Amazon Payment Products.
English Choose a language for shopping. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. Sell on Amazon Start a Selling Account. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. DPReview Digital Photography. East Dane Designer Men's Fashion. France remained a mirror, in it he continued to see much of what he thought best in European civilization. In the summer of , long before the substantial dismantling of the authoritarian Empire began, Mill discerned stirrings in the general elections that returned eight independents and five republicans, despite the fact that Like most observers, he did not sense on the tranquil eve of the Imperial catastrophe that the republican party, which he favoured, was potentially a great force.
I hope it will tend to dispel the still common delusion that despotism is a vigorous government. There never was a greater mistake. He thought moral decadence the only real form. By then his virtually lifelong French education was drawing to a close. It had accounted for three or four shifts of direction in his intellectual journey. It made him both an enthusiast and a severe critic. Though he knew very well the land he found so dramatic and so consolatory, lived there a fair portion of his life, and chose to lie there forever, he remained what he had always been since the age of fourteen, an observer with his French notebook open, but with a primarily English agenda.
It pained him, as it had Saint-Simon long before, that the two peoples should get along so poorly. The archives were neglected and disarranged, the libraries were unwelcoming. The Emperor conceived of written history as a political and social instrument: Pierre Edouard Lemontey was directed to write a history of France from the death of Louis XIV to demonstrate the decadence of the Bourbon monarchy.
In England the situation, though different, was no better. The universities were, and were to remain until after the mid-century, largely uninterested in modern history. Foreign scholars who came calling were appalled. The Society of Antiquaries, founded in , was unconcerned.
The Record Commission Gibbon had asked for, established in , was largely made up of Anglican divines and politicians, uninterested, incompetent. Sir James Mackintosh, appointed to it in , was its first historians. Scarcely a statement will bear the test of truth. But the mid-century passed before the kind of collection and publication of sources Guizot directed under the July Monarchy was started in England.
History, often the mere servant of philosophy and policy, was the concern of the very few. All the same, a profound change had set in, outgrowth of the Enlightenment, consequence of the Revolution. Naturally he had also written histories—of India, of the ancient world, of Holland. At ten he began what he hoped would be a publishable history of Roman government, but he abandoned the project and destroyed the manuscript.
It was never at the centre of his adult activity. Whether it was a hobby 93 is debatable; the evidence is not strong. But Mill read history, reflected on history, principally the history of Europe. Still severe in criticism of those whose scholarly standards failed his test, he became bent on the subordination of history to philosophy, seeking principles from historical facts, interpreting facts in the light of principles.
Almost two decades later, he again remarked on. We are indeed disposed to assign to this history almost as high a rank in narrative as in thought. No one learns any thing very valuable from history or from travelling, who does not come prepared with much that history and travelling can never teach. Mill was concerned with the present in historical context, hence his immediate attraction to the historical periodizations of the Saint-Simonians and Comte. The authority, the legitimacy of the old institutions, lay and religious, had vanished. The order of human progress. To an extreme degree, ancient Greece showed the extraordinary influence of a single city-state and a few exceptional individuals.
The experience would not be repeated. Mill was interested in history for what it could do rather than for what it might be. Mill seems not to have had the temperament to be an historian. After , especially, his interests drew him along another path. Yet to nothing Poetical, I think, his fancy is not rich; furthermore he cannot laugh with any compass. He had collected materials, made himself expert. One could not, now, say this openly in England, and be read—at least by the many; yet it is perhaps worth trying.
Drawn naturally to France from his boyhood experience, he saw clearly that French history offered a potentially rich field for the exploration of the interplay of character, circumstance, thought, and great impersonal forces and tendencies. Mill had seen this before , and he was as clear about it after. By then, Mill had long since abandoned whatever intention he had formerly had of contributing to the history of the Revolution.
