VII The Advance of Naturalism
1877-1881
“Une Page d’Amour”—The portrayal of Love—Zola buys a house at Médan—His play, “Le Bouton de Rose”—He is accused of stealing the plot of “Une Page d’Amour”—He attacks contemporary French novelists—Opinions of Feuillet and Dumas fils on Zola—“The Republic and Literature”—Zola and the Legion of Honour—Flaubert and “Bouvard”—A Cabinet Council negatives the decoration of Zola—“L’Assommoir” as a play—Zola and Mr. George Moore—The effect of affluence on Zola—The transformation of Médan—Zola’s studies—Humanitarianism enters into his literary conceptions—Scientific fiction and its aim—Preparations for “Nana”—La Païva—The courtesans of the Second Empire—“Nana” is published in “Le Voltaire”—The facial mask of small-pox—“Nana” as a book—Idealism and Naturalism: attractive and repulsive vice—“Les Soirées de Médan”—Maupassant’s “Boule de Suif”—Hereditary insanity and strong passions—Death of Gustave Flaubert—Zola’s essay on Flaubert—Death of Zola’s mother—His campaign in “Le Figaro”—His attack on Hugo’s “L’Ane”—He assails Gambetta—His article on “Drunken Slaves” and defence of “L’Assommoir”—“Nana” as a play—Léontine Massin plays Nana in real life as well as on the stage—Zola’s “Romanciers Naturalistes,” “Documents Littéraires,” “Naturalisme au Théâtre” and “Auteurs Dramatiques”
—His life of unflagging industry.
At an early period of the controversies provoked by “L’Assommoir,” that is when its publication had been transferred to “Le Bien Public,” Zola quitted Paris for L’Estaque, a tiny village nestling below precipitous mountains on the shore of the Golfe des Crottes, beyond which spreads the Mediterranean, with the various islands, including the Château d’If of “Monte Cristo,” which mark the approach to the port of Marseilles. In this quiet retreat, where life among the tunny-fishers was rather primitive, the novelist began to write “Une Page d’Amour,” which he had planned before leaving Paris. Edmond de Goncourt mentions an amusing discussion started by Zola, apropos of this book, at a dinner given to Tourgeneff, who was leaving for Russia. Love, in Zola’s opinion, did not master one so absolutely as some pretended; and, said he, phenomena similar to those which might be observed in love were also to be found in friendship and patriotism. For his part, he had never been madly in love, and therefore found it difficult to depict such a state of things in others. Flaubert and Goncourt admitted a similar incapacity, arising from the same cause, and it was agreed that the only one of the party whom experience might have qualified to portray the great passion adequately, was Tourgeneff, who, however, was unfortunately deficient in the necessary critical sense.
The question whether Zola’s portrayal of love in “Une Page d’Amour” was adequate is certainly open to doubt, and whatever the power and beauty of the book’s pictures of Paris, as viewed from the Trocadéro, at sunrise, at sundown, at night, in a storm, and under the snow, one may demur to the often expressed opinion that they were the best he ever limned. They doubtless cost him an effort, but after the great labour which the writing of “L’Assommoir” had involved, “Une Page d’Amour,” with its few characters and its narrow scope of action, was almost a restful book. It should be observed, indeed, that Zola seldom penned two great panoramic works in succession. His own explanation of the course he took in writing such comparatively quiet books as “Une Page d’Amour,” “La Joie de Vivre” and “Le Rêve” between works of crowded incident like “L’Assommoir,” “Nana,” “Germinal,” “La Terre,” and “La Bête Humaine,” was that he wished to diversify his series as much as possible; but it is also certain that he often found it necessary to husband his energies, to allow himself breathing time, as it were, between two great efforts.
He spent some months at L’Estaque writing “Une Page d’Amour,” and on returning to Paris late in the autumn of 1877, enriched as he was by the sales of “L’Assommoir,” he removed his home to a handsome third-floor flat, 23, Rue de Boulogne. Then, while searching the environs of Paris for a country pied-à-terre, a convenient retreat for the following summer—when the first great Exhibition since the Franco-German War was to be held in Paris—he came upon a little house which took his fancy. It stood on the verge of the village of Médan, which overlooks the Seine, beyond Poissy. Zola merely wished to rent it, but the owner desired a purchaser, not a tenant, and in the end the novelist bought the little place for nine thousand francs.1 A few weeks later, says Alexis, builders, painters, and upholsterers were turned into the house to repair and fit it for occupation, and for several years they remained busy there on the various enlargements which followed and the other work which became necessary.
Already in 1876, having acquired by his contributions to “Le Bien Public” what may be at least called a conspicuous position as a dramatic critic of very absolute views, Zola, still hankering for theatrical success, had written a farce called “Le Bouton de Rose” intended for the Palais Royal Theatre. At the beginning of 1877 the parts were distributed, and some rehearsals even took place; then, however, the success of the work seeming doubtful, it was postponed; and Zola himself, somewhat diffident as to its merit, at last decided to withdraw it altogether. But early in 1878 the great uproar occasioned by “L’Assommoir” inspired the directors of the Palais Royal Theatre with a fresh desire to stage this play by a man whose name was now on everybody’s lips. They urged him to consent, and he ultimately did so, making various alterations which the directors deemed to be advisable. The play was then rehearsed again, and both the managers and the actors, now as sanguine as they had previously been doubtful, imagined that it would prove a triumph. But at the first performance (May 6, 1878) the audience, after receiving the first act with favour, became angry during the second, and hissed the third freely. In vain did Geoffroy, the leading comedian, endeavour to announce the author’s name according to usage; such a tremendous din arose when he appeared before the footlights, that he was unable to make himself heard. Meantime Zola, in the slips, was saying to the crestfallen directors: “You see I was right. You insisted on staging the piece in spite of me. Your earlier decision to drop it was the better one.”
In accordance with custom, he had arranged to celebrate the first performance by a supper at Véfour’s. In a sense the repast was a funereal one, though it proved by no means doleful, for Zola took the failure of his play right cheerfully, merely regretting that he would now have to modify the order of the work which he had proposed to undertake that year. Had “Le Bouton de Rose” been successful, he had intended to begin another play, based on his novel “La Curée,” but that would now have to wait while he started on the next novel of his series. Some days later, when dining at M. Charpentier’s, he told Goncourt that the failure of “Le Bouton de Rose” made him feel quite young again. The success of “L’Assommoir” had unnerved him, whereas he now seemed to have got back to his twentieth year. He needed to be imbued with an angry fighting spirit, said he, in order to write the many volumes which were required to complete his Rougon-Macquart series.
“Une Page d’Amour” was about this time issued serially by “Le Bien Public,” whose readers took it more quietly than they had taken “L’Assommoir”; but when it appeared as a volume2 Zola was accused of having stolen his plot from a novel called “Les Amours d’un Homme Laid,” by a Madame Berton, née Samson. It may be said at once that there are several points of resemblance between the plots of these stories. A young widow, a doctor, and a sickly child are prominent characters in both. At the same time there is great difference of treatment, and Zola, on hearing of the accusation, which first emanated from a journal called “La Paix Sociale,” at once wrote to it: “I have never read Madame Berton-Samson’s story, and until to-day I was ignorant of the existence both of the author and of the work.”
To an unprejudiced person it may well seem that the similarity existing between his story and Madame Berton’s was due solely to the long arm of coincidence. But of course his enemies asserted that he lied. According to them he was always lying: and indeed everything he wrote, from the time of attaining any prominence, was denounced as being wholly or in part plagiarism. Even “L’Assommoir” was alleged to be merely a crib from Denis Poulot’s “Le Sublime”;3 and, briefly, his adversaries would not allow that he was possessed of a single spark of originality.
