Introduction: Pater and French Literature

3Taking those parameters into account, what follows discusses Pater’s interest for contemporary French fiction and considers them as negotiating the constraints of journalistic writings (editorial policy, intended readership and format) along with socially-induced argumentative limits so as to express his views on belief. For instance, Pater’s Guardian’s reviews between 1886 and 1890 dwell mainly on English contemporary literature and have been described as ‘puffs’ by L. Brake (2013, 492), but two are respectively on Fabre and Swiss-born Henri-Frédéric Amiel (1821–1881). Along with his choice or assignment of certain novels, Pater’s reviews are arguably shaped by the editorial politics and intended readership of the periodicals he was writing for, including signature. Most of his reviews consist of a brief introduction generally followed by extensive translations along with a commentary, and departures from that pattern are always significant along with Pater’s positing the author or novel within a particular literary and religious landscape.

Pater the Francophile

4A great part of Pater’s inspiration came from a wide array of French poetry and prose as shown by B. Inman’s list of his borrowings from the Taylorian Library (Inman, 1990) and explored by L. Brake (2001, 276–82). Pater mainly read contemporary fiction (Stendhal, Zola, the Goncourts, Fabre, Victor Cherbuliez, Feuillet, Sand, and the Revue des Deux Mondes), some of which, including Chateaubriand and Sand made its unexpected way in his writings, contributing to their intertextual complexity. Those readings continuously fed his fiction, sometimes in a subtle way—Daley notes that Pater borrowed and translated a sentence from Feuillet’s Journal d’une femme in ‘An English Poet’ (Daley 2017, 476)—sometimes more obscurely as is the case with the Goncourts (Pater 2014, 28-32) whose novels and historical studies Pater continuously read. Although the latter found their way into ‘A Prince of Court Painters’ (Pater 2014, 115–41), the Goncourts’ novels and Journal seem to have left no trace, probably because of their unconventional content.

5By our own standards, Pater’s tastes appear to have been eclectic, ranging from La Chanson de Roland to Erckmann-Chatrian, but by the late-nineteenth century, they were not. Pater wrote during the final years of the Second Empire and in the nascent and uncertain days of the Third Republic, when avant-garde Realism, Naturalism, Decadence and Symbolism competed with widely popular genres and authors. His diverse readings materialized in writings, be they portraits, essays or reviews, extensively mentioning, alluding to, and quoting French essayists, poets and novelists, from 1866 onwards when Pater cited Renan in his first published essay in the Westminster Review ([Pater] 1866, 106–32), to his last published portrait, ‘Pascal’, published by Edmund Gosse in the Contemporary Review in 1895 (Pater 1895, 168–81). Countless references to French literature appear in The Renaissance certainly because the eponymous movement was said to begin and end in France (Pater 1980, 1). ‘Romanticism’ (Pater 1876, 64–70), a transhistorical study of the movement, relied on, and quoted Stendhal and Sainte-Beuve as guides in literary criticism and history, while presenting Gautier, Hugo, Murger, Flaubert and Feuillet as instances of exciting writers embodying Romanticism as Pater envisioned it, i.e. as a renaissance of literary art. From the medieval times French prose and poetry appear as the fons et origo of a continuous Romantic tradition.

6Writing on medieval architecture, Pater chose specifically to discuss the churches of Notre-Dame d’Amiens and Vézelay, partly relying on Viollet-le-Duc (Viollet-le-Duc 1863–73) and Mérimée (Mérimée 1884). The latter is an interesting case of French literature’s reception in the last third of the 19th century as Mérimée had died in 1870 and no longer qualified as a contemporary writer. Symbolising the defunct Empire, he enjoyed a modicum of renewed recognition when Hippolyte Taine published his Lettres à une Inconnue in 1874 (Mérimée 1874). As a result, Pater lectured on the unbelieving Mérimée at the Taylorian Institution in 1890, and rapidly published his lecture in the December issue of The Fortnightly Review (Pater 1890, 852–54).

