A History of the French Novel, Vol. 1

  ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA

  P. 3, _note_.--This note was originally left vague, because, in thefirst place, to perform public and personal fantasias with one's spearon the shield of a champion, with whom one does not intend to fight outthe quarrel, seems to me bad chivalry, and secondly, because thosereaders who were likely to be interested could hardly mistake thereference. The regretted death, a short time after the page was sent topress, of Mr. W. J. Courthope may give occasion to an acknowledgment,coupled with a sincere _ave atque vale_. Mr. Courthope was never anintimate friend of mine, and our agreement was greater in political thanin literary matters: but for more than thirty years we were on the bestterms of acquaintance, and I had a thorough respect for hisaccomplishments.

  P. 20, l. 5.--_Fuerres de Gadres._ I wonder how many people thought ofthis when Englishmen "forayed Gaza" just before Easter, 1917?

  P. 46, mid-page.--It so happened that, some time after having passedthis sheet for press, I was re-reading Dante (as is my custom every yearor two), and came upon that other passage (in the _Paradiso_, andtherefore not known to more than a few of the thousands who know theFrancesca one) in which the poet refers to the explanation betweenLancelot and the Queen. It had escaped my memory (though I think I maysay honestly that I knew it well enough) when I passed the sheet: but itseemed to me that perhaps some readers, who do not care much for"parallel passages" in the pedantic sense, might, like myself, feelpleasure in having the great things of literature, in different places,brought together. Moreover, the _Paradiso_ allusion seems to havepuzzled or misled most of the commentators, including the late Mr. A. J.Butler, who, by his translation and edition of the _Purgatorio_ in 1880,was my Virgil to lead me through the _Commedia_, after I had sinfullyneglected it for exactly half a life-time. He did not know, and mighteasily not have known, the Vulgate _Lancelot_: but some of those whom hecites, and who evidently _did_ know it, do not seem to have recognisedthe full significance of the passage in Dante. The text will give theoriginal: the _Paradiso_ (xvi. 13-15) reference tells how Beatrice(after Cacciaguida's biographical and historical recital, and whenDante, in a confessed outburst of family pride, addresses his ancestorwith the stately _Voi_), "smiling, appeared like her who coughed at thefirst fault which is written of Guinevere." This, of course (see textonce more), is the Lady of Malahault, though Dante does not name her ashe does Prince Galahault in the other _locus_. The older commentators(who, as has been said, _did_ know the original) do not seem to haveseen in the reference much more than that both ladies noticed, andperhaps approved, what was happening. But I think there is more in it.The Lady of Malahault (see note in text) had previously been aware thatLancelot was deeply in love, though he would not tell her with whom. Hercough therefore meant: "Ah! I have found you out." Now Beatrice, well asshe knew Dante's propensity to love, knew as well that _pride_ was evenmore of a besetting weakness of his. This was quite a harmless instanceof it: but still it _was_ an instance--and the "smile" which is _not_recorded of the Arthurian lady meant: "Ah! I have _caught_ you out."Even if this be excessive "reading into" the texts, the juxtaposition ofthem may not be unsatisfactory to some who are not least worthsatisfying. (Since writing this, I have been reminded that Mr. PagetToynbee did make the "juxtaposition" in his Clarendon Press _Specimensof Old French_ (October, 1892), printing there the "Lady of Malahault"passage from MSS. copied by Professor Ker. But there can be no harm induplicating it.)

  P. 121, ll. 8-10. Perhaps instead of, or at least beside, ArchdeaconGrantly I should have mentioned a more real dignitary (as some countreality) of the Church, Charles Kingsley. The Archdeacon and the Canonwould have fought on many ecclesiastical and some political grounds, butthey might have got on as being, in Dr. Grantly's own words at amemorable moment "both gentlemen." At any rate, Kingsley was soaked inRabelais, and one of the real curiosities of literature is the way inwhich the strength of _Gargantua_ and _Pantagruel_ helped to beget thesweetness of _The Water Babies_.