At this time (1878) he had so many irons in the fire, as the saying goes, that it is difficult to follow his work in strict chronological order. We find him preparing his novel “Nana,” collecting materials for it, devising its plot; penning theatrical criticisms for “Le Bien Public,” contributing to “Le Voltaire”; planning with Messrs. Busnach and Gastineau a dramatic version of “L’Assommoir”; and writing a series of papers, chiefly on “Les Romanciers Naturalistes,” for the “Viestnik Yevropi” of St. Petersburg. One of those papers, a general critique of contemporary French novelists, their methods and their abilities, was a slashing and in some respects unjust onslaught on all who did not conform to the tenets of the Naturalist school. It was published by the Russian review in September (1878), and a month later was denounced by a Swiss periodical, “La Bibliothèque Universelle,” which gave a résumé of its contents. Such, however, was then the “insularity” of France with respect to literary happenings abroad, that December arrived before a Parisian journal, “Le Figaro,” discovered the obnoxious paper and proceeded to rate its author. This it did in its most virulent style, borrowing for the occasion a variety of slang epithets from the pages of “L’Assommoir.” And as a crowning stroke Zola was accused of arrant cowardice. He did not dare to attack his contemporaries in the French language and in a French journal, it was said; he sought a foreign country and a foreign tongue for his venomous outpourings.
His reply to this accusation was characteristic. He offered “Le Figaro” the original French manuscript of his article—which differed in many respects from the résumé issued by the Swiss review—and “Le Figaro,” which had denounced some of his remarks as unprintable, speedily inserted the entire paper in its literary supplement.4 The uproar in literary circles then became terrific. Among those whom Zola assailed were Hector Malot, Ferdinand Fabre, Octave Feuillet, Victor Cherbuliez, Edmond About, Louis Ulbach, Erckmann-Chatrian, Paul Féval, Jules Claretie, and Léon Cladel; and it was pointed out that the only writers whom he praised or spared were those whose works were issued by his own publisher, M. Charpentier! Of course, said the quidnuncs, he must have been paid for this service; M. Charpentier could not have given him less than ten thousand francs for his article, though if M. Calmann-Lévy, for instance, had offered him twenty thousand, he would doubtless have written up that publisher’s writers instead of abusing them.
As already mentioned, the article in question was in some measure unjust, for it assumed a priori that only the Naturalist school of fiction was entitled to live; but at the same time it contained some sound criticism. Nobody nowadays would deny the proposition that Hector Malot, in whom at one time many hopes had centred, never produced a really great book; that Jules Claretie also, in spite of his many undoubted gifts, never rose above the second rank as a novelist, that Cladel rendered himself ridiculous by the affectation of his style, and that men like About and Feuillet had greatly declined at the period when Zola wrote. But, naturally enough, these, and all the others whom he named, disliked to be told to their faces that they had always been or had become inferior men; and thus no little wrath was kindled in many directions. There was, however, one man who not only showed no resentment but unhesitatingly acknowledged his own great admiration for Zola’s work. And this, strange as it may seem, was Octave Feuillet, who freely expressed himself in that sense both to his friend, Adrien Marx, and to the present writer. The latter had occasion to call upon him with respect to one of his last books, and, some general conversation on literary matters supervening, Feuillet mentioned Zola, saying that he had at first found it almost impossible to read the writings of the Naturalist master, but having forced himself to do so, his feeling of repulsion had departed, leaving sympathy and admiration in its place. Another famous writer whom Zola attacked even more bitterly than he attacked Feuillet, one with whom he had many a literary duel—Alexandre Dumas fils—also ended by expressing very kindly sentiments. “My literary standpoint,” he said to the present writer, “is not the same as Zola’s. On some matters no agreement between us is possible. But he is a strong man; and,” added Dumas bluffly, with a momentary flash of the paternal manner, “what I particularly like about him is his damned frankness.”5 Later, when Zola became a candidate for the French Academy, Dumas fils was one of his most consistent supporters.6 Jules Claretie also evinced an equally forgiving disposition.
As for Zola, his literary views certainly became more liberal as he grew older; but at the period one has now reached he was in his most arbitrary and dogmatic mood, going so far as to suggest in a pamphlet that each régime must have its appropriate literature, that Naturalist literature alone was suited to the Republic, and that the Republic itself must prove Naturalist, or otherwise would assuredly collapse. “By Naturalism,” said he, “I mean analytical and experimental methods based on facts and human documents. There must be agreement between the social movement, which is the cause, and literature, which is the effect. If the Republic, blind as to itself, and failing to understand that it exists by the force of a scientific formula, should begin to persecute that formula in literature, this would be a sign that the Republic is not ripe for facts, and that it must once again give place to one, that is dictatorship.”7
The pamphlet we have quoted was issued early in 1879. Some months previously both Gustave Flaubert and Alphonse Daudet, being well acquainted with M. Agénor Bardoux, an Auvergnat poetaster and politician appointed Minister of Public Instruction, had suggested to him that Zola, who by “L’Assommoir” had now risen to a conspicuous position, ought to be made a knight of the Legion of Honour.8 Daudet, in this matter, was actuated by friendship and admiration, and Flaubert deemed himself to be under a great obligation to Zola. It seems that while Flaubert was writing his “Bouvard et Pécuchet” (which did not appear till after his death), he had often spoken of it to his friends in a somewhat mysterious manner, never actually giving the names of his characters, but referring to them merely by their initials, B. and P. Zola was then working on “Son Excellence Eugène Rougon,” and one day, when he and Flaubert met at a lunch given by M. Charpentier, he mentioned that a capital name had occurred to him for one of his characters, this name being Bouvard, which, with its suggestion of blotting-paper, was certainly a fit appellation for a civil service scribe. It so happened—such is coincidence—that Zola and Flaubert proposed to bestow it on much the same type of man; but the former, of course, was quite ignorant of his friend’s intentions, for Flaubert, restricting himself to the initial B., had never allowed the word Bouvard to escape his lips. When it fell from Zola’s, the author of “Madame Bovary” was greatly upset. “He became quite strange,” wrote Zola on subsequently relating the incident, “and after lunch he took me to the bottom of Charpentier’s garden, where, with a great show of emotion, he implored me to surrender the name of Bouvard to him. I assented, laughing; but he remained very grave, plainly touched, and even declared that he would not have persevered with his book if I had insisted on using the name. He looked upon his work as being entirely in those two names Bouvard and Pécuchet, and could not picture it without them.”9
Now Flaubert was one of the best-hearted men in the world. He regarded Zola’s trifling concession as an act of great generosity, and it was to mark his sense of it that he solicited for his friend the Cross of the Legion of Honour. Pressed both by Daudet and Flaubert, M. Bardoux showed himself very favourably disposed, and when, in accordance with usage, he was visited by Zola, he told him straightly he would be gazetted on the next National Fête-day July 14, 1878. That date came and went, however, and Zola’s name did not appear in the “Journal Officiel”—the cross promised to him going, instead, to Ferdinand Fabre. Other occasions presented themselves, Bardoux was often urged to keep his promise, but as often evaded it, and of course when the uproar provoked by Zola’s paper on his fellow-novelists supervened, it afforded a good excuse for shelving the matter altogether. Meantime the affair had become common talk in certain literary circles, and Zola, who felt that he was being made ridiculous, had more than once threatened to fling the cross in Bardoux’s face if he should eventually tender it. Alexis, in recounting the affair, throws virtually all the blame on the Minister; but the latter, after various paltry and untruthful excuses, which certainly put him in a bad light, told Edmond de Goncourt that if he had failed to keep his promise it was not his fault, but really that of his colleagues in the Government.10
It really seems to be the case that the question whether Zola should be decorated was made an affair of State, solemnly debated by the Council of Ministers at the Élysée Palace, Marshal MacMahon being in the chair, probably with his usual cigar between his lips, and his usual bottle of green Chartreuse standing handy on a cheffonnier, in order that he might help himself whenever “he felt so disposed,” which, according to the scandal-mongers of the day, was pretty often. And the brave, honest, and narrow-minded Marshal, who—perhaps at his wife’s instigation—absolutely refused to promote the impious Renan from the rank of chevalier to that of officer of the Legion of Honour, was in thorough agreement with all the Ministers who opposed the unlucky Bardoux when he asked that the red ribbon might be conferred on the obscene Zola. On his side, the latter, ignorant of the real circumstances of the case, and more and more annoyed by the spiteful allusions to the affair which appeared in some of the newspapers, issued an open letter formally signifying his renunciation of the red ribbon, with the result that for some years there was no further question of “decorating” the foremost novelist of France.