His task was not historiography but commentary and historical speculation: the search for a science of history. In , Jacques Antoine Dulaure was seventy-one years old. During the Hundred Days, he used his pen against the Emperor. Apprenticed in Lyon in , he returned home almost immediately, only to be driven to England by the Revolutionary coup at the end of the year.
Returning home again in , he and his family soon fled to a farm near Lucca. But the ebb and flow of revolution and reaction there put him in prison three times before , when he went back to Geneva. But he had returned to Paris in , and had made the acquaintance of the liberal politician Benjamin Constant.
Not unreasonably, therefore, the news from Belgium after 18 June led Sismondi to return to Geneva. Characteristically, he began with an ironical cut at the Quarterly Review and his fellow countrymen who had yet to discover the superiority of other nations in certain matters, specifically literature and history. Like most historians then and later, Mill did not trouble to consider seriously what a historical fact might be.
The unquestioned assumptions of the critical method in historiography are apparent in his magisterial commentaries. Rather, it was a set of ideals in the rough and tumble of a time, marked by depravity and misery, whose noble class was the antithesis of civilization. His allusion to the persistence of the knightly state of mind in the nineteenth century was not subtle. Almost simultaneously, he attacked defenders of the English status quo. In short, it was quickly apparent that Mill had some trouble keeping his mind on the remote past. Vigilant against the conservative implications of sentimentalizing the Middle Ages, he hailed the enthusiasm for history of which romanticism was nevertheless a powerful component.
Hallam does not believe in the reality of knights-errant. The most glamorous actors, such as Richard Coeur de Lion, were brought to book in light of the misdeeds chronicled by Dulaure and Sismondi Urban privileges had to be wrung from a perfidious feudal class. If the few were set on pedestals, the many were disregarded in a world of mistreatment and rape. In time, the aristocracy gave up its independent power, but not its masculine conceits and illusions; it never reformed itself. Unhappily, there were no English equivalents.
The breathtaking judgments the young Mill handed out, founded more on a philosophy of history than on close acquaintance with research, may not seem entirely off the mark. But that his reading was openly inquisitive might be difficult to show. Nor did he comment on the inflexibility of the moral code Sismondi applied to his thirteen centuries, possibly because he then still shared the assumption.
It was revealing that only at the end of his review did Mill draw attention to the lack in Dulaure of a generalizing, that is, of a philosophical mind: he states the facts as he finds them, praises and censures where he sees reason, but does not look out for causes and effects, or parallel instances, or apply the general principles of human nature to the state of society he is describing, to show from what circumstances it became Edition: current; Page: [ xxxvii ] what is was.
It is true he does not profess to be a historian, but only to sketch a tableau moral The secret, however, was in the point of view. Showing movement if little colour, his long narrative continued to appear for years after the first volumes Mill surveyed. Its principal value lay in the sources brought together. But the verdict was to be that the first three volumes, the historical event of , Camille Jullian said, were the best of it. They were received by both the philosophic and the romantic schools, welcomed by Augustin Thierry and Guizot.
Their neo-classical poses and search for glory may well have appealed to John Mill. There is no evidence that Mill thought before the second half of the s of writing a history of the Revolution. Moreover, his encounter with Carlyle, whom he first met in September , may also have affected his intent as it became clearer that Carlyle was becoming set on writing a history himself. He was proposing Carlyle would do the great artistic history, while he could do only the analytical.
He may well not have had the time for it. Moreover, his growing attraction to French historical speculation was leading him steadily away from any such specific task. From the summer of , he steadily despatched books from his own library and procured fresh materials for Carlyle. And, although he continued to reflect and comment on the Revolution from time to time, it was clear, long before Carlyle was in print, that Mill had abandoned even the glimmering of his former project.
In this connection, Dulaure had been a transitional figure, useful to Mill like Sismondi principally for furnishing materials with which to challenge the romanticized version of the past. Not only were the Middle Ages brutal and strife-ridden, Mill concluded, but their feudal survivals in the eighteenth century were preposterous. They observed but were not embarrassed by the break between the liberal phase of the Revolution and the Terror. They accepted the challenge of the counter-revolution head-on. In Thiers and Mignet appeared in Paris from the south. They were just twenty-four; the liberal opposition was warming up.
