of "The Pall Mall Gazette," who had made himself notorious some time
previously by a series of articles on "The Maiden Tribute of Modern
Babylon," applied to Vizetelly & Co. for some information respecting
the sales of the various translations from the French, which the firm
was publishing, and which certainly circulated widely and attracted
great attention. When the matter was laid before Henry Vizetelly, his
son Arthur, who took a large part in the management of the business,
suggested that the request should not be entertained, for, said he,
it was a very unusual one, and publishers were not in the habit of
supplying the public with all sorts of particulars about their affairs.
That, at the time in question, was quite true, but Henry Vizetelly,
who saw no objection to the request, supplied Mr. Stead with an
article in which he gave numerous particulars concerning the sales
of his publications. The article, as the sequel showed, was somewhat
injudiciously worded in various respects. For instance, it conveyed
an impression that--unlike the crude and mangled American versions of
Zola which were then in the market--the Vizetelly translations of that
author were absolutely unmutilated. As a matter of fact, none of them
was an exact replica of the original, all had been expurgated more or
less, though care had invariably been taken to preserve the continuity
of the narrative. Further, though Vizetelly had very good grounds for
asserting that he reckoned it a bad week when the sale of the Zola
translations fell below a thousand volumes, this statement, which
seemed at first sight to indicate a very large circulation,[14] was
again indiscreet, and was eagerly seized hold of and magnified by those
who were already lying in wait to destroy him.
Of the inner workings of that conspiracy the writer might perhaps say
a good deal, but for the purposes of this narrative, the facts which
appeared on the surface are sufficient. A campaign was started, chiefly
against Vizetelly & Co., and ostensibly for the purpose of protecting
boys and girls, against what was called "pernicious literature." A
society styling itself the "National Vigilance Association" eventually
took the matter in hand. Its secretary, the person usually representing
it in public, was a man named Coote; the agent for its publications was
a Protestant fanatic named Kensit;[15] among those who gave it their
countenance was W. T. Stead, then, as already mentioned, editor of "The
Pall Mall Gazette." The publications of Kensit on "The High Church
Confessional," and those of Stead on "The Maiden Tribute of Modern
Babylon," would have seemed to indicate that both Kensit and Stead
favoured the doctrine of outspokenness or publicity to which Zola gave
effect in his novels, the doctrine which he summed up in the words,
"Let all be set forth so that all may be healed." But although in the
estimation of Kensit and Stead it was quite right that they should
speak out, the idea of allowing Zola the same privilege was nonsense.
He was Belial, whereas of them it might be said: "Mark the perfect
men, and behold the upright." Thus they might circulate descriptions
of vice,--even allow them, as in the case of "The Maiden Tribute," to
be hawked about the streets in penny numbers[16]; but Zola must not
picture vice in his books.
Among the members of the so-called "National Vigilance Association"
were various parsons and priests who naturally abominated such an
infidel as Zola, and some of whom subsequently traduced him freely.
These might accept the outspokenness of a Stead, but, generally
speaking, they represented the doctrine of reticence and secrecy as
opposed to that of publicity. Theirs was the policy, pursued through
the ages, of wrapping everything up, cloaking everything over, and they
were lost in anger, horror, and amazement when they found a different
course being pursued. They ignored Zola's position altogether, though
for years he had been calling to them and those who resembled them:
"You claim to reform the world, you preach and you prate; but although
your endeavours may be honest you do little or no good. Evil exists
on all sides, society is rotten at the core; but you merely cover
up abominations, you even feign at times to ignore their existence,
though they lie little below the surface and poison all around
them. The system of reticence and concealment which you pursue is a
profound mistake. It is one of the many consequences of that system
that thousands of girls are cast every year into the arms of seducers,
that thousands of young men kneel at the feet of harlots. Abortion is
practised among the married as among the unmarried. Drunkenness is
in your midst. Your prisons are full. Your gibbets and guillotines
are always in use. Cheating and swindling are commonplaces of your
every-day life. Well, I am resolved to tear the veil asunder, to
set forth everything, to conceal nothing. I shall shock the world
undoubtedly, but it is only by bringing things to light, by disgusting
people with themselves and their surroundings, that there will be a
possibility of remedying the many evils which prey on the community
at large. Eighteen hundred years have elapsed since the carpenter of
Nazareth walked the earth. You and your forerunners have had those
eighteen hundred years at your disposal. What have you done in them?
