ue she wove can fairly be said to be characterized by extraordinary strength。 But the public was and is interested greatly by the novel； and Daudet deserved the fame and money it brought him。 His next book； /Jack/； was not so popular。 Still； it showed artistic improvement； although； as in its predecessor； that bias towards the sentimental； which was to be Daudet's besetting weakness； was too plainly visible。 Its author took to his heart a book which the general reader found too long and perhaps overpathetic。 Some of us； while recognising its faults； will share in part Daudet's predilection for itnot so much because of the strong and early study made of the artisan class； or of the mordantly satirical exposure of D'Argenton and his literary 〃dead…beats〃 （/rates/）； or of any other of the special features of a story that is crowded with them； as because the ill…fated hero； the product of genuine emotions on Daudet's part； excites cognate and equally genuine emotions in us。 We cannot watch the throbbing engines of a great steamship without seeing Jack at work among them。 But the fine； pathetic /Jack/ brings us to the finer； more pathetic /Nabob/。
Whether /The Nabob/ is Daudet's greatest novel is a question that may be postponed； but it may be safely asserted that there are good reasons why it should have been chosen to represent Daudet in the present series。 It has been immensely popular； and thus does not illustrate merely the taste of an inner circle of its author's admirers。 It is not so subtle a study of character as /Numa Roumestan/； nor is it a drama the scene of which is set somewhat in a corner removed from the world's scrutiny and full comprehension； as is more or less the case with /Kings in Exile/。 It is comparatively unamenable to the moral； or； if one will； the puritanical； objections so naturally brought against /Sapho/。 It obviously represents Daudet's powers better than any novel written after his health was permanently wrecked； and as obviously represents fiction more adequately than either of the Tartarin masterpieces； which belong rather to the literature of humour。 Besides； it is probably the most broadly effective of all Daudet's novels； it is fuller of striking scenes； and as a picture of life in the picturesque Second Empire it is of unique importance。
Perhaps to many readers this last reason will seem the best of all。 However much we may moralize about its baseness and hollowness； whether with the Hugo of /Les Chatiments/ we scorn and vituperate its charlatan head or pity him profoundly as we see him ill and helpless in Zola's /Debacle/； most of us； if we are candid； will confess that the Second Empire； especially the Paris of Morny and Hausmann； of cynicism and splendour； of frivolity and chicane； of servile obsequiousness and haughty pretension； the France and the Paris that drew to themselves the eyes of all Europe and particularly the eyes of the watchful Bismarck； have for us a fascination almost as great as they had for the gay and audacious men and women who in them courted fortune and chased pleasure from the morrow of the /Coup d'Etat/ to the eve of Sedan。 A nearly equal fascination is exerted upon us by a book which is the best sort of historical novel； since it is the product of its author's observation； not of his readinga story that sets vividly before us the political corruption； the financial recklessness； the social turmoil； the public ostentation； the private squalor； that led to the downfall of an empire and almost to that of a people。
Daudet drew on his experiences； and on the notes he was always accumulating； more strenuously than he should have done。 He assures us that he laboured over /The Nabob/ for eight months； mainly in his bed… room； sometimes working eighteen consecutive hours； often waking from restless sleep with a sentence on his lips。 Yet； such is the irony of literary history； the novel is loosely enough put together to have been written； one might suppose； in bursts of inspiration or else more or less methodicallyalmost with the intention； as Mr。 James has noted； of including every striking phase of Parisian life。 For it is a series of brilliant； effective episodes and scenes； not a closely knit drama。 Jenkins's visit to Monpavon at his toilet； the /dejeuner/ at the Nabob's； the inspection of the OEuvre de Bethleemwhich would have delighted Dickensthe collapse of the fetes of the Bey； the Nabob's thrashing Moessard； the death of Mora； Felicia's attempt to escape the funeral of the duke； the interview between the Nabob and Hemerlingue； the baiting in the Chamber； the suicide of that supreme man of tone； Monpavon； the Nabob's apoplectic seizure in the theatrethese and many other scenes and episodes； together with descriptions and touches； stand out in our memories more distinctly and impressively than the characters doperhaps more so than does the central motive； the outrageous exploitation of the naive hero。 For from the beginning of his career to the end Daudet's eye； like that of a genuine but not supereminent poet； was chiefly attracted by colour； movement； effective posein other words； by the surfaces of things。 