Second Empire, a general resemblance was to be found among them in
two respects. In the first place their ignorance was very great. The
Imperial Government which did a good deal to ameliorate their lot
materially, did as little as possible to enlighten and elevate their
minds. They were, so to say, the backbone of the _régime_, and their
ignorance was its safeguard. At the elections they were led like sheep
to the polling places to vote for the official candidates. All that,
however, belongs to the past. Many changes have occurred during the
last thirty years, and without entering here into the question of the
religious and secular schools, it may be said that under the Third
Republic more has been done than at any previous time for the education
of the peasantry. Some brutishness persists in various regions, but all
who remember how widespread was illiteracy before the War of 1870 know
that great improvement has been effected.
To-day, however, even as was formerly the case, there is still one
trait common to the French peasantry generally. As in other countries
there has been, and is still, a great exodus from the rural districts
to the towns; but those who remain at home are distinguished by their
earth-hunger, their all-consuming passion for the soil. The historical
explanation of this is perhaps as follows: For centuries the peasantry
possessed little or nothing, and when the Revolution at last placed
the land in their hands absolutely, a craving which had descended
from generation to generation was satisfied. They seized the land
eagerly, they clung to it fiercely, fearful lest it should be taken
from them, as, for instance, when the Bourbons returned, and many of
the old _noblesse_ sought the resumption of their estates. And old-time
feelings, the covetous cravings of ancestors, the desperate tenacity of
the generation of 1815, have descended to the peasants of to-day, and
were perhaps even stronger among those of the Second Empire, with whom
Zola proposed to deal in his novel "La Terre."
It was in part on the peasant's brutish ignorance, and more
particularly on his earth-hunger, that he resolved to base his book.
The following extract from one of his letters[61] will show his
intentions:
"'La Terre' will treat of the French peasant's passion for
the soil, his long struggle to acquire possession of it, his
crushing labour, his brief joys and his great wretchedness.
He will be studied too in connection with religion and
politics, his present condition being explained by his past
history; even his future will be indicated, that is the part
he may possibly play in a Socialist revolution. All that,
of course, will lie beneath the drama unfolded in the book,
the drama of a father dividing his land among his children
before his death, whence slow and abominable martyrdom will
ensue, a perfect tragedy setting some sixty characters, an
entire village of La Beauce, in motion; without counting a
secondary plot, the _passionnel_ side of the story, a quarrel
between two sisters, separated by the advent of a man, still
and ever in connection with a question of land. To sum up,
I wish to do for the peasant what I did in 'L'Assommoir'
for the Paris workman, that is, recount his history,
manners, passions, and sufferings, such as environment and
circumstances have fatally made them."
In the spring of 1886 Zola started on a tour of investigation. He
already had some personal knowledge of the region where he proposed to
lay the scene of his story, having gone there in his mother's time, but
that was long before he thought of writing "La Terre." Among the places
he now visited was Châteaudun, where one finds him early in May, whence
he writes a friend an interesting letter which Mr. Sherard prints, and
a portion of which one may venture to quote here:
"I have been here [Châteaudun] since yesterday, and have
found the spot I need. It is a little valley, four leagues
hence, in the canton of Cloyes, between Le Perche and La
Beauce, and on the confines of the latter. I shall introduce
a little brook into it, which will flow into the Loir--such
a brook, by the way, exists. I shall there have all I
require--large farms and small, a central spot, thoroughly
French, a typical and very characteristic horizon, gay people
speaking _patois_--in short what I always hoped for.... I
shall return to Cloyes to-morrow and shall go thence to
visit my valley and my bit of Beauce frontier in detail. For
the day after to-morrow I have an appointment with a farmer
living three leagues from here, in La Beauce, and shall visit
his farm in detail.... I remained to-day at Châteaudun to
attend a big cattle-market."[62]
In June Zola returned to Médan, and throughout that year and indeed
until August, 1887, one finds him busy with this book from which he
turned only for a short time in February and April to attend to the
production, first of a dramatic version of "Le Ventre de Paris,"[63]
which had at least a _succès de curiosité_, and secondly of a play
called "Renée"--based on "La Curée"--which proved a resounding failure
and was attended by an acrimonious controversy in the press. In the
opinion of the critics, apparently, Racine's "Phædra" sufficed for
all time, and the idea of a modern one in the person of "Renée" was
monstrous: thus Zola sinned both against the great classic writer and
against modern society.[64]
While he was dividing his attention between those plays and his novel
"La Terre," France was becoming more and more absorbed in political
questions. General Boulanger, who had been Minister of War in the
Freycinet administration of 1886 had lost that position, but his
popularity remained extreme, fanned as it was by a large party of
malcontents of various political schools. Many were actuated solely
by patriotic considerations, for there had been trouble with Germany
over an Alsatian frontier incident known historically as the Schnæbelé
Affair. Some people who believed the general to be sincerely
Republican only wished him to relieve them of certain men of the hour,
such as President Grévy, for rumours were already abroad respecting
the nefarious practices of the latter's son-in-law, M. Wilson. But
others were intent on purposes of their own, the overthrow of the
Republic and the establishment of a monarchy or a dictatorship, into
which enterprise they hoped to inveigle the popular ex-Minister of War.