But reaching for a wider audience, he, like Thiers, determined to write the history of the Revolution. His two volumes were published in May , offering in a single instalment the whole of the version Thiers served up at greater length over five years. It was less narrative than exposition, an analysis of a great event that worked itself out as it had to. After collecting materials for two years, Mignet had written his book rapidly in November-December Mill gave so much space to illustrative extracts that one has the feeling he had little to say.
He made no comment on the uncritical handling of sources; or upon the use Mignet made of oral evidence; or upon the role of individuals within the controlling conditions of fatalisme historique. And he did not mention the Edition: current; Page: [ xlii ] conception of class struggle as a motor force. The result was a short, schoolmasterly reprimand, separating the faux brillants from the vrais. Philosophical history as practised by the opposition literati under the Bourbon monarchy had become an historiographical artifact. But perhaps Mill had caught something of the limitation Taine perceived thirty-five years later.
When Mignet arrived in Paris, the battle over romanticism was at its height, with Walter Scott at its centre. Mignet waited a year before making a statement, but the popular verdict was in: the reading public was entranced. The earliest was Augustin Thierry, former secretary to Saint-Simon, a journalist, not yet the historian of the Norman Conquest, not quite so cautious as he would be later on. Reflection brought reserve. He had shown them something essential; his reputation and influence remained greater with them than with English historians. Mill was familiar with the French reception of Scott.
His own experience did not predispose him to share it. Romance is always dangerous, but when romance assumes the garb of history, it is doubly pernicious. The review constitutes the nearest thing to a fully developed statement about the Revolution Mill ever set down. It was also a blistering attack on Scott. His pre-Revolutionary chapters were prejudiced and misleading; what followed was worse. His skilfully told story, doubtless sincerely intended, manipulated the facts in the cause of a theory that was not true. As an unprecedented manifestation of popular will, it could not be judged by ordinary rules.
Where Scott saw ambitious men seeking office, Mill saw patriots seeking liberty. Where Scott proposed the perverse nature of the lower orders running amok, Mill saw ordinary men driven to excess by injustice and oppression. Where Scott saw vicious, irreligious philosophes undermining society, Mill saw benefactors of mankind. It was the liberal version of the early Revolution, stopping short of the Jacobin period that Mill found distasteful. But it was Edition: current; Page: [ xlvi ] significant that he did not push on beyond the early years.
If Scott had a didactic purpose, Mill had nothing less. But he must be read in the context of an entrenched conservative historiography, deep-seated national prejudice against the French, and of course the struggle for reform of the House of Commons. He himself acknowledged some part of its limitation. Perhaps Mill would, some years after he wrote his devastating review, have been more inclined to grant as much. His own views about the depths and poetry of history were changing. But he never found the words.
Mill believed that the huge sales Scott enjoyed had a harmful effect on the public mind. But he also knew that Scott had made an important contribution to the Edition: current; Page: [ xlvii ] revival of written history, that he was dealing with not merely a pillar of the Tory establishment but a formidable man of letters. In taking on the work of Alison, however, he was jousting with a writer of more ordinary talents, if also of great industry, whose account of the Revolution was also Tory propaganda.
What ultimately justified taking notice of such a study was, again, the immense sales Alison had both at home and, in translation, abroad. Of the whole multi-volume History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution to the Restoration of the Bourbons, more than half a million copies were sold before his death, though at the time Mill could hardly have foreseen it would have such success. A native of Shropshire who had early moved to Edinburgh where he took up the law, Alison became an advocate-deputy for Scotland, wrote books on the criminal law, and was eventually appointed sheriff of Lanarkshire.
