CCLXIV. TO GEORGE SAND
Croisset, Thursday
Whatever happens, Catholicism will receive a terrible blow, and if I
were a devotee, I should spend my time before a crucifix saying:
"Maintain the Republic for us, O my God!"
But THEY ARE AFRAID of the monarchy. Because of itself and because
of the reaction which would follow. Public opinion is absolutely
against it. The reports of messieurs the prefects are disquieting;
the army is divided into Bonapartists and Republicans; the body of
big business in Paris has pronounced against Henry V. Those are the
bits of information that I bring back from Paris, where I have spent
ten days. In a word, dear master, I think now that THEY will be
swamped! Amen!
I advise you to read the pamphlet by Cathelineau and the one by
Segur also. It is curious! The basis is clearly to be seen. Those
people think they are in the XIIth century.
As for Cruchard, Carvalho asked him for some changes which he
refused. (You know that sometimes Cruchard is not easy.) The
aforesaid Carvalho finally realized that it was impossible to change
anything in le Sexe faible without distorting the real idea of the
play. But he is asking to play le Candidat first, it is not finished
but it delights him--naturally. Then when the thing is finished,
reviewed and corrected, perhaps he won't want it. In short, if after
l'Oncle Sam, le Candidat is finished, it will be played. If not, it
will be le Sexe faible.
However, I don't care, I am so eager to start my novel which will
take me several years. And moreover, the theatrical style is
beginning to exasperate me. Those little curt phrases, this
continual scintillation irritates like seltzer water, which is
pleasing at first but shortly seems like nasty water. Between now
and January I am going to compose dialogues in the best manner
possible, after that I am coming back to serious things.
I am glad to have diverted you a little with the biography of
Cruchard. But I find it is hybrid and the character of Cruchard is
not consistent! A man with such an executive ability does not have
so many literary preoccupations. The archeology is superfluous. It
belongs to another kind of ecclesiastics. Perhaps there is a
transition that is lacking. Such is my humble criticism.
They had said in a theatrical bulletin that you were in Paris; I had
a mistaken joy about it, dear good master whom I adore and whom I
embrace.