Briefly, at this time a great crisis was gradually approaching.
Nevertheless, though the unrest penetrated to the literary world, the
latter did not neglect the subjects which more particularly concerned
it, and there was some commotion among men of letters when on August
18 that year (1887) "Le Figaro" published a manifesto directed against
Zola's new work, which had been appearing in the "Gil Blas" since
May, and the concluding pages of which were at that very moment
being written at Médan. This manifesto (which, when one recalls the
presumptuous preface to "Les Soirées de Médan," may be regarded as a
Roland for an Oliver) was signed by five young writers, Paul Bonnetain,
J. H. Rosny, Lucien Descaves, Paul Margueritte, and Gustave Guiches,
who, "in the name of their supreme respect for art, protested against
a literature devoid of all nobility." The factum was of some length,
diffuse, bristling with scientific jargon, and disfigured by a
ridiculous attack on the personal appearance of Zola, whose leadership
these young men solemnly renounced.
At that time the best known of the five was Paul Bonnetain, a Provençal
of Nîmes, and a friend of Alphonse Daudet, who came from the same
city. Bonnetain had then published four or five books, the first of
which, "Chariot s'amuse," had so out-Zola'd anything written by Zola
himself that its author had been prosecuted for it. M. Rosny on his
side had at that date written two books, "Nell Horn," a ridiculous
story of "English manners," and "Le Bilatéral," a study of Anarchism
and Collectivism which showed marked improvement. M. Gustave Guiches
was the author of three volumes, none of which had attracted attention,
while Lucien Descaves had published four novels, and was gradually
emerging from obscurity, though another two years were to elapse
before his venturesome book, "Sous-Off,"--for which he was tried
and acquitted--made his name at all widely known. Finally, M. Paul
Margueritte--destined like M. Rosny to acquire a high position in
literature, in conjunction, be it said, with his younger brother,
Victor--was as yet only known by an estimable book on his father, the
gallant general killed at Sedan, and a couple of works of fiction,
"Tous Quatre" and "Une Confession posthume." The eldest of the band,
Bonnetain, was in his thirtieth year, the others were six or seven and
twenty.
A comical feature of the affair was that of these five indignant
writers, who so solemnly disowned "the Master of Médan," only one,
Bonnetain, was personally known to him. They had met just twice. With
the others Zola had no acquaintance at all. This appears clearly from
the statements he made to M. Fernand Xau of the "Gil Blas," who,
directly the manifesto appeared and Zola's enemies raised a cry of
jubilation at the so-called "great Naturalist schism," hurried to Médan
to interview the author of "La Terre." A portion of Zola's declarations
to M. Xau may well be given here:
"I do not know what is thought in Paris of this protest which
has brought me some very kind letters from my _confrères_,
but it has stupefied me. I do not know those young men. They
do not belong to my _entourage_, they have never sat at my
table, they are not my friends. If they are disciples of
mine--and remember I do not seek to make disciples--they
are so without my knowledge. Why then do they repudiate me?
The situation is original. It is as if a woman with whom a
man never had any intercourse were to write him: 'I have
had quite enough of you, let us separate!' The man would
certainly reply to that: 'It's all one to me.' Well, the
position is very similar.
"If friends of mine, if Maupassant, Huysmans, and Céard, had
addressed me in such language publicly, I should certainly
have felt somewhat offended. But this declaration can have no
such effect on me. I shall make no answer to it at all. It
would be giving importance to a matter which has none. When
I am fighting a theatrical battle I write an open letter to
Sarcey because Sarcey certainly exercises great authority.