  Chap. viii. pp. 163-175.--After I had "made my" own "siege" of the_Astree_ on the basis of notes recording a study of it at the B.M., Dr.Hagbert Wright of the London Library was good enough to let me know thathis many years' quest of the book had been at last successful, and togive me the first reading of it. (It was Southey's copy, with his ownunmistakable autograph and an inserted note, while it also contained acover of a letter addressed to him, which had evidently been used as abook-mark.) Although not more than four months had passed since theprevious reading, I found it quite as appetising as (in the text itself)I had expressed my conviction that it would be: and things not noticedbefore cropped up most agreeably. There is no space to notice all ormany of them here. But one of the earliest, due to Hylas, cannot beomitted, for it is the completest and most sententious vindication ofpolyerotism ever phrased: "Ce n'etait pas que je n'aimasse les autres:mais j'avais encore, outre leur place, celle-ci vide dans mon ame." Andthe soul of Hylas, like Nature herself, abhorred a vacuum! (Thisapproximation is not intended as "new and original": but it was sometime after making it that I recovered, in _Notre Dame de Paris_, aforgotten anticipation of it by Victor Hugo.)

  Another early point of interest was that the frontispiece portrait ofAstree (the edition, see _Bibliography_, appears to be the latest of theoriginal and ungarbled ones, _imprimee a Rouen, et se vend a Paris_(1647, 10 vols.)) is evidently a portrait, though not an identical one,of the same face given in the Abbe Reure's engraving of Diane deChateaumorand herself. The nose, especially, is hardly mistakable, butthe eyes have rather less expression, and the mouth less character,though the whole face (naturally) looks younger.

  On the other hand, the portrait here--not of Celadon, but admittedly ofHonore d'Urfe himself--is much less flattering than that in the Abbe'sbook.

  Things specially noted in the second reading would (it has been said)overflow all bounds here possible: but we may perhaps find room forthree lines from about the best of the very numerous but not verypoetical verses, at the beginning of the sixth (_i.e._ the middle of theoriginal _third_) volume:

  _Le prix d'Amour c'est l'Amour meme._ Change d'humeur qui s'y plaira, Jamais Hylas ne changera,

  the two last being the continuous refrain of a "villanelle" in whichthis bad man boasts his constancy in inconstancy.

  P. 265, _note_ 1.--It ought perhaps to be mentioned that Mlle. deLussan's paternity is also, and somewhat more probably, attributed toEugene's elder brother, Thomas of Savoy, Comte de Soissons. The lady issaid to have been born in 1682, when Eugene (b. 1663) was barelynineteen; but of course this is not decisive. His brother Thomas_Amedee_ (b. 1656) was twenty-six at the time. The attribution abovementioned gave no second name, and did not specify the relationship toEugene: so I had some difficulty in identifying the person, as therewere, in the century, three Princes Thomas of Savoy, and I had few booksof reference. But my old friend and constant helper in mattershistorical, the Rev. William Hunt, D.Litt., cleared the point up for me.Of the other two--Thomas _Francois_, who was by marriage Comte deSoissons and was grandfather of Eugene and Thomas Amedee, died in thesame year in which Thomas Amedee was born, therefore twenty-six beforeMlle. de Lussan's birth: while the third, Thomas _Joseph_, Eugene'scousin, was not born till 1796, fourteen years after the lady. Thematter is, of course, of no literary importance: but as I had passed thesheet for press before noticing the diversity of statements, I thoughtit better to settle it.

  P. 267. Pajon. I ought not to have forgotten to mention that he bearsthe medal of Sir Walter Scott (Introduction to _The Abbot_) as "apleasing writer of French Fairy Tales."

  Page 453.--Choderlos de Laclos. Some surprise has been expressed by afriend of great competence at my leaving out _Les Liaisons Dangereuses_.I am, of course, aware that "persons of distinction" have taken aninterest in it; and I understand that, not many years ago, theunfortunate author of the beautiful lines _To Cynara_ wasted his timeand talent on translating the thing. To make sure that my formerrejection was not unjustified, I have accordingly read it with caresinc
e the greater part of this book was passed for press; and it shallhave a judgment here, if not in the text. I am unable to find anyredeeming point in it, except that some ingenuity is shown in bringingabout the _denouement_ by a rupture between the villain-hero and thevillainess-heroine, M. le Vicomte de Valmont and Mme. la Marquise deMerteuil. Even this, though fairly craftsmanlike in treatment, is banalenough in idea--that idea being merely that jealousy, in both sexes,survives love, shame, and everything else, even community inscoundrelism--in other words, that the green-eyed monster (like "Vernon"and unlike "Ver") _semper viret_. But it is scarcely worth one's whileto read six hundred pages of very small print in order to learn this. Ofamusement, as apart from this very elementary instruction, I at leastcan find nothing. The pair above mentioned, on whom practically hangsthe whole appeal, are merely disgusting. Their very voluptuousness isaccidental: the sum and substance, the property and business of theirlives and natures, are compact of mischief, malice, treachery, and thedesire of "getting the better of somebody." Nor has this diabolismanything grand or impressive about it--anything that "intends greatly"and glows, as has been said, with a black splendour, in Marlowesque orWebsterian fashion. Nor, again, is it a "Fleur du Mal" of theBaudelairian kind, but only an ugly as well as noxious weed. It isprosaic and suburban. There is neither tragedy nor comedy, neitherpassion nor humour, nor even wit, except a little horse-play. Congreveand Crebillon are as far off as Marlowe and Webster; in fact, thedescent from Crebillon's M. de Clerval to Laclos' M. de Valmont isalmost inexpressible. And, once more, there is nothing to console onebut the dull and obvious moral that to adopt love-making as an"occupation" (_vide_ text, p. 367) is only too likely to result in the[Greek: techne] becoming, in vulgar hands, very [Greek: banausos]indeed.

