bad as one 推定する／予想するs it to be and so the French 小作農民, like every proper man, 直面するs life with composure—and reads Madame Bovary, whilst the English, say, lawyer has never got beyond The Three Musketeers.

The 進歩 from the one to the other is simple and 論理（学）の enough. If you no longer 許す yourself to take 味方するs with your characters you begin very soon to see that such a thing as a hero does not 存在する—a 発見 that even Thackeray could make. And, from there to seeing that it is not individuals but 企業s or groups that 後継する or fail is a very small step to take. And then すぐに there 示唆するs itself the other fact that it is not the mere death and still いっそう少なく the mere marriage of an individual that brings to an end either a group or an 企業. It is perhaps going too far to say that no man is 不可欠の, but it is far more usual to find that, when a seemingly 不可欠の individual disappears for one 推論する／理由 or another from an 企業, that adventure proceeds with equanimity and very little shock. I suppose the most co-operative and at the same time the most one-man 関心 of to-day is the newspaper or the 定期刊行物 出版（物）, and I suppose that in my time I must have been 熟知させるd with something at least of the 事件／事情／状勢s of at least a hundred 定期刊行物s or 定期刊行物s each of them of necessity more or いっそう少なく autocratically 行為／行うd, 簡単に because a 定期刊行物 running along and having to appear on a 明言する／公表するd day, it is hardly ever practicable to get together an 編集（者）の 委員会 soon enough to make momentous 決定／判定勝ち（する）s that may have to be arrived at in a minute or two. Yet almost the first 発見 that the most strong-minded of editors makes after he has got the 定期刊行物 of his 設立するing running for a month or two is that it is the 定期刊行物 that has taken 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金—and the most 著名な fact of journalism is that even when the most 公式文書，認めるd of editors suddenly dies his paper in the 巨大な 大多数 of 事例／患者s goes on running in perfect tranquillity and with no 明らかな change for a period 十分に long to make it perfectly manifest that the 広大な／多数の／重要な man was not in the least 不可欠の.

And, as with newspapers, so with nearly all the other 企業s of life. I am not of course 説 that no 広大な／多数の／重要な man 存在するs or no 創立者 of 広大な／多数の／重要な 企業s, though I should imagine that there must be even more mute inglorious Miltons than ever got a chance of putting their epics before the public. Still, the evolver of a new 過程 or a 生き返らせるd combination does 存在する and not infrequently does get his chance: and there is no particular 推論する／理由 why the serious 小説家 should not select the 事件／事情／状勢 of a successful individual for 治療. That he seldom does so is usually because, having 熟考する／考慮するd the 事例／患者s of successful men, he is apt to come to the 結論 that they are not unseldom neither edifying as histories nor psychologically very 利益／興味ing. Alexander, that is to say, may have sighed for new worlds to 征服する／打ち勝つ, but it is probable that he would have 物々交換するd several of his empires for the certainty of a little peace at his own fireside and an 改善するd digestion.

Flaubert, then, gave us Madame Bovary, which may be 述べるd as the first 広大な／多数の／重要な novel that 目的（とする）d at aloofness. That it did not 後継する in its 目的（とする）, Flaubert 存在 in the end so fascinated by his Emma that beside her and the ingenuous 証拠不十分 of her 本物の romanticism every other character in the 調書をとる／予約する is either hypocritical, mean or meanly imbecile—that it did not 後継する in that 目的（とする） is not to be wondered at when we consider the 広大な／多数の／重要な, buoyant, and essentially 楽天主義者 人物／姿／数字 that he was. And indeed, all authors 存在 men, it is very ありそうもない that the 完全に aloof novel will ever see the light. If you want to be a 小説家 you must first be a poet and it is impossible to be a poet and 欠如（する） human sympathies or generosity of 見通し. In Education Sentimentale—which, if I had to decide the 事柄, though fortunately I don't, I should call the greatest novel ever written—the author of Madame Bovary gave us a nearly perfect group novel, written from a 見地 of very nearly 完全にする aloofness. In Bouvard et Pécuchet, abandoning as it were human 対策 of success and 失敗, he takes as his hero the imbecility of co-operative mankind and as his ヘロイン the futility of the 受託するd idea, and, 存在 thus as it were detached from the earth and its 基準s, he could draw in Bouvard and his mate, two of the most lovable of human 存在s that ever 始める，決める out upon a forlorn hope. He died in the 試みる／企てる.