In some literary discussions I have written in a similar way
to Albert Wolff, because he is an old _chroniqueur_ to whom
people listen. But whatever may be my feelings towards the
five gentlemen who have signed the document we are speaking
of, they must excuse me if I don't answer, for I have nothing
to say to them.... One thing I cannot understand is why these
young men should pass themselves off as soldiers of mine
deserting my flag. The only one I know a very, very little
is Bonnetain, whose 'Opium' I have read, and whose talent I
esteem. He once called on me; and when he appeared before the
Tribunal of Correctional Police, after 'Chariot s'amuse,'
he wrote asking me to let him have a letter to be read in
court. I sent him one, but I advised him not to use it, for
the judges, I fancy, hold me in slight esteem. Well, I met
Bonnetain again at Daudet's, at the 'Sapho' dinner, and that
is all!... The comical part of the affair is that people
used to reproach me with what they called 'my tail.' They
were willing to tolerate what I wrote, but they refused to
accept the productions of the young men who claimed to be
my disciples--though I cried from the house roofs that I had
none. 'Cut your tail off!' people repeated. Well, it is cut
off at last. It has taken itself off of its own accord, and
now, perhaps, folk will be satisfied."[65]
While conversing with M. Xau, Zola mentioned that some of his friends
believed the manifesto to be an echo of the opinions of certain persons
whom he held in high esteem, both personally and from a literary
standpoint; but he had reason to know that the persons in question
were really grieved by the factum to which they had given neither
inspiration nor assent. The allusion was in part to Alphonse Daudet,
by reason of his friendship with Bonnetain, but more particularly to
Edmond de Goncourt, as the latter's "Journal" explains. Goncourt's
house, his _grenier_, as one said in those days, had become the
meeting-place of a number of young authors, who looked up to him much
as others had looked up to Flaubert. And Goncourt, on reading the
manifesto in "Le Figaro," had immediately exclaimed, "_Diable_, why
four of them belong to my _grenier_!"[66] It naturally occurred to
him that Zola might think the plot had been hatched there, under his
auspices, and he felt extremely annoyed. A journalist who called on
him suggested an article showing that he had no responsibility in the
matter, but Goncourt declined to hide behind others. If anything had to
be said he would say it himself. However, he went to dine at Champrosay
with Daudet, and after they had decided that the manifesto was very
badly written and outrageously insulting, they communicated privately
with Zola, who was thus able to tell M. Xau that whatever might be
said elsewhere, he knew that "the certain persons whom he held in high
esteem" had nothing to do with the affair.
On the other hand, some minor literary men adhered to the protest,
and the incident was so sedulously exaggerated by Zola's enemies that
one might have imagined the manifesto had come from novelists of
high reputation instead of from beginners, who, with the exception
of Bonnetain, had not yet half-won their spurs. The affair has been
related in some detail here, first because a kind of legend has
gathered round it, a legend repeated in many of the memoirs issued
after Zola's death, and secondly because it ultimately had a notable
result: the nomination of Zola as a knight of the Legion of Honour.
Before recounting how that occurred it must be mentioned that "La
Terre" was published in volume form late in 1887.[67] The attacks made
upon it ever since the so-called "Manifesto of the Five" then acquired
yet greater intensity, which a little later was checked somewhat by the
uproar attending the decorations scandal in which President Grévy's
son-in-law was implicated, followed by the President's resignation,
the election of Carnot, and the increase of the Boulangist propaganda.
However, at every pause in that turmoil the denunciation of Zola began
afresh.
It was still going on when M. Edmond Lockroy, who had known the
novelist in the old days of "Le Rappel," became Minister of Public
Instruction. Married to Charles Hugo's widow, guardian of the
great poet's grandchildren, artist, author, Garibaldian volunteer,
politician, deputy, and minister, M. Lockroy was--and is still--a man
of very broad views. He had formed a poor opinion of the "Manifesto of
the Five" at the time of its appearance, and he was disgusted by the
ensuing attacks, which emanated for the most part from the reactionary
press. In these circumstances he resolved on a somewhat bold course,
that of offering the red ribbon to the much-abused author, as an
official recognition of his literary attainments, and as a kind of
solatium for the insults heaped upon him.
