The principle of inclusion in this book is the traditional onewhich assumes that criticism is only safe when it deals withauthors who are dead. In proportion as we approach the livingor, worse, speak of those still on earth, the proper perspectiveis lost and the dangers of contemporary judgment incurred. Thelight-minded might add, that the dead cannot strike back; topass judgment upon them is not only more critical but safer.
Sometimes, however, the distinction between the living and thedead is an invidious one. Three authors hereinafter studied areexamples: Meredith, Hardy and Stevenson. Hardy alone is now inthe land of the living, Meredith having but just passed away.Yet to omit the former, while including the other two, isobviously arbitrary, since his work in fiction is as truly doneas if he, like them, rested from his literary labors and thegravestone chronicled his day of death. For reasons best knownto himself, Mr. Hardy seems to have chosen verse for the finalexpression of his personality. It is more than a decade since hepublished a novel. So far as age goes, he is the senior ofStevenson: "Desperate Remedies" appeared when the latter was astripling at the University of Edinburgh. Hardy is thereforeincluded in the survey. I am fully aware that to strive tomeasure the accomplishment of those practically contemporary,whether it be Meredith and Hardy or James and Howells, is butmore or less intelligent guess-work. Nevertheless, it ispleasant employ, the more interesting, perhaps, to the criticand his readers because an element of uncertainty creeps intowhat is said. If the critic runs the risk of Je suis, J'y reste,he gets his reward in the thrill of prophecy; and should he turnout a false prophet, he is consoled by the reflection that itwill place him in a large and enjoyable company.
Throughout the discussion it has been the intention to keepsteadily before the reader the two main ways of looking at lifein fiction, which have led to the so-called realistic andromantic movements. No fear of repetition in the study of therespective novelists has kept me from illustrating from manypoints of view and taking advantage of the opportunity offeredby each author, the distinction thus set up. For back of allstale jugglery of terms, lies a very real and permanentdifference. The words denote different types of mind as well asof art: and express also a changed interpretation of the worldof men, resulting from the social and intellectual revolutionsince 1750.
No apology would appear to be necessary for Chapter Seven, whichdevotes sufficient space to the French influence to show how itaffected the realistic tendency of all modern novel-making.The Scandinavian lands, Germany, Italy, England and Spain,all have felt the leadership of France in this regard and henceany attempt to sketch the history of the Novel on English soil,would ignore causes, that did not acknowledge the Gallic debt.
It may also be remarked that the method employed in thefollowing pages necessarily excludes many figures of no slightimportance in the evolution of English fiction. There are booksa-plenty dealing with these secondary personalities, oftensignificant as links in the chain and worthy of study were thepurpose to present the complete history of the Novel. Bycentering upon indubitable masters, the principles illustratedboth by the lesser and larger writers will, it is hoped, bebrought home with equal if not greater force.