7Pater’s last text was on Pascal, the great Catholic apologist. Interestingly, Pater chose to comment upon a writer whose mastery of style and firm belief he continuously highlighted. Pascal was a consummate stylist who had succeeded in assuaging all doubt about belief and issues of style and belief appear to guide Pater’s approach of French writers. Along with his fiction such as Marius the Epicurean (1885–92), Gaston de Latour (1888–1894?), and his review of Robert Elsmere (1888), Pater’s reviews of contemporary French fiction illuminate his views on modern forms of beliefs. Careful not to publicly state his beliefs after the ‘Conclusion’ to The Renaissance (1873), Pater also discussed the religious climate of his times in his reviews of contemporary French writings, always depicting their religious backgrounds, and connecting religion to his exploration of forms of modern subjectivity. Flaubert and Mérimée (Coste 2017, 49–55) most especially become exponents of modern forms of beliefs both in their fiction and in their letters while Filon, Fabre, Feuillet, Amiel and Lemaître provide him with real or fictional examples of specific forms of belief. His interest is therefore not only literary and cultural but also religious, and in spite of the limits of the acceptable in discussing French literature in 1880s Britain, Pater manages to use it as a not so distorting mirror to his late-Victorian readers of various religious affiliations. It is therefore worth following his reviews as they appeared from 1886 to 1890 and where they appeared with the exception of the reviews on Flaubert running from 1887 to 1889 including ‘Style’, which is discussed first so as to give clarity to the argument.

Flaubert

9Pater chose the upmarket daily newspaper Pall Mall Gazette to review Correspondance Première Série 1830–1850 (Flaubert 1887) on 25 August 1888 (Pater 1888, 1–2). As befits the genre, ‘The Life and Letters of Gustave Flaubert’ summarises a large part of the introductory ‘Souvenirs intimes’ by Flaubert’s niece. That Pater’s signed review appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette is revealing since W. T. Stead’s occasionally sensationalist newspaper engaging in New Journalism aimed at a more heterogeneous readership than the monthly Fortnightly Review where ‘Style’ was to appear in December 1888. Pater adroitly chose to promote the man Flaubert rather than the morally debatable writer. Relying on different techniques previously used, his portrayal of the French writer display Pater’s complex vision of subjectivity in the late 1880s. Caroline Commanville, editor of letters and author of souvenirs, becomes the mask behind which Pater disappears so as to better stage ‘his’ Flaubert. Doubly framed, Madame Bovary to which most of the letters are devoted, appears as a time-consuming labour of love, with Flaubert spending days on the ‘phrase’, having but ‘his one fixed belief in beauty, literary beauty’ (Pater 1919, 70). Flaubert appears less as a corrupter of innocent minds than as an exponent of art for art’s sake.

10An example of disinterestedness, Flaubert lived like a monk, penning only a few books, and enjoying trips to Paris in his flowered Boulevard du Temple apartment. This ‘recluse’ was also a great traveller, ‘at least for a Frenchman’ (65), going to Brittany, and ‘above all to the grand old pagan towns of the South, Switzerland, Italy’, and to Corsica, which appealed to him as being ‘a brave country still virgin as to the bourgeois who have not yet arrived to degrade it with their admiration’ (66). As indicated by the French ‘bourgeois’ in his quote, Flaubert laid emphasis on socio-cultural classes whereas Pater insisted on religious difference and the survival of paganism. Likewise, C. Commanville is struck by her uncle’s ‘tranquil devotion to art’, which Pater interprets as something akin to ‘religion’, mentioning Flaubert attending mass although he was a self-confessed freethinker (69). Seeing himself like ‘a Carthusian’ (70), Flaubert observed a careful routine and distrusted inspiration. A keen letter-writer, his correspondence shows him as belonging to a profane and secular ‘sacerdotal order’ (63). Living the life of one of those bourgeois he despised, Flaubert saw ‘the artistic life’ ‘as an end in itself’ (64) elevating art to the status of a profane religion. Finally unmasking himself, Pater concludes that those letters have been published to offset the ‘kind of literary scandal’ (72) attached to Flaubert’s writings, although he refrains from mentioning the 1857 trial and the content of Madame Bovary. More importantly to him, Flaubert’s life, letters and writings display the same individual: ‘the passionate, conscientious, labouring artist’, conscious of his ‘immense intellectual superiority’, but full of ‘pity’ for others and ‘the simple people’, all the more so as he was convinced of ‘the cruelty of things’ (73). The expression was to recur under Pater’s pen as it encompassed his ethics predicated on pity (Albrecht 2018, 103).