At the same time M. Lockroy realised that as Zola, angered by the
behaviour of Bardoux in 1878, had then declared he would not accept
a decoration, it would be advisable to sound him unofficially in the
first instance. The minister ended by selecting as his intermediary
a lady who knew the novelist well, and she at once repaired to Médan
to ascertain his views.[68] At her first words Zola began to protest,
reminding her of the public declaration he had formerly made, and
adding that if he now accepted the red ribbon he would surely cover
himself with ridicule. But the minister's messenger insisted, pointing
out, notably, that prejudiced and ignorant people were on all sides
accusing him of deliberate immorality, even obscenity, and that his
official nomination to the Legion of Honour might act as a check on
his insulters and rehabilitate him in the eyes of the vulgar. At last
Zola began to waver, and after consulting his wife, who favoured the
proposal, he gave his assent to it. At the same time, mindful of M.
Bardoux' shilly-shallying, he insisted that he should have a formal
promise from the minister immediately. It was given him, and very soon
afterwards, the time having come to draw up the list of those who
should be decorated on the occasion of the National Fête that year,
1888, M. Lockroy brought Zola's name before the Council of Ministers.
Later, the decree having been signed and gazetted, he personally fixed
the red ribbon to Zola's buttonhole in the drawing-room of the lady who
had acted as intermediary.
She, it would appear, was not a little astonished some time afterwards
when on receiving a visit from the novelist he told her that he had
decided to offer himself as a candidate for the French Academy. And
he explained the position thus: "I had the choice of two paths, one
leading to the recognition of my readers only, the other leading to
official recognition also. I never troubled about the latter, but you
turned me into that path, and I am not the man to halt half way on
any road. As there is an Academy I shall offer myself as a candidate
directly a suitable opportunity occurs. And," he added jocularly, "as
there is a Senate also I may even offer myself as a candidate for that
as well. Why not? Ste.-Beuve was a senator, and perhaps I myself shall
be one."
[Illustration: Photo by Nadar--Émile Zola, 1888-1890]
Neither of those aspirations was realised; and, in later years, even,
Zola's decoration of the Legion of Honour was almost taken from him.
It had come to him, not as some have said as the result of "Le Rêve,"
which was not published till some months afterwards, but as the
result of "La Terre." Elsewhere, however, that same book had very
different consequences for another man, for it led to proceedings at
law which ruined him, cast him into prison, and hastened his death. How
that happened the following chapter will tell.
[37] He had shown it at a very early stage to his friends Huysmans and
Céard, and the former has recorded how greatly they were amazed by it.
("Le Matin," September 30, 1902.)
[38] Sherard (_l. c._, 188 _et seq.)_ gives a variety of information on
these points taken from Zola's letters to a friend whose name does not
appear.
[39] £1,200 = about $6,000.
[40] Sherard, _l. c._, p. 193.
[41] "Pot-Bouille," Paris, Charpentier, 1882, 18mo, 499 pages; some
copies on Dutch, India, and Japanese paper; eighty-second thousand
in 1893, ninety-fifth thousand in 1903. Illustrated edition: Marpon
and Flammarion, 1883, large 8vo, titles, 452 pages. Fifty-seven
wood-engravings after Bellanger and Kauffmann. Sold also in parts at 10
centimes. One hundred special copies on Dutch paper with the engravings
on India paper.
[42] "Journal des Goncourt," Vol. VI, p. 140.
[43] _Ibid._, p. 162.
[44] "Journal des Goncourt," Vol. VII, p. 11.
[45] "Journal des Goncourt," Vol. VI, p. 186 (March 6, 1882).
[46] A somewhat similar dinner is described in "L'Œuvre."
[47] "Journal des Goncourt," Vol. VI, p. 209.
[48] Sherard, _l. c._, p. 196.
[49] "Le Capitaine Burle," Paris, Charpentier, 18mo; title-pages bear
the date 1883, but the book really appeared late in 1882. Besides the
story which gave the volume its title, the following figured in it:
"Comment on meurt," "Pour une Nuit d'Amour," "Le Fête à Coqueville,"
"L'Inondation." "Le Capitaine Burle" first appeared in "La Vie
Moderne," February, 1881; and the others in "Le Voltaire," 1880. Of
the volume twenty-five copies were printed on India, and fifty on
Dutch paper. Marpon and Flammarion added "Le Capitaine Burle" to their
illustrated edition of "Thérèse Raquin"; and under various titles the
other stories figure in their "Collection des Auteurs célèbres."