The Flaubert school or group lasted 十分に long in フラン, though, after the late War, its 影響（力） was 完全に washed out by a sort of eclecticism whose main features it is very difficult to trace and into whose ramifications I do not ーするつもりである to enter, for it has had 事実上 no time to 影響（力） the work of Anglo-Saxon novel writers. Flaubert, Maupassant, Turgenev, the Gourmonts, Daudet, and the 残り／休憩（する） of those who had their places at Brébant's died in their allotted years, the last 生存者 of any prominence 存在 Anatole フラン, whose death was 迎える／歓迎するd by an 爆発 of furious 憎悪 in フラン such as can seldom have 迎える／歓迎するd the passing of a distinguished 人物／姿／数字. That was because the French young, saddened and （判決などを）下すd 餓死するing by the War which just に先行するd フラン's death, turned with loathing from the rather débonnaire aloofness of the author of Histoire Comique. And indeed if we Anglo-Saxons had 苦しむd in the least as much as those Latins I might 井戸／弁護士席 推定する／予想する to find myself lynched for 令状ing what I have done above. I have seldom 証言，証人／目撃するd anything to equal the 狼狽 of a 広大な／多数の／重要な French 集会 of littérateurs when their honoured guest, an English 小説家 of distinction and indeed of 国祭的な public literary 機能（する）／行事s, told them in やめる immaculate French that all he knew of 令状ing he had from フラン, and that all that he had from フラン he had learned from the 作品 of Guy de Maupassant! If he had gone 一連の会議、交渉／完成する that 広大な／多数の／重要な 議会 and had, with his glove, flicked each one of the guests in the 直面する, he could not have 原因（となる）d greater びっくり仰天. にもかかわらず it is true that Maupassant must have had more 影響（力） on the Anglo-Saxon writer of to-day than any other writer of fiction, Henry James かもしれない excepted.

In England, 合間, わずかに before the 1890's, the solid vogue of—or the somnolent rumination over—the three-容積／容量d nuvvle of 商業 had been 本気で 脅すd by the slow spread of the idea that 令状ing might be an art, by a tremendous 減少（する） in the prices at which 調書をとる／予約するs might be sold and by 革命の attacks on Victorian 従来の morality. The 緩和するing in morality need not 関心 us except in so far as it shook the idea that the 小説家 must of necessity colour all his characters with one or other hue, but the 減少（する） in the price of 調書をとる／予約するs 容易にするd at least all sorts of 実験の adventures. Whilst the nuvvle remained a thirty-shilling three-decker publishers must needs play for safety whether in morals or methods and neither, say, the Hill-最高の，を越す novels of 認める Allen, which were pseudo-科学の attacks on 従来の morality, nor yet Almayer's Folly, which was an 試みる／企てる to introduce the artistic 基準s and methods of Flaubert into Anglo-Saxondom, could have had even the remotest chance of 出版（物） had the novel remained at its former price.

On the other 手渡す, such writers as Wilde, Stevenson, Pater, and Meredith did, 取引，協定ing mostly in 言葉の felicities or infelicities, begin rather ばく然と to perceive that 令状ing was an art. Neither Wilde nor Pater were 小説家s in the sense of 充てるing the greater part of their time or energies to the art of fiction, and Stevenson remained an avowed moralist, whilst Meredith 充てるd himself to large 国家の aspirations—which have nothing to do with art. And all the four, as I have said, were essentially rather stylists tels quels than anything else. When Pater, Wilde, or Meredith had 後継するd in a passage in showing what clever fellows they were they were 満足させるd and Stevenson, if he had some conception of how to tell a story, was far more gratified if he had 後継するd in producing a quaint 宣告，判決 with turns of phrase after the manner of Sir Thomas Browne than 意図 on the fact that every 宣告，判決—nay, every word!—should carry on the 影響 of the story to be told.

But the mere fact that writers were then beginning to 支払う／賃金 some attention to manner rather than to 事柄 or morals—that they were 意図 on 存在 writers rather than gentlemen—that mere fact is one to excite lively 感謝 in lands like ours and the 職業 of 存在 a 小説家 is one of such excruciating difficulty that it would be ungrateful to ask of 開拓するs that they should be more than 開拓するs.

The 影響 of their 宣伝 almost more than of their 業績／成就s, 連合させるd with the cheapening of 調書をとる／予約するs and the impingement on Anglo-Saxon shores of French examples of how things should be done—for it was not until the late 'eighties that Flaubert, Maupassant, and Turgenev really produced any 圧倒的な 影響 in either England or the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs—the 影響 then of all these factors coming almost together was an 爆発 of technical 成果／努力 such as can have rarely been 証言，証人／目撃するd in any other race or time. The idea that 令状ing was an art and as such had its dignity, that it had methods to be 熟考する／考慮するd and was therefore such another 定評のある （手先の）技術 as is shoe-making—such ideas 行為／法令／行動するd for a time, in the days of the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する, like 魔法 on a whole horde of English—and still more of American—writers.