11The review was woven into ‘Style’ in the December 1888 issue of The Fortnightly Review (Pater 1888, 728–43) where Flaubert appeared as Pater’s paradigmatic ‘scholar writer writing for the scholarly’ (Pater 1910, 17) bent on using the ‘unique word’ (29), an exponent of the religion of art therefore remote from any moral criticism. This literary whitewashing was certainly insufficient to counter attacks on Flaubert and significantly, in August 1889, Pater published his unsigned review of Flaubert’s second volume of Letters, this time in a distinguished cultural weekly, the Athenaeum, just after Charpentier had issued the volume in France (Pater 1889, 155–56). Carefully avoiding any mention of Flaubert’s marital status, Pater cannily turned Flaubert into an ‘austere lover’ whose ‘true mistress was his art’ (Pater 1919, 77) by quoting his views of women to ‘Madame X’ (Louise Collet). Therefore deprived of any reprehensible eros, Flaubert appeared as a valuable adviser on literary matters, considering his ‘labour’ as a ‘ministry’ to the imaginative gift (78). Pursuing his 1888 portrayal of Flaubert as an exponent of art for art’s sake aimed at furnishing an alternative to religions, Pater reads the letters written during the completion of Madame Bovary as ‘footnotes’ to ‘that impressive book’ (74) possess[ing] almost the unity, the connected current of a book (76). Flaubert expresses the subjective continuity Pater seems to have most appreciated in writers although he displays it in a dissociated manner, dividing it between his literary exertions and his letters, between his authorial persona and his private self. Both are expressing the same commitment to art.

12Having carefully prevented any discussion of Flaubert’s morals, Pater discusses a writer who holds a specific place in his own view of literature as evincing various degrees of impersonality, i.e. various degrees of subjective narrative engagement. His mention of Flaubert as a reader of Montaigne, using ingrained doubt to detach himself artistically ‘from all practical ends’ (64), reinforce the portrait of the Frenchman as a sceptic about religion or absolute truths whose scepticism contributed to his serious engagement with literary art that came to function as a substitute for a departed deity and a vanishing religious sense. Pater’s apparently anecdotal mention echoes several discussions of belief permeating his reviews of French authors who enabled him to express his continuous exploration of belief. In the 1880s, and despite the menace of outcry for praising some French writers, such an issue could be best discussed through the mediation of other French-speaking writers who were as popular and distinguished as they appeared innocuous and uncontroversial. Fed by his knowledge of the current French religious climate, Pater published ‘Feuillet’s La Morte’ and ‘Amiel’s Journal Intime’ in 1886.

Feuillet

14Correlated to the issue of God was belief, which Pater envisaged as a fundamental human characteristic appearing before all religious affiliations and denominations—the future ‘fundamental belief’ of ‘Prosper Mérimée’ (Pater 1890, 852)—, and upon which he devoted further reviews, including his meditation on Amiel’s troubled belief. In December 1885, as he was reading the volume Mary Ward had translated for Macmillan (Ward 1886), Pater sent her a letter summarising his thoughts on believers and religion. His reflections deserve close reading especially since Pater was addressing her friend and former neighbour in Oxford and may have felt freer to express himself:

Amiel appears to have had a religious, almost innate sense but failed ‘at times’ to supplement it by something that would have given him hope, therefore condemning him to a melancholic life. The Swiss writer seems to have been unable to benefit from the structuring function of religious institutions including ‘the historic church’, which Pater further describes as one of ‘those obscure but all-important possibilities, which the human mind is powerless effectively to dismiss from itself; and might wisely accept, in the first place, as a workable hypothesis’ (Pater 1970, 64–65). Historical religious institutions are necessary to shape human existence. Churches appear as institutions capable of structuring and directing some ‘all-important possibilities’ without giving them too sharp an outline or too definite a content, therefore enabling life-orienting hope. Pater was adroit in discussing ‘the historic church’, all the more so as he witnessed the changes in contemporary approaches to Christianity such churches were supposed to embody:

The supposed facts on which Christianity rests, utterly incapable as they have become of any ordinary test, seem to me matters of very much the same sort of assent we give to any assumption, in the strict and ultimate sense, moral. The question whether those facts were real will, I think, always continue to be what I should call one of the natural questions of the human mind. (Pater 1970, 64–65)

Religious truth had become a vexed issue, as a result of nineteenth-century ‘higher criticism’ which has partly materialized in the views developed in Essays and Reviews (1860) or Renan’s Life of Jesus (1864). Silently espousing those views, Pater envisions Christianity no longer as a strictly revealed religion but as an array of teachings embedded in the ethical institutions mankind needs to sustain the society it lives in. Certainty has disappeared, leaving individuals free to engage in hypotheses and unsolvable questions, but also free to assent in the Newmanian sense of his 1870 Grammar of Assent, where ‘assent’ is presented as ‘unconditional’, ‘one and indivisible’. Using that definition for his own scheme of the structure of belief, Pater qualifies it by noting that assent needs to be completed by religious institutions. Assent deploys in and as a relation, to a church or to a non-religious institution.

15Such sophisticated views appeared in print in The Guardian, a High Church Anglo-Catholic weekly, launched in 1846 as the weekly organ of the Tractarians, notable for its ‘generous section of book review’ and its Supplement that took reviewing seriously’ with all titles reviewed mentioning religious aspects (Brake 2013, 491), a characteristic Pater respected. In his unsigned review of Amiel’s Journal (Pater 1886, 406–07), Pater reiterated those ideas, albeit in subdued form, adding an exploration of the Swiss writer’s personality that strove to account for his ‘melancholy life . . . with something not altogether explained by the somewhat pessimistic philosophy exposed in the Journal, nor by the consumptive tendency of Amiel’s physical constitution’ (Pater 1901, 21). Pater saw Amiel as a gifted writer who failed to fully engage in religious belief:

Assenting, on probable evidence, to so many of the judgements of the religious sense, [Amiel] failed to see the equally probable evidence there is for the beliefs, the peculiar direction of men’s hopes, which completes those judgments, and bring them into connection with the facts, the venerable institutions of the past—with the lives of the saints. (33)

Amiel was not indifferent: he lacked insight to consider how his ‘judgements of the religious sense’ could be completed. The review is important since Pater defines personal belief as a feeling enabling an individual to relate to established judgements and social institutions capable of accommodating personal belief and connecting it with similar beliefs to foster a given religion. Religious belief appears as some finishing touch constitutive of the individual, enabling connections between one’s own sentiments and logical assertions and institutions giving shape to possibilities. Individuals may assent ‘on probable evidence, to so many of the judgements of the religious sense’: for his part, Amiel stopped short of a full assent to the teachings of the Christian church. Simple as it may appear under Pater’s deceptively common words, the definition is seminal to understand the beliefs structuring the characters of his imaginary portraits. It also demonstrates the function of a French-writing diarist for Pater. Amiel appears as a not so remote instance of the predicament or condition of modern subjectivity. Vaudricourt typifies an individual endowed with an intriguing inner vacancy that morals do not always fill; Amiel typifies an incomplete form of belief, which has unfortunately met with ‘that metaphysical prejudice for the “Absolute,” the false intellectual conscience’ (32), thereby undermining his natural religious sense and leading him to the contemplative life Pater finds so unattractive. Rather than being a form of indifference, Amiel’s belief is incomplete and Pater concludes with a piece of advice aimed at his more contemporary readers: ‘Bring, we should add, the Great Possibility at least within the line of your plan—your plan of action or production; of morality; especially of your conceptions of religion.’ (35)

For their part, [a large class of minds which cannot be sure the biblical story is false] make allowance in their scheme of life for a great possibility, and with some of them that bare concession of possibility (the subject of it being what it is) becomes the most important fact in the world. The recognition of it straightway opens wide the door to hope and love; and such persons are, as we fancy they always will be, the nucleus of a Church. (Pater, ‘Robert Elsmere’, 1901, 68)

If a church is defined as a community of individuals entertaining hope and love the content or object of which may remain largely undefined, concession is fundamental in defining the religious sphere where hope deploys itself to structure individual life. To make a concession to Pater’s ‘Great Possibility’ that the Bible be true and the religion revealed, also implies that hope is not innate in mankind but results from a concession, an acceptance of uncertainty—the very category characterizing the modern times as times of disillusion.