[50] "Au Bonheur des Dames," Paris, Charpentier, 1883, 18mo, 525 pages.
Some copies on Japanese and some on Dutch paper. Fifty-ninth thousand
reached in 1893; seventy-fifth thousand in 1903. This would seem to
have been the first of Zola's works of which a translation appeared in
England. This translation was made by Mr. Frank Turner, subsequently
secretary to General Boulanger; it was first issued in a weekly
periodical, which the present writer believes to have been "The London
Reader," and was afterwards published in book form by Tinsley Brothers.
Vizetelly & Co. acquired the copyright and ultimately sold it to E. A.
Vizetelly, who transferred it to Hutchinson & Co.
[51] Schérer's "Études sur la Littérature Contemporaine," Vol. VII, p.
240.
[52] "La Joie de Vivre," Paris, Charpentier, 18mo, 451 pages; some
early copies dated 1883, others 1884, when (February) it would appear
to have been really published. Some copies were on Japan, India,
and Dutch paper. Forty-fourth thousand in 1893 on completion of the
Rougon-Macquart series; fifty-fourth thousand in 1903.
[53] "Journal des Goncourt," Vol. VI, p. 288 (January 16, 1884).
[54] Sherard, _l. c._, p. 203.
[55] About this time, that is late in 1884, there appeared another
volume of Zola's short stories: "Naïs Micoulin," Paris, Charpentier,
18mo, 384 pages; twenty-five copies on India, one hundred on Dutch
paper. Besides "Naïs" the volume contained: "Nantas," "La Mort
d'Olivier Bécaille," "Madame Neigeon," "Les Coquillages de M. Chabre,"
and "Jacques Damour." All these tales will also be found in Marpon and
Flammarion's popular "Collection des Auteurs célèbres."
[56] Under date November 20, 1884, Zola sold all his rights in
"Germinal" for Great Britain to Mr. W T. Madge, manager of "The
People." Vizetelly & Co. acquired book rights from the latter and
published a fuller translation. Their rights were subsequently
purchased by E. A. Vizetelly and sold by him to Chatto and Windus.
[57] For instance, the horrible experiences of Étienne Lantier in the
Voreux pit towards the close of the book were based on those of a miner
walled up in a Lyons pit in 1854, and on those of a pitman of the Gard,
described by M. Parran, an engineer, in the "Bulletin de la Société
de l'Industrie Minérale." That narrative suggested the idea of the
floating corpse in the inundated mine.
[58] "Germinal," Paris, Charpentier, 1885, 18mo, 581 pages.
Eighty-eighth thousand in 1893; one hundred and tenth thousand in 1903.
Some copies on Japanese, Dutch, and India papers. Illustrated edition:
Paris, Librairie Illustrée, n. d., quarto, titles, five hundred pages;
wood-engravings after Férat; one hundred and fifty copies on Dutch
paper. This edition like others is now sold by E. Flammarion, successor
of Marpon and Flammarion, Rue Racine, Paris.
[59] From the original draught in the possession of M. G. Charpentier.
[60] "L'Œuvre," Paris, Charpentier, 1886, 18mo, 491 pages. Some copies
on special papers. Fifty-fifth thousand in 1893; sixty-fourth thousand
in 1903. Mr. Albert Vandam prepared an English adaptation of this story
which was published serially in England, and afterwards acquired by
Vizetelly & Co. It formed the basis of their version of the work.
[61] Zola to Vizetelly & Co., Paris, March 24, 1887.
[62] Sherard, _l.c._, p. 227.
[63] "Le Ventre de Paris," five acts, by É. Zola and W. Busnach, first
performed at the Théâtre de Paris, February 25, 1887. It differed
considerably from Zola's novel with the same title. Sarcey slated it in
"Le Temps" and Zola answered him in "Le Figaro," March 3, 1887.
[64] "Renée," five acts, by É. Zola, first performed at the Vaudeville,
April 16, 1887. One may add that in the latter part of 1887 two plays
based on tales by Zola were given in Paris: The first was "Jacques
Damour," one act, by Léon Hennique, Odéon, September 22, and the
second, "Tout pour l'Honneur," adapted from "Le Capitaine Burle," one
act, by Henri Céard, Théâtre Libre, December, 1887; performed also at
the Théâtre Molière, Brussels, in 1888.
[65] "Gil Blas," August 21, 1887
[66] "Journal des Goncourt," Vol. VII, p. 206.