On January 18, 1879, the Ambigu Theatre gave the first performance of the dramatic version of “L’Assommoir” prepared by Messrs. Busnach and Gastineau, who, in point of fact, had been largely assisted by Zola, though his name did not appear on the bills, and he allowed all the merit of the play’s success to be attributed to his colleagues. Goncourt tells us that during the rehearsals his melancholy mien quite chilled the actors, who by no means anticipated a success.11 While the first performance was in progress Zola sat reading in the manager’s private room, and on the fall of the curtain his friends repaired thither to inform him that, apart from a little hissing, everything had gone off satisfactorily. Nevertheless, the critics attacked the play, an English writer, George Augustus Sala, evincing particular distress in a long article which recalled Sarcey’s customary brief verdict: “That man Zola makes me ill.”12
But all Paris had read “L’Assommoir” as a novel, and wished to see it on the stage;13 and, besides, even the critics could not deny that Madame Hélène Petit’s impersonation of the unhappy Gervaise was a great personal triumph. Thus crowds flocked to the Théâtre de l’Ambigu, whose director, Henri Chabrillat, an ex-journalist and novelist, who had commanded the Francs-tireurs de la Presse during the Franco-German War, suddenly found himself making a fortune.
In honour of the staff and company of the Ambigu, the authors of the play ended by giving a ball at the Élysée Montmartre, which, by the way, figured in Zola’s story, and Mr. George Moore, the well-known author of “A Mummer’s Wife” and “Esther Waters,” has related that his first meeting with Zola—of whom he became for several years the chief English supporter—occurred at this particular entertainment.14 Mr. Moore—who had then only produced his “Flowers of Passion,” and was therefore known in Parisian literary and art circles as a young poet—attended the ball dressed as a Parisian workman, and was engaged to dance with Gervaise. He had no opportunity for conversation when Manet introduced him to Zola, but he called at Médan a few weeks afterwards, and a close friendship sprang up between him and the author of “L’Assommoir.” Each, however, was possessed of strong personal convictions, and, as years went by, Zola’s life and work gradually took a course of which Mr. Moore did not approve, perhaps because—as admitted by himself—he failed to understand it.
The law of the world is evolution. L’homme absurde est celui qui ne change jamais; and Zola, amid the very triumph of “L’Assommoir,” at the very moment when he was expounding the principles of Naturalism in the “Viestnik Yevropi” and “Le Voltaire” (which he joined when “Le Bien Public” ceased publication), was already, and quite unconsciously, perhaps, undergoing a change. He was in some degree carried away by the sudden accession of ample means after years of poverty and years of battle. In the long run he showed himself superior to fortune, whether it were favourable or adverse, but he found its first smile irresistible, as so often happens with those who have long toiled and suffered and cursed their fate. Briefly, he proved no exception to the general rule, and he was taunted with having failed to depart from it, being candidly told in print that, like Herbert Spencer and Gustave Flaubert, he ought to have been quite content with mere lodging-house surroundings, and that he made a ridiculous use of his comparative wealth.
Most of his money, it may be mentioned, was lavished on his property at Médan, to which he made many additions, building, for instance, a large square tower in which he fitted up a spacious workroom, whose huge window suggested that of a studio. In that room in later years most of his books were written. And as wealth accrued a second large tower was added to the first, followed by some smaller ones flanking the entrance of the property. All this was denounced as bad taste; and unquestionably, from an architectural point of view, Médan, with one bit of building added here and another there, became a strange-looking place. At the same time it remains an interesting memorial of the rise of Zola’s fortunes. One knows, for instance, that the first tower was built with money derived from “L’Assommoir,” that the second was erected with some of the proceeds of “Nana,” that this and that enlargement were paid for by “La Terre” or “La Débâcle.” Certainly no common parvenu would have left such a tell-tale record. It is doubtful whether he would have been content to dwell during the greater part of the year in an out-of-the way village like Médan; and even had he retained possession of the property he would surely have demolished the original humble little house and have erected some grand Louis Treize château on the site.
But another charge preferred against Zola was that he wasted time and money in collecting works of art and curios—the latter more often than the former. In his novel, “L’Œuvre,” he gave an explanation of this which is worth quoting:
“His [Sandoz’s, otherwise Zola’s] drawing-room was becoming crowded with old furniture, old tapestry, nick-nacks of all countries and all times—an overflowing torrent of things which had begun at Batignolles with an old pot of Rouen ware, which Henriette [Madame Zola] had given her husband on one of his fête days. They ran about the curiosity shops together; they felt a joyful passion for buying; and he now satisfied the old longings of his youth, the romanticist aspirations which the first books he had read had engendered. Thus this writer, who was so fiercely modern, lived amid the worm-eaten middle ages which he had dreamt of when he was a lad of fifteen. As an excuse, he laughingly declared that handsome modern furniture cost too much, whereas with old things, even common ones, you immediately obtained some effect and colour. There was nothing of the collector about him, his one concern was decoration, broad effects; and to tell the truth, the drawing-room, lighted by two lamps of old Delft ware, derived quite a soft, warm tone from the dull gold of the dalmaticas used for upholstering the seats, the yellowish incrustations of the Italian cabinets and Dutch show-cases, the faded hues of the Oriental door-hangings, the hundred little notes of the ivory, the crockery and the enamel work, pale with age, which showed against the dull red hangings.”15
No doubt, among the great quantity of tapestry, carved wood, old furniture, pottery, church embroideries, and so forth, which Zola thus gathered together, there were occasionally things which did not suggest the best taste or the greatest accuracy of judgment. But the statement quoted above shows that he disclaimed collecting in the ordinary sense, and made purchases solely for decorative purposes. And, in any case, even if he bought a few things whose only recommendation was their quaintness, or accepted an object as genuine when an expert would have known it to be spurious, his transgressions in those matters were of no importance to the world at large, and one is surprised that some of his “candid friends” should have thought it worth while to expatiate on them.
It has been urged, however, that directly money came to Zola, instead of yielding to a desire for comfort, he ought to have devoted himself to travel and study, and particularly have restrained his literary output. He would have derived benefit from foreign travel undoubtedly, but his self-set task of the Rougon-Macquart series long riveted him to France. As for study, he was always studying, books as well as men, and Mr. George Moore’s suggestion that he had little acquaintance with the heart of French literature16 was erroneous, for abundant proof of the contrary will be found in the eight volumes of his collected essays and articles. These also show that he kept abreast of the literature of his time, and all his friends are aware that new books and literary periodicals, to say nothing of a profusion of newspapers, encompassed him during the last twenty years of his life. But, in a large degree, he certainly set the literature of the past behind him, regarding it as being chiefly of historical value. And whether he were right or wrong in that matter, it must be obvious that his attitude was in keeping with his character as an evolutionist. In a word, he was more concerned respecting the future of literature than respecting its antecedents.