17The Guardian had borne with Pater’s unorthodox views on Amiel certainly because they discussed a recently deceased foreign writer, but the editor D. C. Lathbury (1883-1899), a fellow of Brasenose College and therefore a member of Pater’s ‘shared network’ (Brake 2013, 491) chose to publicly state that Pater’s views on Robert Elsmere were strictly his own. Mrs Ward’s novel was first a novel by a British writer, and if neither Lathbury nor Pater could imagine it would create such a controversy, there were boundaries in expressing one’s ideas that Pater had passed. While L. Brake is right to point out that his reviews for The Guardian between 1886 and 1890 show Pater as ‘a productive writer, probably with money and personal obligations to friends in mind’ reviewing out of ‘economic necessity’ (Brake 2013, 493), they also show that Pater could probe the limits of the permissible even in the magazine of a fellow Brasenosian. Not only did he continue to contribute to the weekly, he also contributed to other magazines to explore the vicissitudes of the modern godless or god-free lot, significantly choosing preeminent and recognised contemporary French authors and relying on a careful choice of other periodicals attuned to his views. To disseminate his views, Pater used the late-Victorian diversity of periodicals and increasingly fragmented readerships.

Fabre

19Importing an extract from his previous review of Fabre, Pater recommended the novel ‘to the more serious class of English readers’ (Pater 1901, 121) as an instance of ‘that high type of Catholicism which still prevails in the remote provinces of France, of that high type of morality of which the French clergy have nobly maintained the ideal’ (121), complying with The Guardian’s novel reviewing’s ‘pervasive spiritual element or a local reference or allusion’ (Brake 2013, 495). Fabre deserved to be read for his ‘recognition of the religious, the Catholic, ideal, intervening masterfully throughout the picture he presents of life, as the only mode of poetry realizable by the poor’, Pater argues (122). Religion exerts its dominance essentially in rural locations where it has replaced poetry, as was shown by the novel’s contrast between ‘the priest and the peasant’ on the one hand, and the ‘unclerical human nature’ of a ‘Parisian littérateur’, on the other hand—a contrast in which Pater seems to be especially interested (123) as it encompassed the antagonism between art (linked to urban settings) and religion (linked to rurality). The case of Fabre’s two novels also demonstrates that signature and the periodical to which Pater was contributing played a determining role in the content and form of his reviews. In the pluralistic and secular Nineteenth Century, Pater openly presented the pagan Galabru while in the Anglo-Catholic Guardian his praise of simple poor Catholics was anonymous. As L. Brake notes, Pater ‘tailor[s] his reviews to fit the orientation of the paper’ he writes for (Brake 2013, 493) but he plays on the diversity of editorial politics including signature to disseminate his views.

Lemaître

Nature, circumstance, is far from pitiful, abounds in mockeries, in baffling surprises and misadventures, like a cynical person amused with the distress of children. Over against that cynical humour, it may be our part to promote in life the mood of the kindly person, still regarding people very much as children, but, like Serenus, with ‘a great pity for them, a great indulgence.’ (58–59)

To Nature’s cynicism ‘kind’ moods must be opposed, while ‘a great pity’ and ‘a great indulgence’ must be the lot of the human race. Pity is a cardinal virtue in Pater’s ethics, all the more so as it appears in a largely secularised context, amounting, as is the case with Lemaître, to atheism and materialism. Lemaître depicts a godless universe to which mankind must adapt while Pater neutralises his heterodoxy, reframing and toning it down to suggest instead a tentative ethics capable of replacing older more forceful forms of religion.