By the time he visited France in , his conservative views were fixed. He was a believer in the institution of slavery, and later a strong supporter of the American Confederacy. The passion for innovation which had for many years overspread the nation, the vague ideas afloat in the public mind, the facility with which Government entered into these views—all these had awakened gloomy presentiments in my mind. Mill knew what to Edition: current; Page: [ xlviii ] expect. He wished to pillory the errors, bias, and flaccid lack of philosophy he found in Alison.
He wished also to discuss his own conception of history. It is a thing utterly unknown to the English and ought to be known. Speak of it what you know. If Alison prove stupid dismiss him the sooner, but tell your own story freely without fear or favour. Mill was eager to take on both Whig and Tory. Having read Alison, he wrote again:.
Images and Identities
I think beyond anybody who has attempted to write elaborately on the subject. He has no research; the references with which he loads his margin are chiefly to compilations. Mill could not see how to strike the larger target behind Alison. Now he was no longer interested in doing that. Neither Alison nor his work justified presentation of what Mill had once thought he had to say about the Revolution as a result of his exacting scrutiny of the published sources, and in the light of his Radical beliefs.
As a Tory, Mill noted, Alison might be expected to disapprove of his actors; instead he offered only indiscriminately charitable judgments. If he honestly revealed his sources, their poverty betrayed his slight reading. But, as Mill pointed out, if that were all he himself had to say, his article might end. This was as close as he got, on this occasion, to assailing Macaulay directly. They would not see that it was the French crown and its advisers that had abandoned peaceful means.
Naturally it did nothing to give Alison pause: if it led him to fatten up his bibliographical prefaces, it by no means discouraged him from pursuing his narrative. He continued to revise his work, which had an immense success as a detailed history of the Revolution in its wider setting.
It was translated into many languages and became the best-selling such work for much of the century in England and North America. My fingers have often itched to be at him. His Edition: current; Page: [ li ] reaction told something about his own scholarship. I am rather fitted to be a logical expounder than an artist. You I look upon as an artist, and perhaps the only genuine one now living in this country: the highest destiny of all, lies in that direction; for it is the artist alone in whose hands Truth becomes impressive, and a living principle of action. For more than four years they discussed the work, Mill advising and then responding to the steady importuning, Carlyle communicating something of the gestation throes foretelling the strange and awful work he found welling up in him.
Ach Gott! On March 6 Mill brought the terrible news of its accidental burning. I mean, that the common English mode of writing has to do with what I call hearsays of things; and the great business for me, in which alone I feel any comfort, is recording the presence, bodily concrete coloured presence of things;—for which the Nominative-and-verb, as I find it Here and Now, refuses to stand me in due stead. Mill was anxious to publish a review before the book appeared. I am afraid this is a very general opinion, though I grieve it should be so.
The book and the review appeared in July He took the offensive from high ground: the book was unprecedented and must be judged accordingly. Hume and Gibbon compared unfavourably with Carlyle in this regard. Mill quoted large extracts to illustrate the poetry and power of the narrative. His criticisms were gently put: Carlyle was too light on theory. Indeed, beyond the fundamental agreement between them on the decrepitude of the old order and the virtue of the early Revolutionaries, it is difficult to see what Mill and Carlyle had in common. Mill, of course, had been fully warned of what Carlyle had had in mind, and had wholeheartedly abetted the enterprise.
If the Girondins were less than favourably treated, there was enough philosophy rumbling beneath the vibrant surface of events to redeem such a lapse. Moreover, he had done what Mill was convinced he himself could not do: he had created a work of art. He had said much the same thing in a more aggressive manner to R. The political void Carlyle envisioned at the centre of the experience Mill detected in the July Days, as the aftermath revealed the incapacity or self-interest of those who superseded the Bourbon monarchy.
He had been excited by the lively press wars of the late s. Neither direct censorship nor regulatory measures weakened its independence. French journals were numerous, variegated, and vigorous. How much Mill knew of the close manoeuvring in this long contest that had gone on from the time of his first visit to France can only be surmised. But with the installation of Polignac, both King and minister were daily vilified in the opposition sheets.