How much, or rather how little real good have you effected with all
your organisations, your great authority, your exceeding wealth, your
devotion, your piety, your talent, which at times has blossomed into
genius? You have extirpated nothing whatever; your system has tended
chiefly to the dissemination of hypocrisy and cant; you have failed
egregiously; and to explain your failure you preach the ridiculous
doctrine of the Fall, invented expressly to account for the impotency
of priestcraft. I have nothing to say--as yet--on the subject of your
belief in a future state, of your system of rewards or penalties after
life, for good or evil conduct in the world, though it is one, half
threat and half bribe, for which there should be no occasion. But I
take human society as it is, and by exposing the errors of its ways I
hope to set afoot, to encourage among practical reformers, a movement
of social regeneration, which will perhaps achieve, in a few centuries,
a happier result than you, even though appealing to the supernatural,
have achieved in so many. And in any case I intend to try, whatever
abuse you may shower on me, whatever mud you may fling at me, mud which
will some day, perhaps, recoil upon yourselves."
But how could men, trained to teach one and another superstition,
wrapt in all the prejudices of their heredity and their caste, accept
such arguments as those even if they had heard of them? The mere idea
that man might regenerate himself without the aid of the supernatural
was impious to their minds; the idea of stating the truth plainly,
of rousing people by shocking them, was horrible to their delicacy
of feeling, for they belonged to a white-livered generation, whence
all robustness had departed. Perhaps if this Zola had been one of
themselves they might have tolerated him, but he did not bow to the
supernatural, his creed was different, and he was therefore a rival,
an enemy, particularly as he contemplated a world whence they would be
banished, as it would need none of their ministrations.
Thus the campaign began and soon found an echo in the newspapers. At
that time probably there were not twenty journalists in all England
who had read Zola's essays and critical papers in which he defined
his position and the purport of his novels. In the latter, as is well
known, he abstained from preaching. There is nothing of the nature
of a sermon in the whole series of "Les Rougon-Macquart" until one
reaches "Le Docteur Pascal"; and one must admit that, although Zola
had freely expounded his views elsewhere, the omission of those views
from his novels was detrimental to him and them among those people
who could not rightly understand any exposure of vice unless it were
accompanied by preaching. Had he preached, the clergy, so many of whom
believe preaching to be the chief function of their ministry, might
well have been on his side, and even "Blackwood's Magazine" might
then have hesitated to describe him as a man without a conscience.
But he contented himself with picturing vice as vile, and the viler
he made it appear, the more was he abused, the more was he accused of
wallowing in it, of giving full rein to filthy libidinous propensities
for the express purpose of corrupting all who read him! That charge
was repeated widely by the English press, as is shown by the hundreds
of cuttings from London and provincial newspapers in the writer's
possession. And Vizetelly & Co. were accused of having deliberately
chosen "the very worst" of Zola's books for translation.
As a matter of fact, in 1888 they were selling all the novels that Zola
had then written, with the exception of "Les Mystères de Marseille,"
"La Confession de Claude," and "Le Rêve," which last only appeared in
Paris in the latter part of that year. The publication of those books
had been going on for four years, unchallenged. Each new volume as it
appeared was priced at six shillings, and subsequently lowered to three
shillings and sixpence. A few volumes, in picture boards, were sold at
two shillings and sixpence. But the critics rushed upon "The Soil,"
the English version of "La Terre," and one man, who can never have
compared it with the original, had the impudence to assert that it was
"an almost word for word translation of Zola's bestial book." Readers
who had never seen Vizetelly & Co.'s catalogue were also allowed to
infer that the firm traded exclusively in "pornographic literature."
Now, in that catalogue, two hundred and forty works were enumerated,
and the Zola volumes were eighteen in number. But it may be said
that other books were denounced also, the translations of Flaubert's
"Madame Bovary" and "Salammbo"; Goncourt's "Germinie Lacerteux" and
"Renée Mauperin"; Gautier's "Mlle. de Maupin"; Murger's "Vie de
Bohême"; Maupassant's "Bel-Ami" and "Une Vie"; Daudet's "Sapho"; Paul
Bourget's "Crime d'Amour" and his "Cruelle Énigme," which last the
firm had issued in consequence of a laudatory notice in the staid
old "Athenæum," surely the last journal in the world to recommend
anything suggestive of pornography. But counting even all the works
belonging more or less to the French realistic schools which Vizetelly
& Co. issued, one reached only a total of about thirty, leaving some
two hundred and ten books of other classes. Thirteen of those were
certainly volumes of "The Mermaid Series of the old Dramatists" which
some anonymous scribes likewise regarded as "pornographic" in that
hour when cant and hypocrisy poured venom on virtually every form
of literature that had not received the _imprimatur_ of Pecksniff &
Company.