But it has been said that a change began to appear in Zola about the time of “L’Assommoir,” and the change we more particularly mean is that by which the novelist expanded into a reformer. As scores of his newspaper articles, collected and uncollected, testify, the injustice of the social system had always been manifest to him. With the degradation of many individual lives he was well acquainted. His own rise to affluence made him yet more conscious of the difference between the rich and the poor. His descent into the mire of life, to seek there his Coupeau, his Lantier, and his Gervaise, left on his mind some impress of the horror which he imparted to others. And thus, with him, art no longer remained art for art’s sake only,—a broad humanitarianism gradually entered into his literary conceptions.
At the outset the novelist and the reformer were certainly more or less at variance. The cuisine of politics still remained distasteful to Zola, and he is often found protesting that he is merely a literary man and does not wish to intervene in passing events. But as the years elapse the reforming instinct becomes more and more powerful, gathers increased strength from such works as “Germinal” and “La Terre,” till at last the humanitarian feeling, triumphing over everything else, trampling unrestrained upon all literary canons, finds voice in “Lourdes” and “Paris,” “Fécondité” and “Travail,” and at a supreme moment impels Zola to champion the chosen victim of Roman Catholic fanaticism and military infallibility.
At an early stage of his gradual transformation he is seen defining the novelist as an exponent, an analyst, a dissector of human life. His work is to be accomplished in strict accordance with science, and the methods of the great scientist, Claude Bernard, are held up to him as examples. This idea of “le Roman Expérimental,” as Zola finally called the scientific fiction he expounded, had long haunted him; but when he wished to give it really adequate expression he was momentarily at a loss as to where he might find the most forcible and most modern exposition of scientific principles and methods. It was his friend M. Yves Guyot, a many-sided man, then only a journalist, later a Minister of State, and now eminent as a political economist, who recommended him to study Claude Bernard.17 On that study Zola based one of the most famous of his essays. Science, which appeals so little to some minds, particularly literary minds of the average calibre, is really the greatest humanitarian agency we possess. The man who experiments, the man who dissects, does not do so for mere pleasure; his aim is the increase and diffusion of knowledge, the benefit of the world, the advantage of his fellow-men. That which is learnt in the laboratory, the workshop, the operating room is put to use in a thousand ways. In physiological and medical science the work may often be very repulsive, yet it reveals the causes of many flaws and ailments, and points to the means of cure. A similar aim became Zola’s as he proceeded with his novels. He made it his purpose to inquire into all social sores, all the imperfections and lapses of collective and individual life that seemed to him to require remedying. That everything should be made manifest in order that everything might be healed, such was the motto he adopted.
Yet in the first instance he did not preach, he did not denounce, he contented himself with stating the facts; he confined himself to analysis, dissection, and demonstration, and he used the novel as his vehicle, because the novel alone appealed to the great majority of people to whom it was necessary that the facts should be made patent if any remedy were to be applied.
But the prejudiced, the purblind, and the foolish, the hundreds of so-called critics who had glanced at his novels but had never perused a line of the essays in which he enunciated his principles, responded by accusing him of a degraded partiality for filth, of wallowing in mire, because such was his favourite element. The sensation created by “L’Assommoir” had been great, that which attended the production of “Nana” was perhaps greater.
Much of the year 1878 was spent by Zola in making preparations for that book. Incredible as it may seem, his critics have actually reproached him for his previous ignorance of the “successful” Parisian courtesan. His knowledge of her had certainly been limited to her out-door life; like others he had seen her, elbowed her at the theatres, in the Bois, and at other places of public resort. That was all. He therefore applied to friends and acquaintances for information. Edmond de Goncourt, who had repeatedly dined at the table of La Païva18 before she became the wife of Henckel von Donnersmarck, gave him a variety of information; Ludovic Halévy initiated him into the demi-mondaine side of theatrical life, to which, given all his intercourse with Hortense Schneider, Zulma Bouffar, and others, he was the most competent of guides; men of fashion, who had wasted their best years and much of their money among the harlots of the Second Empire, told him tales of their experiences; he visited the house of one belle impure from basement to attic, and he supped at the house of another. Of the lower-class unfortunate he had, perforce, seen a good deal during his bohemian years in the Quartier Latin, and all observers of women of that category are aware that in most cases, though they may acquire some superficial polish on rising to wealth, their real natures undergo little change.
Zola’s enemies naturally imputed the writing of “Nana” to his partiality for vice and scandal, but those who are acquainted with “L’Assommoir” will recognise that, in such a series as “Les Rougon-Macquart,” a study of the courtesan was the necessary corollary of the study on drink and the general degradation of the working class. It is from such homes as those of Coupeau and Gervaise that spring nine-tenths of the unhappy creatures so grimly denominated filles de joie. Nana’s childhood and youth had already been recounted in “L’Assommoir,” and it was certain that Zola would not leave her there. How could he picture the degenerescence of a period if he omitted the harlot, who had played—people hardly seem to recognise it nowadays—such a prominent, such a commanding part, during the years when Napoleon III.—dallying himself with La Castiglione, La Bellanger, and a dozen others, while his cousin Prince Napoleon Jérôme kept the notorious Cora Pearl—had transformed the proud city of Paris into the brothel of Europe? Again, scores of Zola’s contemporaries, writers of various degrees, by trying to poetise the courtesan, had increased her influence a hundred-fold, and the time had come to check her encroachments by exhibiting her in her true colours, with all her vulgarity, her greed, her degradation, her shamelessness and heartlessness.
In September, 1879, when Zola had written about half of “Nana,” he arranged with M. Laffitte, editor of “Le Voltaire,” which was then publishing his articles on “scientific fiction,” to produce the story in that newspaper, and M. Laffitte at once advertised it in a fashion worthy of Barnum himself. Huge posters appeared on all the walls of Paris, “displayed” announcements invaded the newspapers, sandwich men patrolled the streets, ticket-advertisements were even affixed to the gutta-percha tubes of the pipe-lights in the tobacconists’ shops; and, indeed, upon every side one found the imperious injunction: Read Nana! Nana!! Nana!!19 All this greatly vexed Zola, who had shut himself up at Médan to finish the book, and who did not at all desire to be advertised in such an extravagant fashion. To make matters worse, the serial issue had scarcely commenced (October 16, 1879) when several newspapers began to discuss the story, all the quidnuncs demonstrating by A plus B that the opening chapter was not at all such as it ought to be, and that the work was bound to prove a failure. Then, too, letters full of suggestions or criticism or denunciation rained upon Zola at Médan, putting his nerves to the severest test. Nevertheless, he worked on steadily, taking the greatest care over even the most trifling details, employing a friend to obtain precise information on such matters as phaetons and tandems, the decorations of Mabille, the aspect of the rooms on the top-floor of the Grand Hotel, the view from them, and the facial mask of a woman dying (as Nana died) from small-pox.20
As the publication proceeded in “Le Voltaire” the complaints became more numerous. A good many people professed to be shocked, Gambetta presently complained to the editor that the story was “too strong”; and the editor requested Zola’s permission to curtail or omit certain passages. This was accorded, the latter half of the work appearing in “Le Voltaire” in a bowdlerized form. On January 2, 1880, Zola started on the fourteenth and last chapter, and on January 7 he completed it. “Let me tell you a great piece of news,” he wrote to a friend that day, “I finished ‘Nana’ this morning.... What relief! Never did any previous work of mine upset me as this has done. At present let it be worth what it may, it has ceased to exist for me. I write to you in the joy of deliverance. My last chapter seems to me to be the most weird and successful thing I have ever written.”21
A few weeks later, that is on February 15, “Nana” appeared in book form, the passages omitted from “Le Voltaire” being reinstated in the text. Large orders having been received from various parts of the world, M. Charpentier had ordered fifty-five thousand copies to be printed, but on the very day of publication he found it necessary to order ten thousand more.22 In the case of “Nana,” as in that of “L’Assommoir,” the public gave no heed to the critics, who, of course, raised their customary protests. In certain matters of detail their objections were well founded. Zola had made a few mistakes in dealing with some of the minutiæœ of theatrical and turf life, and, as Madame Edmond Adam remarked in the “Nouvelle Revue”—and as the author himself subsequently admitted—Nana was shown accomplishing in few years what, in actual life, would have taken a woman much longer to accomplish. That, however, was forced upon Zola by the scheme of his series, the incidents recorded in which had to occur between the years 1852 and 1870.23 When all is said, taking “Nana” in its ensemble, it was certainly the most truthful picture ever traced of the so-called Parisian world of pleasure in Imperial times. Of course the book was denounced as immoral. The Parisian smart set shrieked loudly, many a Boulevardian journalist, whose looseness of life was notorious, perorated in club and café respecting the amazing depravity of that man Zola, and in addition to abusive newspaper articles, there again came scurrilous pamphlets and parodies after the fashion of those which had followed “L’Assommoir.”
