the Revolutionary epoch, he
undertook a work on early French literature, with the intention of
competing for a prize offered by the Academy. But his plan soon deviated
from that which had been assigned; and his researches, more limited in
their scope, but far deeper and more minute, than had been demanded,
gave birth to a volume, published in 1828, under the title of _Tableau
historique et critique de la Poesie francaise et du Theatre francais au
seizieme Siecle_. It was received with general favor. Some of the
author's principles were strenuously disputed; but he was admitted to
have made many discoveries in literary history, and to have introduced
an entirely new method of criticism. Perhaps it would be more correct to
say, that he had carried the torch of an enlightened judgment into a
period which the brilliancy of succeeding epochs had thrown into
obscurity.

In 1829 M. Sainte-Beuve published a volume of poetry, _Poesies de Joseph
Delorme_, followed, in 1830, by another, entitled _Consolations_, and
some years later by a third, _Pensees d'Aout_. Although different
degrees of merit have been assigned to these productions, their general
character is the same. They exhibit, not the fire and inspiration of the
true poetical temperament, but the experiments of a mind gifted with
delicacy of sentiment and susceptible of varied impressions, in quest of
appropriate forms and a deeper comprehension of the sources from which
language derives its power as a vehicle of art. The influence of
Wordsworth is observable in a studied familiarity of diction, as well as
in the tendency to versify every thought or emotion suggested by daily
observation. These peculiarities, coupled with the frequency of bold
ellipses, provoked discussion, and seemed to promise a fresh expansion
of poetical forms, in a somewhat different direction from that of the
Romanticists. But it was not in this department that M. Sainte-Beuve was
destined to become the founder of a school. His poetical talent, though
unquestionable, had been bestowed, not as a special attribute, but as an
auxiliary of other faculties granted in a larger measure. He has himself
not only recognized its limits, but shown an inclination to underrate
its value. "I have often thought," he remarks in one of his later
papers, "that a critic who would attain to largeness of view would be
better without any artistic faculty of his own. Goethe alone, by the
universality of his poetical geni