I have of course not here the space to go with any minuteness into the history of the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する period. 設立するd by two Americans—Henry James and Henry Harland—in London where circumstances were certainly more favourable than they would have been in, say, New York or Boston, the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する did undoubtedly 促進する an 利益／興味 in technical 事柄s that hardly any other 定期刊行物 or Movement could have done. James was a direct pupil of Turgenev; Harland and most of the contributors to the 定期刊行物 were 製品s rather of a general "Frenchness" than the students of any one author—the 製品s of a blend of Mallarmé, Mé縁ée, Murger, and Maupassant and a Quartier Latin でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる of mind and personal untidiness.

Its defect as a movement was that its 支持者s, also, probably 目的（とする）d rather at 陳列する，発揮するing personal cleverness than at the concealment of themselves beneath the surfaces of their 作品. They had not yet learnt the sternest of all lessons—that the story is the thing, and the story and then the story, and that there is nothing else that 事柄s in the world.

L'ENVOI

IN THE LAST QUARTER OF A CENTURY

When the dust of the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する period died away with the 裁判，公判 and 見えなくなる of Wilde there did にもかかわらず remain in the public and the literary mind some conception that novel-令状ing was an art and that the novel was a 乗り物 by means of which every 肉親，親類d of psychological or 科学の truth connected with human life and 事件／事情／状勢s could be very fittingly 伝えるd. Today I imagine that there would not be many 設立する to 否定する that it is the 乗り物 by means of which those truths can be most fittingly 調査／捜査するd. To that we may some day return.

In the 合間 the Yellow 調書をとる／予約する period also left behind it three men whose 指名するs must for ever stand out for the student of the history of the English Novel—they were Henry James, Stephen Crane, and Joseph Conrad. I do not 目的 here to 試みる／企てる an 見積（る） of any one of the three; I 単に wish to point out what it was that distinguished them from all of their 前任者s and nearly all of their distinguished 同時代のs. Their distinguished 同時代のs are all, most fortunately, still alive and so beyond the reach of my pen—but it must, I imagine, he 公正に／かなり obvious that, say, Mr. 井戸／弁護士席s, Mr. Kipling, Mr. Galsworthy, or Mr. Arnold Bennett are each 独房監禁 人物／姿／数字s, ploughing lonely furrows and 表明するing their admirable selves in admirable ways known only to themselves.

About that other triad there was a 確かな 団結, a 確かな oneness of method and even a 確かな comradeship. They lived in the same corner of England, saw each other often and discussed literary methods more 完全に and more frequently than can ever at any other time in England have been the 事例／患者. To be sure, not one of the three was English.

Indeed, some ten years or so ago my friend Mr. 井戸／弁護士席s wrote to the papers to say that in the first １０年間 of this century a group of foreigners 占領するd that corner of England and were engaged in plotting against the English novel. At the time that appeared to be the sort of 愛国的な nonsense that 占領するd our minds a good 取引，協定 just after the War—but Mr. 井戸／弁護士席s, as usual, was 権利. The extent of the 共謀 was this: the 作品 of those three writers whose 影響（力） on the Anglo-Saxon-and even to some extent on the British—novel was 圧倒的な—were 部隊d by a ありふれた technique and their literary 目的（とする）s were to all 意図s 正確に／まさに the same.

All three 扱う／治療するd their characters with aloofness; all three kept themselves, their comments and their prejudices out of their 作品, and all three （判決などを）下すd rather than told. On the whole those 特徴 which never before characterized the English novel characterize it to-day. No one, that is, would to-day 始める，決める out to 逮捕（する） the 選挙権／賛成s of either the more 教えるd or of even the almost altogether naïf with a novel of the type of those written by the 信奉者s of Bunyan, Defoe, Fielding, Charles Reade, or William 黒人／ボイコット. No author would, like Thackeray, to-day intrude his broken nose and myopic spectacles into the middle of the most thrilling scene he ever wrote, ーするために tell you that, though his ヘロイン was rather a wrong 'un, his own heart was in his 権利 place.