Zola did not reply immediately; but in 1881, when “Nana” had been dramatised, he contributed a few articles to “Le Figaro” on the subject, besides penning a longer paper on “Immorality in Literature,” in which he contended that writers of the Idealist school made vice all roses and rapture, whereas the Naturalists made it repulsive. And he was absolutely convinced, he said, that far more heads had been turned, more young men and girls and women led into dangerous courses, by the works of George Sand, Octave Feuillet, Barbey d’Aurévilly, and even Sir Walter Scott, than by the writings of Flaubert, Balzac, Goncourt, and their followers. As for “Nana,” said he, it had given offence because it was a true picture, and therefore spoilt the pleasure of the viveurs of Paris, who wished to see everything couleur de rose beneath a cloud of poudre-de-riz.24
In 1880, after the publication of “Nana,” Zola wrote several short stories. He had published one, “Naïs Micoulin,” in a paper called “La Réforme,” towards the close of the previous year; and he now gave “La Fête à Coqueville,” “L’Inondation,” and “Nantas,” to “Le Voltaire,” to which journal he also contributed some papers on Théophile Gautier, Ste.-Beuve, and others. But a better known publication in which he was interested appeared during the spring. This was the collection of stories called “Les Soirées de Médan,”25 to which Zola contributed his well-known tale, “L’Attaque du Moulin,” which he had previously published in Russia, and which subsequently provided his friend M. Alfred Bruneau with the subject for an opera. Nowadays in its form as a story “L’Attaque du Moulin” has become a reading book in many French and English schools.
As mentioned in a previous chapter, five younger writers, Alexis, Huysmans, Maupassant, Céard, and Hennique, had gathered round Zola, whose literary views they largely shared.26 Each of them contributed to the so-called “Soirées de Médan,” the preface of which stated: “The following stories have been published previously, some in France, others abroad. It has seemed to us that they have sprung from one and the same idea, that their philosophy is identical. We therefore unite them. We are prepared for all the attacks, the bad faith, and the ignorance of which current criticism has already given us so many examples. Our only concern has been to affirm publicly what are really our friendships and our literary tendencies.”
At that time, of the six writers responsible for that preface, only Zola had acquired a position; and such a solemn manifesto seemed therefore somewhat presumptuous, the more particularly as, apart from Zola’s tale, the only other of real merit in the book was Guy de Maupassant’s. For him, so far as the book-reading public was concerned, “Les Soirées de Médan” proved virtually a début, whose promise his subsequent writings confirmed. “Boule de Suif,” as he called his contribution to the volume, was the tale of a woman, who is shown sacrificing herself, during the Franco-German War, for the convenience and safety of others. They entreat her in that sense, and yet as soon as they are free they spurn her and abandon her to her shame. This woman, like the other people figuring in the story, actually lived,27 and indeed it would be difficult to find half a dozen really imaginary characters in all Guy de Maupassant’s tales. He carried the passion for personalities even farther than Alphonse Daudet did, and there exists, it is said, a set of his writings, on the margins of which he himself wrote the real names of almost every person and locality he ever described. One may conclude that he was perhaps a more genuine Naturalist than Zola, his work being invariably based on “human documents,” the fruit of personal observation and experience. This occasionally tended to make his art unduly photographic; but, at the same time, as is well known, his literary style was excellent, and from that standpoint some of his tales are undoubtedly masterpieces of their kind.
Unfortunately there was insanity in Guy de Maupassant’s family, which was old, of good nobility, but limited means. His father, who had been a painter and had played a prominent part in founding a famous Paris art club, had died in a lunatic asylum. The same fate befell his brother; and, according to some accounts, there was insanity on his mother’s side also. In any case, from birth onward a dreadful threat hung over Guy de Maupassant, and the life he led from the time he became his own master was not calculated to ward off the danger. He was a man of the strongest passions, a beau male, as the French say; and women began the work which absinthe, opium, and morphia completed. At last, still young in years, at the height of his celebrity, he attempted his life, and was only saved from immediate death to languish awhile in an asylum. One cannot think of him, as of some others, without feeling the force of the contention that very little may at times separate genius from insanity.
Immediately “Les Soirées de Médan” appeared, its contributors were chaffed by the newspapers for attributing undue importance to themselves; and Zola was said to be bringing up these young men in leading-strings for the express advancement of his literary theories. A rather acrimonious controversy ensued, Zola repeatedly declaring that he was not, and did not wish to be, a chef d’école, and that those with whom he was associated were his friends and not his disciples. But the discussion suddenly ceased, for the literary world of Paris was startled by the unexpected news of Gustave Flaubert’s death at Croisset, near Rouen.
During the previous Easter (March, 1880) the veteran author had received Daudet, Zola, Charpentier, Maupassant, and Goncourt at his country place, and Goncourt has related in his “Journal” how thoroughly they enjoyed Flaubert’s paternal hospitality, and how on Easter Monday they lingered in Rouen, ferreting among old curiosity shops, playing billiards, and planning a diner fin at the principal hotel. When, however, they wished to give their order, consternation fell on them: it was a holiday, all the provision shops were closed, the hotel larder was virtually empty, and the diner fin resolved itself into veal cutlets and cheese. That amusing experience was still in Zola’s mind when, on May 8, he received at Médan this laconic telegram from Maupassant: “Flaubert dead.” Dead—and they had left him so gay and so full of life and health! Zola was profoundly attached to Flaubert, and the tidings quite unmanned him. On May 11 he started for Le Croisset and attended the funeral, of which he has left a deeply interesting account, instinct with all the grief of one who has lost a near and dear friend. In these later years various English versions of some of Flaubert’s books have been published, but, so far as the present writer is aware, no editor or publisher has thought of utilising Zola’s account of Flaubert as an introduction to a translation. Yet that account is perhaps Zola’s best work as an essayist,—full of interest, and much of it admirable in tone and style. One may say, too, that anybody wishing to form an accurate opinion of Gustave Flaubert, both as a writer and as a man, cannot do better than read the hundred pages which Zola devoted to him in his “Romanciers Naturalistes.”