  The victims and _comparses_ of the story do nothing to atone for theprincipals. The lacrimose stoop-to-folly-and-wring-his-bosom Mme. deTourvel is merely a bore; the _ingenue_ Cecile de Volanges is, as Mme.de Merteuil says, a _petite imbecile_ throughout, and becomes no betterthan she should be with the facility of a predestined strumpet; herlover, Valmont's rival, and Mme. de Merteuil's plaything, M. leChevalier Danceny, is not so very much better than _he_ should be, andnearly as much an imbecile in the masculine way as Cecile in thefeminine; her respectable mother and Valmont's respectable aunt are notmerely as blind as owls are, but as stupid as owls are not. Finally, thebook, which in many particular points, as well as in the generalletter-scheme, follows Richardson closely (adding clumsy notes toexplain the letters, apologise for their style, etc.), exhibits most ofthe faults of its original with hardly any of that original's merits.Valmont, for instance, is that intolerable creature, a pattern BadMan--a Grandison-Lovelace--a prig of vice. Indeed, I cannot see how anyinterest can be taken in the book, except that derived from itsbackground of _tacenda_; and though no one, I think, who has read thepresent volume will accuse me of squeamishness, _I_ can find in it nointerest at all. The final situations referred to above, if artisticallyled up to and crisply told in a story of twenty to fifty pages, mighthave some; but ditchwatered out as they are, I have no use for them. Theletter-form is particularly unfortunate, because, at least as used, itexcludes the ironic presentation which permits one almost to fall inlove with Becky Sharp, and quite to enjoy _Jonathan Wild_. Of course, ifanybody says (and apologists _do_ say that Laclos was, as a man, properin morals and mild in manners) that to hold up the wicked to meredetestation is a worthy work, I am not disposed to argue the point.Only, for myself, I prefer to take moral diatribes from the clergy andaesthetic delectation from the artist. The avenging duel betweenLovelace and Colonel Morden is finely done; that between Valmont andDanceny is an obvious copy of it, and not finely done at all. Some,again, of the riskiest passages in subject are made simply dull by aRichardsonian particularity which has no seasoning either of humour orof excitement. Now, a Richardson _de mauvais lieu_ is more than abore--it is a nuisance, not pure and simple, but impure and complex.

  I have in old days given to a few novels (though, of course, only whenthey richly deserved it) what is called a "slating"--an_ereintement_--as I once had the honour of translating that word inconversation, at the request of a distinguished English novelist, forthe benefit of a distinguished French one. Perhaps an example of theprocess is not utterly out of place in a _History_ of the novel itself.But I have long given up reviewing fiction, and I do not remember anybook of which I shall have to speak as I have just spoken. So _hiccaestus_, etc.--though I am not such a coxcomb as to include _victor_ inthe quotation.

  FOOTNOTES:

  [1] For the opposite or corresponding reasons, it has seemed unnecessaryto dwell on such persons, a hundred and more years later, as Voisenonand La Morliere, who are merely "corrupt followers" of Crebillon _fils_;or, between the two groups, on the numerous failures of thequasi-historical kind which derived partly from Mlle. de Scudery andpartly from Mme. de la Fayette.

  [2] That of the minor "Sensibility" novelists in the last chapter.

  [3] I have once more to thank Professors Ker, Elton, and Gregory Smithfor their kindness in reading my proofs and making most valuablesuggestions; as well as Professor Fitzmaurice-Kelly and the Rev. WilliamHunt for information on particular points.