James, Conrad, and Crane 異なるd from each other in minute points and indeed in broader 特徴. James was more introspective, Crane more incisive in his 令状ing, Conrad more nearly approached the ordinary 鮮明度／定義 of the poet and was いっそう少なく remorselessly aloof than either of the others. But their ありふれた, Gallic origin 部隊d them, so that they had before all for their strongest passion the 願望（する） to 伝える vicarious experience to the reader. Conrad wrote of his literary 目的（とする）: "It is above all to make you see," and Crane might have written the same thing had he ever written about himself. And Henry James might have written if he could ever have brought himself to 令状 anything so unqualified about his 目的（とする）s: "It is above all to make you feel!" At any 率, the ありふれた 目的（とする） was to take the reader, immerse him in an 事件／事情／状勢 so 完全に that he was unconscious either of the fact that he was reading or of the 身元 of the author, so that in the end he might say—and believe: "I have been in a 製図／抽選-room overlooking Boston ありふれた, in a drinking saloon in Yellow Sky or beneath the palm leaves of Palembang! I have been!"

At this 目的（とする）, to which they certainly 達成するd, they arrived by 確かな technical 装置s or 支配するs. Most of these I have already foreshadowed and as I am not here 令状ing a technical work, I do not 提案する to go into the others at all closely. The only sound technical 支配するs are those that are 設立するd on a 熟考する／考慮する of what pleases: if what you 令状 is to please you must see how your 前任者s did it. There can be nothing either highbrow or recondite about your 成果／努力s; the nearer you are to your fellowman who 異なるs from you only in not having literary ambitions or gifts, the nearer you are to universality; the nearer you are to universality the greater you are, the more nearly you will have 正当化するd your 存在.

You must therefore 令状 as 簡単に as you can—with the extreme of the 簡単 that is 認めるd to you, and you must 令状 of 支配するs that spring at your throat. But why 支配するs 控訴，上告 to you you have no means of knowing. The 控訴，上告 of the 支配する is にもかかわらず the only thing that is open to your native genius—the only thing as to which you can say: "I cannot help it: that is what 控訴，上告d to me!" You must never, after that, say: "I 令状 like this because I want to," but you must say: "I 令状 like this because I hope it is what the unspoiled reader likes!"

Having got your 支配する you will, if you are 慎重な, live with it for a long, long time before you sit 負かす／撃墜する to 令状 it. During that time you will be doing at 半端物 moments what Conrad used to call "squeezing the guts out of it." For it is a mistake to think that what looks like the （判決などを）下すing of an ordinary 事件／事情／状勢 is ever an artless chronicling. Your "支配する" may be just the merest nothing in the way of intrigue or 陰謀（を企てる）—but to the merest nothings in human 事件／事情／状勢s all the intrigues of the universe have 与える／捧げるd since first this earth-swung away, a 減少（する） of molten metal, from the first of all 原則s. Your "支配する" might be no more than a child catching frogs in a 押し寄せる／沼地 or the emotions of a nervous woman in a 雷雨, but all the history of the world has gone to putting child or woman where they are and up to either 支配する you might lead with an epic as thrilling in its end as that of Othello or an episode as poignant with 絶対の 救済 as （機の）カム to the world on the eleventh of November, 1918. You have at your 処分 遺伝, 環境, the concatenation of the 影響s of the one damn thing after another that life is—and 運命 who is blind and august. Those are the colours of your palette: it is for you to see that line by line and filament of colour by filament, the reader's 注目する，もくろむ is 行為／行うd to your 最高潮に達するing point.

That is, then, all that I have to say of the 漸進的な 進歩 of the English novel—to the point where it becomes the Novel. I have traced out as plainly as I could the lines of the pattern as it appears to me and the reader must use that pattern for what jumpings off of his own he chooses to make.

That this is not the final 行う／開催する／段階 of the Novel is obvious; there will be 開発s that we cannot 予知する, 緊張する our 見通しs how we may. There are probably—humanity 存在 stable, change the world how it may—there are probably eternal 原則s for all the arts, but the 使用／適用s of those 原則s are eternally changing, or eternally 回転するing. It is, for instance, an obvious and unchanging fact that if an author intrudes his comments into the middle of his story he will 危うくする the illusion 伝えるd by that story—but a 世代 of readers may come along who would prefer 証言，証人／目撃するing the capers of the author to 存在 carried away by stories and that 世代 of readers may 同時に起こる／一致する with a 世代 of writers tired of self-obliteration. So you might have a world of Oscar Wildes or of Lylys. Or you might, again, have a world tired of the really 井戸／弁護士席 建設するd novel every word of which carries its story 今後: then you will have a movement に向かって diffuseness, backboneless 宣告，判決s, digressions, and inchoatenesses.

But, for the moment, the 輪郭（を描く） that I have traced for you seems to have got about as far as we ourselves have.

THE END

This 場所／位置 is 十分な of FREE ebooks - 事業／計画（する） Gutenberg Australia