But another blow fell on Zola in 1880. In October his mother, long ailing and crippled, passed away at Médan. Various painful circumstances attended the death and the funeral; and Goncourt, writing at the end of the year, pictures Zola as having become a perfect hypochondriac in consequence of this loss. He complained of all sorts of ailments, kidney disease and palpitations of the heart, talked of his own death as being near at hand, and feared that he would not have time to finish anything. Briefly, “he was filling the world with his name, his books were selling by the hundred thousand, no other author, perhaps, had ever created such a stir, and yet he felt profoundly miserable.”28
About the time when his mother died his articles on “scientific fiction,” previously issued, some in “Le Voltaire” and others in the “Viestnik Yevropi,” were republished in a volume.29 One of them had greatly offended Laffitte, the editor of “Le Voltaire,” who being mixed up in sundry transactions with some of Gambetta’s satellites, resented Zola’s caustic allusions to them. Nor was an article on some scandal occasioned by the erotic publications of the “Gil Blas” to his liking. He ended by accusing his contributor of defending obscenity and of treating public men with disrespect. A rupture followed. Zola castigated Laffitte in a foot-note to one of the incriminated articles when he reissued them in a book, and turned to “Le Figaro,” which gave him all liberty to defend his ideas. He then began a series of articles, republished in a volume the following year under the title of “Une Campagne.”30 They dealt with a great variety of subjects, political, literary, and social, and show how wide was the interest which Zola took in the affairs of his time. One of them on Victor Hugo and his poem “L’Ane” caused a sensation, for most people deemed it positive sacrilege to attack the greatest literary glory of the age. The uproar was even heard across the channel, and Mr. Swinburne, who admired “L’Ane,” and held Zola to be mere “stench,” manifested particular indignation. But a quarter of a century has elapsed since then, and it is a question whether many people would be inclined nowadays to regard “L’Ane” as a great poem. In a sense, Zola’s attack was unkind, but it was essentially one on fetish worship, on the habit of lavishing indiscriminate praise on everything, good, bad, or indifferent, that might come from the pen of a writer of eminence. Let us remember that there has never yet been a poet of whom one might say his every line is a masterpiece. Homer nodded, so did Hugo, and so has even Mr. Swinburne himself.
Some of Zola’s articles in “Le Figaro” dealt with his own work; others with that of his friends Goncourt, Huysmans, Maupassant, and Daudet; but several were political—attacks on Gambetta and so forth, written in the same spirit which had prompted the article on Hugo. Gambetta, as will be remembered, had now (1880-1881) reached the crisis of his life. The Tunisian debt scandal, the frauds of the Union Générale,—a Catholic bank established with the papal blessing for the purpose of wresting financial power from the Jews,—were associated by some folk with his “great ministry.” Besides, his proposals for changing the electoral system, his patronage of reactionary generals, able men, it must be admitted, divided the Republican party. He was accused, too, of acting as a drag, of checking the progress of the democracy, of sacrificing principles to personal interest. He had certainly become somewhat sluggish so far as measures were concerned, and, as Zola put it, he seemingly imagined that orations sufficed for everything. “It was not his actions which gave him his position, but his phrases,” Zola wrote. “He has always defeated his adversaries by phrases. He has acquired authority by phrases. If there be any question of taking a forward step he makes a speech. If there be a question of warding off a danger he makes a speech. If there be a question of making his authority felt he again makes a speech. He speechifies without a break, and all over the country.”31
Later, after Gambetta had come into conflict with his constituents, and the elections of 1881 had shown that the so-called Opportunist cause was seriously compromised, Zola returned to the attack, and one may the more appropriately quote a passage from his article called “Drunken Slaves,” as it shows how deftly he profited by an opportunity to defend his literary cause while dealing with a political subject. Before giving that passage, however, it is as well to explain that Gambetta, having encountered a hostile reception at an electoral meeting at Charonne, had completely lost his head. Threatening his adversaries (all working-men) with his walking stick he shouted to them furiously: “Silence, you squallers! silence, you brawlers!... You pack of drunken slaves, I will track you to your lairs!” And as if this were not sufficient, his newspaper, “La République Française,” added in its next issue such choice epithets as: “Cowards, incapables, prostitutes’ bullies, jail-birds, and pot-house loafers.” All who might not vote for the great man having been thus stigmatised in advance, it might be assumed when Gambetta, in lieu of his usual great majority, polled only 9,404 votes against 8,799, that about half the electorate was given over to drink, crime, and depravity. Taking this as his text Zola wrote as follows:
“The figures on either side are nearly equal, so it is established that at Belleville and Charonne one of every two citizens is never sober.... Yes, one half of the masses is composed of brawlers, drunkards, and cowards. M. Gambetta said to them: ‘We will see which side is the most numerous’; and they have seen. Of 20,000 citizens 10,000 are drunken slaves... 10,000 drunken slaves! The figures make me thoughtful. I remember a novelist who wrote a novel called ‘L’Assommoir.’ It was a conscientious study of the ravages caused by drink among the working classes of Paris. It was instinct with pity and affection, it solicited mercy for womanhood and for childhood, it showed labour vanquished by sloth and alcohol, it begged for air and light and instruction for the unhappy poor, more social comfort, and less political agitation. Now do you know in what fashion M. Gambetta’s friends and newspapers greeted that book? They denounced it as an evil action, a crime. They dragged its author through the mire.... Pamphlets did not suffice them, they even delivered lectures, and declared publicly that the author had insulted the people of Paris. They would have hanged him had they been able, in the hope that by so doing they might secure a hundred additional votes at the next elections. Yes, it was so. M. Gambetta’s friends and newspapers were then all tenderness for the people. M. Gambetta had invariably secured a large majority at Belleville, and it was consequently impossible that there could be a single tippler among those who dwelt on the sacred mount of the democracy... What! a paltry novelist dared to insinuate that there were dram-shops in the faubourgs! The man lied, he insulted M. Gambetta’s electors, he could only be a scoundrel. To the cess-pool with him, sweep him away! And all the hounds who were waiting for their master to toss them a bone, all the curs who lived on the crumbs from his table, executed his orders, and sprang, snarling, after the unlucky writer.... Ah! I laugh. There suddenly comes a change.... The masses, whose evolution never ceases, grow tired of M. Gambetta, accuse him of acting contrary to his programme, of seeking personal enjoyment, of waxing fat in the seat of power and keeping none of his most express promises.... And on the day when they hoot him, he is maddened by rage, he forgets that the Rancs and the Floquets have vouched for the temperance of Belleville, and he furiously calls the electors drunken slaves! All brawlers, and all sots!
“Now the author of ‘L’Assommoir’ had not insulted them. He had never called them squallers or cowards, nor, in particular, had he threatened to track them to their lairs.... He was less severe: he pitied them.... Leave the literary men in peace then, you political gentlemen, you majestic humbugs, who prate with your tongues in your cheeks, and yet wish to be respected! You can see now how shameful it was to heap insults upon a peaceable writer whose one concern was truth, to hunt him down as if he had been a common malefactor, and this solely by way of electoral advertisement; for directly an obstacle is offered to your own ambition, you rush upon the masses to suppress them, whereas the novelist only spoke of curing them.... And you, good people, go and vote for all those humbugs who, so long as you work for their benefit, promise to give you jam! You are great, you are noble, and if a passer-by ventures to advise you to work, those humbugs declare it to be sacrilege, and hasten to immolate him before you, to prove to you that you are indeed perfect. But on the day when you refuse to be duped any longer, when you claim the jam they have so often promised, they turn round on you and insult you, call you drunken slaves, and threaten to have you shot down in your lairs! With a fine show of indignation they formerly denied that My-Boots existed; but, all at once, if they are to be credited, it is actually My-Boots who reigns as King over a Belleville of brawlers and toss-pots.”32
The foregoing extracts will give some idea of the passionate vigour which Zola occasionally displayed in controversy. To some readers it may seem beside the mark to dwell at length upon a series of newspaper articles like “Une Campagne,” but it is in such writings, more than in the majority of his novels, that one finds the real Zola with his superb confidence in himself, his disregard for conventionalities, and his glowing passion for truth and rectitude. His pen was certainly not always so virulent as in the passages one has quoted, but it was almost invariably incisive, and when treating sociological subjects it showed that, however impersonal his novels might be, his heart really bled at the thought of the degradation he described in them. Looking back, it seems extraordinary that for so many years his critics, and particularly foreign ones, and among them notably those of England and America, should have persisted in the ridiculous assertion that if he pictured filth, it was solely in order to pander to readers of gross instincts. His articles, his declarations, his explanations, were all before the world, and easily accessible; but through carelessness, or laziness, or ignorance, the great majority of English and American critics never turned to them, and the legend of the filthy Zola, whose favourite habitat was the muck heap or the cess-pool, spread upon all sides.