Mill, who followed the press, was approving. For him it was both a fulfilment and the beginning of a long disenchantment. Mill expected too much. He carried with him an idealized vision of revolution founded on his reading of , too limited a knowledge of the persons and forces in play in France, and a strong sense of his personal goals at the time.
He was unprepared for the sharp political game that replaced one monarch with another and brought about a large-scale administrative shuffle, but produced no serious social change. At the time, Mill barely sensed what was happening. Such a reading could have no happy confirmation. Of the revolution outside the capital, of ongoing disturbances among the peasantry, of the struggle for traditional rights in the collision between rural capitalism and the community, Mill made almost no mention.
His angle of vision remained political. When the Lyon silkweavers rose in revolt on November, , however, he was sympathetic. General Lamarque, a Bonapartist and friend of La Fayette, the capital was placed in a state of siege. It has assumed the power of dispensing with the laws and the courts of justice.
The most formidable force Louis Philippe had to face was the amorphous republican movement, a bewildering variety of men and ideas, each with historical antecedents, loosely grouped around the notion of popular sovereignty and universal suffrage, but divided on means. Legislation against unauthorized associations struck at their organizations, but they grouped and regrouped to escape its severities. The sympathetic press and its journalists endured incessant prosecutions for their attacks on the ministry and vilification of the crown. When juries failed to uphold the state in eighty percent of the cases brought against a single newspaper, the Tribune of Armand Marrast, the chambers voted for a law that would bring such prosecutions before correctional tribunals.
The Lyon silk workers had struck in February; on April there took place the terrible street battle between them and the army for control of the city, in which some three hundred soldiers and workers were killed. Though the arrest of leaders led to attempts to abort the rising, a clash took place and the insurgents were crushed by the army in a barbarous exercise of brutality and mutilation, the most celebrated Edition: current; Page: [ lxi ] episode of which was the horrifying slaughter of the inhabitants of a house at 12 rue Transnonain.
It was designed to destroy the republican and insurrectional movements, and its size underlined the apparent magnitude of the opposition from the left. Its proceedings were marked by tumult, citation of some of the defence lawyers for contempt of court, and the escape of twenty-eight of the principal accused.
He seized the occasion to deliver still another lesson to Whigs and Tories on the meaning of the great events from to the fall of Robespierre, and to clear the Revolution save for the Babeuf episode of this same charge. Public sympathy fell away. What a curious page all this is in the history of the French revolution. All the educated youth are becoming mere venal commodities. Armand Carrel, with Thiers and Mignet, had founded the National in January , intending to destroy not only the Polignac ministry but the Bourbon monarchy as well.
Being historians, they developed the parallel between their France and England on the eve of Thiers had Edition: current; Page: [ lxiii ] promptly moved into politics; Mignet retired to scholarship and the archives, leaving Carrel, the most effervescent and brilliant of them, at the National. Carrel had given proof of unorthodoxy in when, though an army officer, he had rashly associated with Carbonari conspirators.
He had resigned his commission in to join a foreign legion helping the Spanish rebels against Ferdinand VII, and thus soon found himself in a war on the opposite side from the French army that had been sent down to put the King back on his throne. For this he was three times court-martialled, escaping with his life only on a legal technicality. He was, however, a political journalist, and he was independent. And he served notice that he was still a democrat. He attacked the authorities and was repeatedly prosecuted. Juries would not convict him. The government was determined to drive the opposition press out of existence by police harassment, arrests, trials, imprisonments, and fines.
He communicated the immensely favourable impression he got to Carlyle, and was to incorporate his immediate reactions in his article four years later Carrel had accepted republicanism, but he was a moderate, no Edition: current; Page: [ lxv ] revolutionist; he had no use for utopian activists.
