rmine the classification; but in general the two
species are clearly marked.

+69. Romanticism.+ During the past century there were two far-reaching
movements in the field of fiction. Both came in the character of a
reaction; taken together they have given greater breadth and depth to
this department of literature. The first movement, which dates near the
beginning of the last century, is known as _romanticism_. It was a
reaction against the formal and the conventional. Romanticism may be
defined as liberalism in literature; it is a breaking away from
authority and a return to nature. It manifested itself in two
particulars both in fiction and poetry: first, there was greater freedom
in subject, form, and character; and second, there was a return to the
past, particularly to an idealized age of chivalry in the Middle Ages.
Scott was the great leader of the romantic movement both in poetry and
in fiction. In their wide range of character and incident, and in their
idealization of the past, the Waverley Novels are in general perfect
types of romanticism.

+70. Realism.+ Realism came about the middle of the Victorian era as a
reaction against romanticism. It was born of the scientific spirit,
which rendered the public dissatisfied with fanciful pictures of past
ages and with the impossibilities of wild romance. Realism, as the word
indicates, adheres to reality. Discarding what is idealistic or unreal
in characters and situations, it aims at being true to life. All the
great novelists of this period--Dickens, Thackeray, George Eliot--were
in the best sense of the word realists.

As an effort to represent life as it is, the worth of realism must be
acknowledged. In its proper application it places the novel on an
immovable basis. While idealism shows us how life might be or ought to
be, realism shows how it actually is. Unfortunately, realistic writers
have not, in many cases, been true to their fundamental principles. The
great continental leaders of realism--Tolstoi, Zola, Ibsen--have been
tainted with a fatal pessimism. Realists of this type seem to see only
one side of life,--the darker side of sin and wretchedness and despair.
They often describe what is coarse, impure, obscene. No doubt their
pictures are true as far as they go; but the fatal defect of their work
is that it does not reflect life as a whole. It does not portray the
pure and noble and happy side of life, which is just as real as the
other.

Except