The humanitarian purpose, the reforming instinct that is to be found in Zola, appears clearly in some of the articles contained in “Une Campagne.” The meaning of “L’Assommoir” is indicated in the passages that have been quoted here, and light is thrown on some of his subsequent works, such as “Nana” and “Pot-Bouille,” by the papers entitled: “The Harlot on the Stage,” “How the Girls grow up,” “Adultery in the Middle Classes,” “Virtuous Women,” and “Divorce and Literature.” Some of those articles were written apropos of the performance of “Nana,” which was dramatised by M. Busnach in conjunction with Zola (whose name, however, did not appear on the bills) and produced at the Ambigu on January 29, 1881. Zola tells us there had been no little trouble with the theatrical censors, who, when the play was submitted to them in manuscript, deleted the word “night” wherever it appeared, and wished to strike out in its entirety the chief scene between Nana and Count Muffat—a scene of temptation such as had been given in a score of earlier plays. What particularly alarmed the censors, according to Zola, was Nana’s consent, the “yes” with which the scene ended; they wished to substitute some such answer as, “Well, we will see,” which would have been ridiculous.
Edmond de Goncourt says that the audience at the first performance was on the whole favourably inclined; but Zola points out that it was composed of two distinct elements, on one hand the literary men, friendly or inimical, who came to judge the play, and on the other the faded harlots of Paris, the white-gloved bullies, the men of pleasure and finance who had sunk to the streets, in fact all the characters that figured in the play itself, multiplied fifty times over. And these looked and listened with pale faces, sneering at the representation of their own depravity. However, there was considerable applause when the play ended; and Zola and Busnach received the congratulations of their friends in the manager’s private room, where Madame Zola, suddenly turning towards her husband, scolded him for having failed to order any supper to celebrate the happy event. “My dear,” Zola answered, remembering, no doubt, the supper intended to celebrate the success of “Le Bouton de Rose,” which had become a fiasco, “I’m superstitious, you know, and I’m convinced that if I had ordered a supper the piece would have failed.”33
It was attacked by the critics on the morrow, some complaining that they had been imposed upon, that they had been led to expect a masterpiece of revolutionary audacity, and that only a repugnant play, base and crapulous in its fidelity to life, had been offered them. Others, of course, protested against the exhibition of the harlot on the stage; and to them Zola responded that he was by no means the first to set her there. He recalled Victor Hugo, with “Marion Delorme” and “La Esmeralda”; Dumas fils, with “La Dame aux Camélias”; Barrière and Thiboust with “Les Filles de Marbre,” and Émile Augier with “Le Mariage d’Olympe.” They and their imitators had lied, however; they had pictured harlots such as had never existed since the world was world, and his sin was that he had done his best to portray such a creature as she really was. “Besides,” he added, “it seems to me cowardice to shun certain problems under the pretext that they disturb one. That is turning egotism and hypocrisy into a system. Let be, people say, let us cover up vice and celebrate virtue even when it is not to be found.... I have a different idea of morality. It is not served by rhetorical declamation but by an accurate knowledge of facts. And therein lies that Naturalism which provokes so much laughter, and at which so much mud is foolishly thrown.”
The actress who played the rôle of Nana was Léontine Massin. Fair, with a coaxing glance, a sensual mouth and nose, and a superb figure, she quite looked the part, in spite of her forty years; and, truth to tell, she had in some measure lived it. She had also long been known to the stage in minor rôles; and now, yielding to her natural instincts, she sprang to the front, impersonating Nana with a power and a truth which stirred one deeply. All Paris flocked to see her. But she was not content with acting. She became Nana in reality, and her chosen victim was the manager of the Ambigu, Henri Chabrillat, a bright, talented, gallant man, who had shown his bravery in the Franco-German War, and his literary skill in half a dozen novels. Unhappily he was carried away by a mad infatuation for the temptress; as fast as money poured into his coffers he squandered it upon her; embarrassment followed, and when the end came he put a pistol to his head. Never, perhaps, has the truth of a play, and the disregard of the passions for the most obvious lessons, been exemplified more terribly. Amid the uproar which ensued La Massin vanished, Paris for a week remained lost in amazement, and then, as always happens, the tragedy was forgotten.
In that same year, 1881, Zola republished in book form most of the biographical and literary papers which he had written of recent years. “Le Roman Expérimental” had led the way in 1880, and now there came four more volumes: first “Les Romanciers Naturalistes,”34 a series of papers on Balzac, Stendhal, Flaubert, Daudet, and the Goncourts, to which was added the much discussed review of contemporary novelists; secondly, “Documents Littéraires: Études et Portraits,”35 in which will be found papers on Chateaubriand, Hugo, Musset, Gautier, George Sand, Dumas fils, Ste.-Beuve, contemporary poets such as Leconte de Lisle, Baudelaire, Banville, Catulle Mendès, Dierx, Anatole France, Mallarmé, Hérédia, Coppée, Bouchor, Richepin, and Sully-Prudhomme; and critics such as Taine, Pontmartin, Levallois, Babou, Barbey d’Aurévilly, and Sarcey, with some curious notes on Buloz, the founder of the famous “Revue des Deux-Mondes.” Next there came “Le Naturalisme au Théâtre,” divided into two sections, theory and example; the former including papers on the special gift alleged to be necessary in all writers for the stage, on acting, costumes, scenery, government subventions, etc.; and the latter running through the whole scale of the playwright’s art, tragedy, drama, comedy, vaudeville and pantomime, with selections from the many articles which Zola had written as a dramatic critic between 1876 and 1880. Finally there was a fourth volume entitled, “Nos Auteurs Dramatiques,” in which plays by Hugo, Augier, Dumas fils, Sardou, Labiche, Halévy, Gondinet, Pailleron, D’Ennery, Barrière, Feuillet, and others, were analysed and discussed.36
To some of the theories set forth in those four volumes it may be necessary to refer when we survey Zola’s work generally. The books have been mentioned here because they were issued at the period we have now reached, and because it is advisable that the reader should realise how energetic, how zealous Zola always was, how great was his versatility, and how strenuous his life. This man who subsequently preached the gospel of work had practised it unremittingly since the day he emerged from Bohemia. Fortune might frown or success might come, he did not alter in his industrious habits. In spite of every rebuff, every attack, he continued striving undauntedly, even as his father had striven before him. He was a living example of the axiom that life is a battle. He fought for his ideas, his principles, without a pause, until his last hour.
Notes
1 £360 = about $1,800.