26Pater’s final piece of advice to Lemaître remains something of an enigma as he encourages Lemaître to undertake a longer work so as to learn ‘that great literary gift of patience’ (80). That form of patience may be akin to the patience Flaubert’s painstaking exertions enabled him to acquire, or to the patience sustained by ‘hope’ for ‘the Great Possibility’ advocated by Pater in his review of Amiel’s Journal. Translating as hope, belief has the capacity of uniting individuals in churches as well as in non-religious communities. Flaubert proves that the latter is as worthy as the former, and it comes as a contrast, almost as a relief, to Lemaître’s godless universe where mankind must fend for itself, having no other solution but to display ‘pity’ and ‘indulgence’ towards its brethren while continuously wearing ‘an air of irony and pride’ (42). Read by Pater, Serenus and French fiction finally display various ethical and religious positions possibly functioning as models for contemporary times protected as they are by their national alterity. Pater’s choice of periodicals allows him to present such a diversity as they are themselves diverse in editorial and religious orientation.

Conclusion

Albrecht, Thomas. ‘“The Loveliness of Things and the Sorrow of the World”: Art and Ethics in Pater and George Eliot’. Testing New Opinions and Courting New Impressions: New Perspectives on Walter Pater. Eds. Anne-Florence Gillard-Estrada, Martine Lambert-Charbonnier, and Charlotte Ribeyrol. New York: Routledge, 2018. 88–108.

Brake, Laurel. ‘Pater the Journalist: Essays from the Guardian.’ ELT 56.4 (2013): 483–98.

Brake, Laurel. ‘Aesthetics of the Affray.’ Print in Transition. Studies in Media and Book History, Houndmills, Palgrave, 2001. 225–47.

Brake, Laurel. ‘“The Entangling Dance”: Pater after Marius 1885-1891.’ Transparencies of Desire. Eds. Laurel Brake, Lesley Higgins, Carolyn Williams. Greensboro, ELT Press, 2002. 24–36.

Conlon, John. Walter Pater and the French Tradition. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 1982.

Coste, Bénédicte. ‘“The Perfection of Nobody’s Style”: Impersonality and Emotion in Pater’s Prosper Mérimée’. Impersonality and Emotion. Eds. J.-M. Ganteau & C. Reynier Montpellier: Presses de l’UPV, 2005. 29–42.

Coste, Bénédicte. ‘Cette époque de doute’: Walter Pater et la question de la croyance. Montpellier: PULM, 2017.

Daley, Kenneth. ‘Pater’s Appreciations and the Problem of “Feuillet’s La Morte.”’ ELT, 60.4 (2017): 471–89.

Dowden, Edward. ‘Literary Criticism in France.’ Fortnightly Review 46 (December 1889): 737–53.

Fabre, Ferdinand. Toussaint Galabru. Paris: Charpentier, 1887.

Fabre, Ferdinand. Norine. Paris: Charpentier, 1889.

Feuillet, Octave. La Morte. Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1886.

Flaubert, Gustave. Correspondance. Première Série 1830-1850. Paris: Charpentier, 1887.

Flaubert, Gustave. Correspondance. Deuxième série 1850-54. Paris: Charpentier, 1889.

Higgins, Lesley, ‘Doubting Pater: Religious Discourse and “the conditions of modern life.”’ ELT 38.3 (1995): 285–303.

Inman, Billie A. Walter Pater’s Reading, 1874-1877, with a Bibliography of His Library Borrowings, 1878-1894. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Kennard, Nina H. ‘Flaubert and George Sand.’ Nineteenth Century 20 (November 1886): 693–708.

Lemaître, Jules. Serenus. Histoire d’un martyr. Contes d’autrefois et d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Lemerre, 1886.

Lilly, William S. A Century of Revolution. London: Chapman and Hall, 1889.

Mérimée, Prosper. Études sur les arts du Moyen âge. Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1884.

Mérimée, Prosper. Lettres à une inconnue. Ed. H. Taine, Paris: Michel Lévy frères, 1874.

Mullin, Katherine. ‘Pernicious Literature: Vigilance in the Age of Zola (1886–1899)’. Prudes on the Prowl. Eds. David Bradshaw and Rachel Potter. Oxford: OUP, 2013. DOI : 10.1093/acprof :oso/9780199697564.001.0001 Accessed 18 April 2019.

Pater, Walter. Appreciations. With an Essay on Style. London: Macmillan, 1889.

Pater, Walter. Appreciations. With an Essay on Style. London: Macmillan, 1890.