The public having been prepared for developments, the question of
"pernicious literature" was brought before the House of Commons
by one of its members, Mr. Samuel Smith, who sat for Flintshire.
He had married the daughter of a clergyman, and had a reputation
for extreme piety. He was described at the time as "an enthusiast
without enthusiasm, with a tall, expansive frame, a huge beard, a
placid-life-like expression, and a mild feminine voice,"[17] which,
said another journal, was "peculiarly suited to the expression of
lamentation."[18] There was some fear, it seems, that there might be a
poor attendance at the debate on the motion he meant to submit, indeed
a "count out" was feared, but arrangements were made to keep a house
for the occasion, when the aspect of the benches was apparently such as
the following diagram indicates:
Mr. Smith
OPPOSITION BENCHES.
MINISTERIAL BENCHES.
[From the "Pall Mall Gazette," May 10, 1888.]
Thus, of an assembly numbering between six and seven hundred members,
just forty were found sufficiently interested in the morals of their
constituents to discuss the motion submitted by Mr. Smith, which was:
"That this House deplores the rapid spread of demoralising literature
in this country, and is of opinion that the law against obscene
publications and indecent pictures and prints should be vigorously
enforced and, if necessary, strengthened." In the speech with which the
member for Flintshire opened the debate he did not hesitate to describe
Henry Vizetelly as "the chief culprit in the spread of pernicious
literature"; and, according to a "Pall Mall Gazette" report, which he
never contradicted, he said of the works of Zola that "nothing more
diabolical had ever been written by the pen of man; they were only
fit for swine, and those who read them must turn their minds into
cesspools."[19] In this fashion does the Puritan prate when he goes
on the warpath. For the rest, Mr. Smith talked _de omni re scibili_,
"flinging his accusations broadcast. All kinds of literature, including
daily newspapers, came under his ban. He wanted everything--books,
magazines, and newspapers,--to be subject to some sort of restraint."
He spoke in the "spirit which assumes that what is evilly suggestive
to itself must be evilly suggestive to others." But as was added by
the journal from which these remarks are quoted:[20] "What sort of
literature should we have if it were all brought down to such a level
as would satisfy the ascetic tastes of the Smiths? Where would the
Bible be? What would become of Shakespeare?"
After Mr. Smith's motion had been seconded by Mr. T. W. Russell, and
endorsed by Sir Robert Fowler and Mr. De Lisle, another member, Mr.
(afterwards Sir F. S.) Powell, leaving French novels on one side,
called attention to certain circulars "headed with Scriptural texts and
looking like religious tracts" which were circulated in English homes,
apropos of the spread of contagious disease in India, and which, in his
opinion, were calculated to do much harm.
Then came the Government spokesman, Mr. Henry Matthews, one of the most
unpopular Home Secretaries that Great Britain has known since the time
of the Walpole under whose effete administration the public tore down
the railings of Hyde Park. Mr. Matthews, a lawyer and a Roman Catholic,
was subsequently given a peerage; but in 1888 he sat in the House of
Commons for the city of Birmingham. He agreed very largely with what
Mr. Smith had said, and he asserted that "in comparing French modern
literature with classical literature it had to be borne in mind that,
while the latter was written with no evil purpose(!), the former was
written with the object of directing attention to the foulest passions
of which human nature was capable, and to depict them in the most
attractive forms"--an allegation which, applied to Zola's works, can
only be described as astounding. But the Home Secretary also denounced
the "penny dreadfuls," the quack advertisements, and the full reports
of divorce cases which appeared in the daily press. And on the question
of instituting prosecutions he said:
"The reason why the law was not more frequently put in force
was the difficulty that was experienced in getting juries
to draw a hard and fast line, and to convict in all cases
that crossed that line. He had given careful attention to
this question, and he should deprecate handing over to the
Public Prosecutor, or anybody else, the task of deciding
what was the straight and narrow line which divided what was
punishable, criminal, and obscene within the meaning of the
law, and what was merely indelicate and coarse. The public
judgment was a safer guide than that of any official, and
if the general moral sense of the community did not compel
individuals to prosecute, no good would be done by trying
to create an artificial moral sense by the action of the
Public Prosecutor.... Serious evils arose from the failure
of attempts to obtain convictions. So far, however, as he
could influence the Public Prosecutor, who was, to some
extent, independent of any Public Office and acted on his own
discretion, he would certainly urge prosecutions in any cases
in which it did not appear that more harm than good would
result.... He was sure, however, that the hon. Member and all
those who had honest convictions would not shrink from the
slight personal inconvenience of putting the law in motion in
any case of real public mischief."