Royal 22e Régiment - La Deuxième Guerre mondiale
The prison experience was sinister and embittering, he was personally threatened, and he had no affinity for the rough sort of man. What attracted Mill to Carrel is easy to see. Carrel was cut off early by misadventure in a duel. The journalist Emile de Girardin brought out a cheap daily, La Presse, which he hoped to sustain by advertising on English lines. When Girardin threatened to back this up with proofs. Carrel believed he was being threatened with revelations about his private life.
The quarrel could not be resolved and Carrel issued his challenge, which led to a fatal encounter in the Bois de Vincennes on 22 July, And to die as a fool dieth! Ripened by years and favoured by opportunity, he might have been the Mirabeau or the Washington of his age, or both in one. For this there really was no evidence, and others saw him more clearly. As review and commentary, the article was unusually emotional and lyrical.
I never admired any man as I did Carrel; he was to my mind the type of a philosophic radical man of action in this epoch. He made of Carrel everything that a young liberal should be, even to coming round at the end to reflect a touch of the English radical. He had almost produced an example of that croisement des races he believed would be to the benefit of both peoples. Another historian, for whom Thierry also paved the way, showed how uncertainly focused this romantic impulse was. Like Thierry, Jules Michelet wrote history to shape the present and future. Our forefathers were the artisans who established the Edition: current; Page: [ lxviii ] communes of the Middle Ages and who first conceived freedom as we understand it today.
But it is not sure that this was so for Michelet. He was to become the greatest of the philosophical and romantic historians. His origins and his trajectory were almost entirely different from theirs. He had read enormously in literature and philosophy, the classics and contemporary authors, French, English, and German. He read Herder, he ever after claimed Vico as his master. Like the Saint-Simonians, he was in search of a system that would explain the meaning of human experience, and his chosen field finally was history.
The most important post he held was as chef de la section historique in the Archives du Royaume later Archives Nationales from the autumn of until Though he had also written earlier on the history of France, from then on his broad concerns in history were narrowed down to the history of his own country. The result was the first six volumes of his Histoire de France, from the beginnings to the end of the Middle Ages, published between and He believed that a great age of historiography was opening up; he was at the very centre of the collective historical enterprise sponsored by Guizot and supported by the state.
Increasingly he came to regard France as the heart of the European experience and himself as the chosen historian of her past. Unlike his contemporaries, Michelet could not have claimed as his Revolution. While they were helping to topple the Bourbon monarchy, he was giving his courses. But reflection on the July Days led him to accept the legend of a spontaneous uprising with only one collective, nameless hero: the people. If the Trois Glorieuses later assumed in his mind an importance and an impact they had not had at the time, still reflection on them helped him to see the underlying theme of the national history he determined to write, the materials for which surrounded him at the Archives.
Thus it was not surprising that, in the growing tension of the winter of , Michelet should have been seen as a prophet of some great popular disturbance. Mill was well aware of him. He had done this for Rome, where Niebuhr had been silent. Mill admitted that he was more concerned to publicize Michelet than to criticize him Anthony Panizzi had given him a critical review the previous year.
Mill had written Michelet to ask whether there was anything he would care to have communicated to the British public, but there appears to have been no reply. Mill saw his great strengths and at least suspected his weakness. After this review in , Mill wrote nothing further of Michelet. En route! Il habite actuellement Ostende. En , M. Delagrave, Paris, Souffle, souffle, grand souffle amer,. Chez Paul Ollendorff, Paris. Chez Diodet, Paris.
Jamais, on le sait, M. Xavier Privas. Il semble que, moralement aussi bien que physiquement, deux races bataillent en lui. Han Ryner assista, avec MM. Boschot, G. Normandy, Ph. Pagnat et M. La berceuse indolente des eaux ou des bois. Tout aime! Sully Prudhomme E. Etudiant, MM. Rappelons que ce fut M. Dans les jardins, lents et tremblants, Les pauvres vieux tous les soirs viennent.
Sur les vieux bancs ils se souviennent, Les pauvres vieux aux cheveux blancs. Il marcha longtemps. Sous la neige des ans moroses, Tu voudras revivre. Le long du chemin, la jeunesse danse. III Le long du chemin, vieillard, fais ton somme! Ici se rencontrent les. Tout ce qui fut persiste.
