blood,' in a passage of the Louvre—the picture is taken unwittingly from the 'Iliad.'"
We are not, we confess, aware whether or no Balzac is admitted to be a "stylist," but at least two critics prefer Dumas's language to that of his great rival; for Brander Matthews favourably compares the running sentences of the romancer with the tortured "style" of the realist; and Nisard, in spite of his prejudices, acknowledges that Dumas "tells his story with more vivacity (than Balzac), in dialogue more witty and natural, and clothed in better words." Parigot admits that Dumas takes no heed of the literary merit of his writing, but claims that nevertheless he shows taste and care, and a choice of clear and sane language. Edmond About prophesied that Dumas would become a classic, "thanks to the limpidity of his style." Dumas a classic! Yet the history of literature tells us that more unlikely things have happened. We shall be laughed at when we point out that passages from the romancer's books are constantly being chosen and edited for use in schools and colleges, and yet the fact is not so puerile as its connection would seem to imply. Those who are responsible for such productions are men of culture, with a professional knowledge of French literature and with reputations to maintain. If they find in Dumas's books qualities which make them fit to be put