2 “Une Page d’Amour,” Paris, Charpentier, 1878, 18mo, vii-486 pages (genealogical tree of the Rougon-Macquarts); seventy-fifth thousand on sale in 1893 when the series was completed; ninety-seventh thousand in 1903. Illustrated edition: Paris, Librairie du Bibliophile (Jouaust), 1884, 2 vols., crown 8vo, iv-261 and 287 pages; portrait and ten designs by Ed. Dantan, etched by Duvivier, ornaments by Giacomelli. Impressions on various papers, Dutch, India, Japanese, etc. Another illustrated edition, Paris, 1894, with etchings and woodcuts designed by F. Thévenot.
3 “Le Sublime, ou le Travailleur comme il est et ce qu’il peut être,” Paris, Charpentier, 1865.
4 “Le Figaro,” Supplément Littéraire, December 22, 1878.
5 It was as the Paris correspondent of various English newspapers that the writer became acquainted with a good many French literary men. A reference to the Paris letters in the first volumes of the “Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News” will show that the writer at one time dealt largely with the French stage. In that connection he was fortunate enough to secure the favour of Dumas fils to whom he was indebted for many little kindnesses.
6 Zola to Vizetelly, November, 1898.
7 “La République Française et la Littérature,” 8vo, Paris, Charpentier, 1879. The text of this pamphlet was added by Zola to the collection of papers entitled “Le Roman Expérimental,” which he issued in 1880.
8 Alexis, l. c., p. 190 et seq.; Adolphe Brisson in “Le Temps,” October 3, 1902.
9 “Les Romanciers Naturalistes,” p. 204.
10 “Journal des Goncourt,” Vol. VI (January 21, 1879).
11 “Journal des Goncourt, Vol. VI (January 21, 1878).
12 See Sala’s “Paris herself Again,” London, Vizetelly & Co., 1879 et seq.
13 It will be remembered that Charles Reade prepared an English version entitled “Drink.”
14 “My Impressions of Zola,” by George Moore, in “The English Illustrated Magazine,” February, 1894.
15 “L’Œuvre,” p. 435.
16 “English Illustrated Magazine,” l. c.
17 So stated by M. Yves Guyot in conversation with the writer and others in the autumn of 1902. It ought to have been mentioned that it was M. Guyot who engaged Zola as dramatic critic of “Le Bien Public.” See ante, p. 156.
18 This woman had an extraordinary career. She was of German origin, her real name being Theresa Lachmann, but she was born in Russia, and first married a French tailor of Moscow, named Villoing. After eloping with Herz, the well-known pianist, she entered the Parisian demi-monde under the auspices of the notorious Esther Guimond. Finding herself in difficulties she proceeded to London, fascinated and half-ruined a member of an English ducal house, returned to Paris, ruined several French nobles there, and ultimately married Viscount Armijo de Païva of the Portuguese Legation, whom she also ruined and who committed suicide. Though her beauty, which had been great, was then fading, she captivated Count Henckel von Donnersmarck, a connection of the Bismarck family, and he ended by marrying her. She lived in a magnificent mansion in the Champs Élysées adorned by Baudry, Cabanel, Gérôme, and Clésinger; and Girardin, Gautier, About, Ponsard, Angier, Houssaye, and Goncourt were familiars of her drawing-room. She died in 1884 on her husband’s estate in Silesia.
19 Alexis, l. c., p. 118.
20 Mr. R. H. Sherard in his “Émile Zola: a Biographical and Critical Study,” London, 1903, prints several of Zola’s letters on the above subjects. The following may be given as a specimen: “Médan, September 18, 1879: I have received your book on small-pox. That will evidently suffice for my purpose. I will devise a death mask by comparing the various documents. I am very much tempted to make the disease black pox which, in point of horror, is the strangest. Only I admit that if without taking too much trouble you could manage to see the corpse of a person who had died of that complaint—I say, that is a nice little task!—you would oblige me greatly. In that case mind you supply full details about the state of the eyes, nose and mouth, giving me a precise geographical chart, from which, of course, I should only take what I may need.” This suggestion was not acted upon. In describing Nana’s death Zola eventually had to rely on the statements he found in medical works.
21 Sherard, l. c., p. 171.
22 “Nana,” Paris, Charpentier, 1880, 18mo, 528 pages; one hundred and sixty-sixth thousand on sale in 1893; one hundred and ninety-eighth thousand in 1903; some special copies on Japan, India, and Dutch papers. Illustrated edition: Marpon and Flammarion, n. d. but 1882, large 8vo titles, 456 pages, with sixty-six wood engravings after Bertall, Gill, Bellenger, Clairin, etc. A hundred copies printed on Dutch paper with impressions of the engravings on India paper, and a special frontispiece showing Nana on a sofa. The ordinary copies of the illustrated edition were priced at 6 francs, but were also sold very largely in fifty-seven parts at 10 centimes. From 1882 to the present time (1903) over two hundred thousand copies of the illustrated edition have been sold, bringing the total sales of the work (apart from translations) to nearly half a million copies.
23 See his explanations on this subject in the preface to E. A. Vizetelly’s translation of “Le Docteur Pascal,” London, Chatto, 1893 et seq.
24 “Documents Littéraires,” p. 375 et seq.
25 The first edition (Charpentier, 18mo, 301 pages) was accompanied by ten copies on India and fifty on Dutch paper. There was a special edition in 1890, small 8vo, 307 pages, six portraits etched by Fernand Desmoulin, and six illustrations etched by Muller after Jeanniot. Of this edition one copy was printed on Japan paper with three sets of the etchings; one copy on parchment with two sets of the etchings before lettering; and sixteen on Dutch paper with two sets of the etchings, both before and after lettering.
26 See ante, p. 162.
27 Her real name was Adrienne Legay and she really bore the nickname of “Ball of Tallow.” She was of peasant extraction, and was born near Fécamp about 1850. Coming to Rouen, where she became the mistress of a cavalry officer and later of a manufacturer of cotton goods, she at one time kept a small hosiery shop, at another a little café. Finally, after making a precarious living as a fortune-teller, she committed suicide at Rouen in August, 1892. She often declared to the literary men who became acquainted with her that she herself gave Maupassant the idea of his story by telling him an adventure of hers, which, however, had not resulted in the manner he described; and she accused him of having pilloried her in a spirit of revenge for having rejected his suit when he was a penniless hobbledehoy at Rouen.
28 “Journal des Goncourt,” Vol. VI, p. 127.
29 “Le Roman Expérimental,” Paris, Charpentier, 1880, 18mo, vii-416 pages. This volume, in which the whole theory of Naturalistic fiction is expounded, has been reprinted several times with the mention: “Nouvelle Édition.”
30 “Une Campagne,” Paris, Charpentier, 1881, 18mo, x-408 pages.
[31] “Une Campagne,” Gambetta, p. 105.
32 “Une Campagne.” Abbreviated from the article entitled “Esclaves Ivres,” p. 362 et seq. Readers of “L’Assommoir” will remember that the bibulous “My-Boots,” referred to above, is one of its principal characters.
33 “Journal des Goncourt,” Vol. VI, p. 134.
34 Charpentier, 18mo, 338 pages. Ten copies on Dutch paper. The contents first appeared partly in the “Viestnik Yevropi,” partly in “Le Voltaire.”
35 Charpentier, 18mo, 427 pages. Ten copies on Dutch paper. The contents of this volume also appeared originally in the “Viestnik Yevropi.”
36 Both volumes mentioned above were issued by Charpentier uniform with the previous one. Dumas fils, whom Zola criticised with great severity in “Nos Auteurs Dramatiques,” responded by assailing Zola’s dramatic theories, in his preface to “L’Étrangère.” See “Théâtre Complet d’Al. Dumas fils.” Paris, Calmann Lévy, 1879. ⁂