La Nuit. Comme un vin orgueilleux, plein de rouges prestiges. Ses lourds et sombres yeux, tout de braise et de soie Brillent hideusement lorsque passe une proie. Seul, je me connais. Seul, je sais ce que je suis. Je me couche, comme un chartreux, dans mon linceul. Je suis les animaux, les plantes et la mer. Depuis, M. La gorge est endormie et sombre encore. Mais soit! Ce soir, ils soupent chez Pluton. La Cithare. Les Tombeaux. Ne grave ni flambeau, ni colombe, ni fleur.
Sur les champs nage au loin sa cendre bleue et brune. Le ressac lourd tonnait au bas du promontoire. Le Semeur de Cendres. Le Jardin Secret. Un songe immense et doux de sommeil et de mort… Oh!
Anthologie des poètes français contemporains/Tome troisième
Alfred Vallette. Graves, nous nous taisons. Voici que les jardins de la nuit vont fleurir. Les lignes, les couleurs, les sons, deviennent vagues. Il est de clairs matins, de roses se coiffant. Douceur des yeux! Bras tendus au ciel! Grande Nuit! Seule, tu sais calmer les tourments inconnus De ceux que le mentir quotidien torture. Sylvio Lazzari La Chambre blanche lait songer au Kinderscenen de Schumann. On trouve — comme le fait remarquer M. Les larmes sont en nous. Et les larmes aussi pleurent de nous quitter. Mon enfance, adieu mon enfance.
Pas souffert? La Chambre blanche. Botrel est revenu au pays. Dame, oui! Chansons de la Fleur-de-Lys. Il faisait cependant un bien rude tangage! On sombre! Ce serait envoyer vers une mort certaine Cinq hommes pour le moins, cria le capitaine, Et je dois les garder pour le salut commun! Elle en fait-y des malheureux, des malheureuses! Jamraes, H. Bataille, Ch.
Pilon, G. Cazals, etc. Sans doute M. Paul Fort a refondu dans cette nouvelle. Cette fille, elle est morte, est morte dans ses amours. Les dryades craintives se groupent en buissons. Les sylvains, aux coteaux, gagnent les tournants brusques. Leurs cornes ont disparu comme des feux follets. Il tombe! Et les astres bourdonnent sous la ruche des cieux. Roman de Louis XI. Et, en effet, M. Au pays du Bcrry. Les filles filent leurs quenouilles Ou bercent les petits berceaux. Maeterlinck, de M. Adam, etc. Ses premiers vers parurent en , dans La Conque de M.
Pierre Louys. Le Sang parie. Sept heures. Y a-t-il des pardons pour les amours Qui imploreraient un retour? Le Sang parle. Revenu en de Pile Bourbon, M. La nature se tait. Fleurs de Corail. Le Verbe surprit Rome en sa luxure immonde. Pourquoi laisser encor vos muses endormies? Marseille, En Passant. Pourtant vous laissez les jaloux Ravir quelque chose de vous A chaque mot cruel ou doux Que vous leur dites. Je suis triste tout simplement. Dans la cour une voix ravie Chante un refrain toujours pareil Sur la route toujours suivie.
Mon mal est fini comme un drame. Or, M. Silvestro entre autres. Plus tard, M. Il se recueillait. Pour M. A ce moment, M. Septembre Tout est calme. Pierre Rovert. Cachaient leur douceur bleue entre deux brins de jonc. Les Heures de la Muse. Mais qui dira surtout les souvenirs antiques Epars en ce pays? Les hauts faits, la valeur, les gloires, les reliques De ses illustres fils? Je ne puis me passer de vous. Le son de la Syrinx est doux au soir tranquille. Memphis dormait. O Virgile! En janvier , M.
Il chante la vie avec ses joies et ses tristesses.