least part of the interest of the book. Indeed, the stories altogether
are, as I think, far less interesting than the framework.

Let us see, therefore, if we cannot treat the _Heptameron_ in a
somewhat different fashion from that in which any previous critic, even
Sainte-Beuve, has treated it. The divisions of such treatment are not
very far to seek. In the first place, let us give some account of the
works of the same class which preceded and perhaps patterned it. In
the second, let us give an account of the supposed author, of her other
works, and of the probable character of her connection with this one. In
the third, without attempting dry argument, let us give some sketch of
the vital part, which we have called the framework, and some general
characteristics of the stories. And, in the fourth and last, let us
endeavour to disengage that peculiar tone, flavour, note, or whatever
word may be preferred, which, as it seems to me at least, at once
distinguishes the _Heptameron_ from other books of the kind, and
renders it peculiarly attractive to those whose temperament and
taste predisposes them to be attracted. For there is a great deal of
pre-established harmony in literature and literary tastes; and I have a
kind of idea that every man has his library marked out for him when he
comes into the world, and has then only got to get the books and read
them.

Margaret herself refers openly enough to the example of the _Decameron_,
which had been translated by her own secretary, Anthony le Maçon, a
member of her literary coterie, and not improbably connected with the
writing or redacting of the _Heptameron_ itself. Nor were later Italian
tale-tellers likely to be without influence at a time when French was
being "Italianated" in every possible way, to the great disgust of some
Frenchmen. But the Italian ancestors or patterns need not be dealt with