One may almost say that he was more of a landscape engineer than of an architect and builder； although one must at once add that he could and did erect solid structures。 But the reader at least helps greatly to lay the foundations； for； to drop the metaphor； Daudet relied largely on suggestion； contenting himself with the belief that a capable imagination could fill up the gaps he left in plot and character analysis。 Thus； for example； he indicated and suggested rather than detailed the way in which Hemerlingue finally triumphed over the Nabob； Jansoulet。 To use another figure； he drew the spider； the fly； and a few strands of the web。 The Balzac whose bust looked satirically down upon the two adventurers in Pere la Chaise would probably have given us the whole web。 This is not quite to say that Daudet is plausible； Balzac inevitable； but rather that we stroll with the former master and follow submissively in the footsteps of the latter。 Yet a caveat is needed； for the intense interest we take in the characters of a novel like /The Nabob/ scarcely suggests strolling。
For although Daudet； in spite of his abounding sympathy； which is one reason of his great attractiveness； cannot fairly be said to be a great character creator； he had sufficient flexibility and force of genius to set in action interesting personages。 Part of the early success of /The Nabob/ was due to this fact； although the brilliant description of the Second Empire and the introduction of exotic elements； the Tunisian and Corsican episodes and characters； counted； probably； for not a little。 Readers insisted upon seeing in the book this person and that more or less thinly disguised。 The Irish adventurer…physician； Jenkins； was supposed to be modelled upon a popular Dr。 Olliffe； the arsenic pills were derived from another source； as was also the goat's…milk hospital for infants。 Felicia Ruys was thought by some to be Sarah Bernhardt； and originals were easily provided for Monpavon and the other leading figures。 But Daudet confessed to only two important originals； and if one does not take an author's word in such matters one soon finds one's self in a maze of conjectures and contradictions。
The two characters drawn from life in a special sensefor Daudet； like most other writers of fiction； had human life in general constantly before himare Jansoulet and Mora； precisely the most effective personages in the book； and scarcely surpassed in the whole range of Daudet's fiction。 The Nabob was Francois Bravay； who rose from poverty to wealth by devious transactions in the Orient； and came to grief in Paris； much as Jansoulet did。 He survived the Empire； and his relatives are said to have been incensed at the treatment given him in the novel； an attitude on their part which is explicable but scarcely justifiable； since Daudet's sympathy for his hero could not well have been greater； and since the adventurer had already attained a notoriety that was not likely to be completely forgotten。 Whether Daudet was as much at liberty to make free with the character of his benefactor Morny is another matter。 He himself thought that he was； and he was a man of delicate sensitiveness。 Probably he was right in claiming that the natural son of Queen Hortense； the intrepid soldier； the author of the /Coup d'Etat/ that set his weaker half…brother on the throne； the dandy； the libertine； the leader of fashion； the cynical statesmanin short； the 〃Richelieu…Brummel〃 who drew the eyes of all Europe upon himself； would not have been in the least disconcerted could he have known that thirteen years after his death the public would be discussing him as the prototype of the Mora of his young /protege's/ masterpiece。 In fact； it is easy to agree with those critics who think that Daudet's kindly nature caused him to soften many features of Morny's unlovely character。 Mora does not； indeed； win our love or our esteem； but we confess him to have been in every respect an exceptional man； and there is not a page in which he appears that is not intensely interesting。 He must be an unimpressionable reader who soon forgets the death…room scenes； the destruction of the compromising letters； the spectacular funeral。
Of the other characters there is little space to speak here。 Nearly all have their good points； as might be expected of the creator of his two fellow Provencals； Numa and Tartarin； the latter being probably the only really cosmopolitan figure in recent literature； but some； like the Hemerlingues； verge upon mere sketches； others； like Jansoulet's obese wife； upon caricatures。 The old mother is excellently done； however； and Monpavon； especially in his suicide； is nothing short of a triumph of art。 It is the more or less romantic or sentimental personages that give the critic most qualms。 Daudet seems to have introduced themDe Gery； the Joyeuse family； and the restas a concession to popular taste； and on this score was probably justified。 A fair case may also be made out for the use of idyllic scenes as a foil to the tragical； for the Shakespearian critics have no monopoly of the overworked plea； 〃justification by contrast。〃 Nor