[Pater, Walter]. ‘Amiel’s Journal Intime’. The Guardian, 41 (17 mars 1886): 406-7. Rpt. Essays from the Guardian. London: Macmillan, 1901.

Pater, Walter. ‘Noticeable Books. 3. A Century of Revolution. By William Samuel Lilly.’ Nineteenth Century 26 (December 1889): 992–94.

[Pater, Walter]. ‘Coleridge’s Writings.’ Westminster Review, 29 (January 1866): 106–32.

[Pater, Walter]. ‘The Contes of M. Augustin Filon, Tales of a Hundred Years since.’ The Guardian, 45 (16 July 1890): 1138.

[W. Pater]. ‘Correspondance de Gustave Flaubert’ (Deuxième série’ 1850–54, Paris: Charpentier, 1889).’ Athenaeum (3 August 1889): 155–56. Rpt. Sketches and Reviews. Ed. Albert Mordell. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1919. 74–87.

Pater, Walter. Essays from The Guardian. London: Macmillan, 1896. Privately printed.

Pater, Walter. Essays from The Guardian. London: Macmillan, 1901.

[Pater, Walter]. ‘Ferdinand Fabre. An Idyll of the Cevennes.’ The Guardian 44 (12 June 1889): 911–12.

[Pater, Walter]. ‘Mr Feuillet’s “La Morte”.’ Macmillan’s Magazine 54 (December 1886): 97–105.

[Pater, Walter]. ‘M. Jules Lemaître’s Serenus and Other Tales.’ Macmillan’s Magazine 57 (November 1887): 71–80.

Pater, Walter. The Letters of Walter Pater. Ed. J. Evans, Oxford: OUP, 1970.

Pater, Walter. ‘The Life and Letters of Gustave Flaubert.’ The Pall Mall Gazette (25 August 1888): 1–2.

Pater, Walter. Marius the Epicurean. His Sensations and Ideas. Vol. II. London: Macmillan, 1910.

Pater, Walter. ‘Pascal.’ Contemporary Review 67 (February 1895): 168–81.

Pater, Walter. ‘Prosper Mérimée.’ Fortnightly Review 48 (December 1890): 852–54. Rpt. Miscellaneous Studies. London: Macmillan, 1895.

Pater,Walter. The Renaissance. The 1893 Text. Ed. D. Hill, Los Angeles: U of California P, 1980.

Walter, Pater. ‘Robert Elsmere.’ The Guardian 43 (28 March 1888): 468-9. Rpt Essays from the Guardian. London: Macmillan, 1901. 53–70.

Pater, Walter. ‘Romanticism.’ Macmillan’s Magazine 35 (November 1876): 64–70.

Pater, Walter. ‘Style.’ Fortnightly Review 44 (December 1888): 728–43.

Pater, Walter. ‘Noticeable Books. 3. Toussaint Galabru. By Ferdinand Fabre.’ Nineteenth Century 25 (April 1889): 621–23.

Pater, Walter. Sketches and Reviews. Ed. Albert Mordell. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1919.

Pater, Walter. ‘Style.’ Fortnightly Review 44 (December 1888): 728–43.

Pater, Walter. ‘Some Great Churches of France (Part II): Vézelay.’ Nineteenth Century 35 (July 1894): 963–70.

Pater, Walter. Uncollected Essays by Walter Pater Printed for Thomas Mosher and Published by him at 45 Exchange Street, Portland, Maine, 1903.

Østermark-Johansen, Lene. ‘Introduction.’ Imaginary Portraits by Walter Pater. London: MHRA, 2014.

Saintsbury, George. ‘Gustave Flaubert.’ Fortnightly Review 23 (April 1878): 575–95. Rpt. Saintsbury, George, ‘Gustave Flaubert.’ Essays on French Novelists. London: Percival, 1891. 334–81.

Saintsbury, George. ‘The Present State on the novel (in France) (Part II).’ Fortnightly Review 43 (January 1888): 112–23. Rpt. Essays on French Novelists. London: Percival, 1891. 1–31.

[Unsigned]. ‘Books. La Morte.’ The Spectator 59.3029 (July 17): 956.

Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène, Entretiens sur l’architecture. Paris: A. Morel, 1863–73. 2 vols.