The debate was continued by three or four members, one of whom, Mr. H.
J Wilson (Holmfirth) apologetically and naïvely declared with respect
to the pious circulars on the working of the Contagious Diseases Act,
of which Mr. Powell had complained, that their distribution was the
only method of making the truth known, and that the only way to stop
them would be to put an end to the horrible system that rendered their
dissemination necessary. To this Zola, if he had been present, might
have retorted that the circulation of the plain statements of fact
contained in his books was likewise, in his estimation, the only way to
make known the degradation of society at large, in order that remedies
might be applied.
Mr. Smith's motion was carried unanimously, however, by the forty
gentlemen present, matters being left in this position: The Government
hesitated to institute prosecutions, and thought that private
individuals should do so.
Meanwhile the campaign went on. Mr. Smith wrote a letter to the
newspapers; another came from Lord Mount-Temple; and the press, with
few exceptions, endorsed everything that was said by the commoner and
the nobleman. The vigilant "Guardian" of the Church of England availed
itself of the occasion to thunder against Sir Richard Burton and his
"Arabian Nights"; "The Tablet" of the Roman Catholics jesuitically
signified its approval of the agitation, because Zola's whole tendency
was "suspected"(!) to be immoral; the conscientious Nonconformist
journals, as was to be expected, said ditto to everything that Smith
said. Some righteous contributor to "The Globe" wrote of Zola's books
that they were characterised by "dangerous lubricity," that they
"sapped the foundations of manhood and womanhood, not only destroyed
innocence, but corroded the moral nature." "The Birmingham Daily Mail"
declared that "Zola simply wallowed in immorality." "The Whitehall
Review" openly clamoured for the prosecution of his publisher.
"The Weekly Dispatch" impudently inquired, "If Mr. Vizetelly gives
us Zola, why does he _pick_ 'La Terre'? And if Daudet, why _pick_
'Sapho'?"--thus ignoring the fact that the firm published virtually all
of the former's stories, and several of the latter's, and conveying,
for its own purposes, a false impression to its readers. Indeed,
misrepresentation of the facts was to be found in many directions. A
few newspapers wrapped themselves in their dignity and said nothing,
and a few remained fairly cool and sensible: "The Standard," "The
Scottish Leader," "The Scotsman," "The Radical Leader," "The Bradford
Observer," "The Country Gentleman," "Piccadilly," "The Newcastle
Chronicle," and "The Western Daily Press." There may have been a few
others, for the writer does not claim that his collection of press
cuttings is absolutely complete; but after examining some hundreds of
extracts he finds little that is not mendacious or steeped in religious
bigotry, puritanical prudery, or gross ignorance. And at all events
it is certain that an overwhelming majority of British editors and
"leader-writers" endorsed the views of the Pharisees.
The campaign was then carried to a decisive stage. A firm of
solicitors, Collette & Collette, applied at Bow Street police-court for
a summons against Henry Vizetelly for having published three obscene
books, to wit, "Nana," "The Soil" ("La Terre"), and "Piping-Hot"
("Pot-Bouille"), by Émile Zola. The summons was granted, and on August
10, 1888, Vizetelly appeared to answer it. The prosecution had been
entrusted to Mr. Asquith,--now best known as a politician,--and he, in
opening his case, was about to deal with "Nana," when the magistrate,
Mr. (afterwards Sir) John Bridge, who evidently had already made up his
mind respecting the case, suggested that he should take the worst of
the three books, namely "The Soil,"--for which, by the way, Zola had
received the decoration of the Legion of Honour three weeks previously!
Counsel assented, referred the magistrate to various pages, and then
solemnly declared that this book and the two others were "the three
most immoral books ever published!" But having thus revealed how very
limited was his knowledge of literature, he added, fairly enough, that
it was claimed for "The Soil" that it had been published with a high
moral object--namely, to show the degradation of the French peasant and
the necessity of alteration in the laws by which he was governed.
Vizetelly's solicitor, Mr. Lickfold (of Messrs. Lewis & Lewis), argued
on his client's behalf that he had a perfect right to publish these
translations, the French originals of which were circulated in Great
Britain without let or hindrance; and he contrasted them with English
works which were sold widely and freely, such as Byron's "Don Juan,"
and Shakespeare's "Merry Wives of Windsor." Far from the incriminated
books being the three most immoral ever written, said Mr. Lickfold,
there were many within the cognisance of all men of any education which
were very much worse. But the magistrate curtly intimated that it was a
case for a jury to decide, and he forthwith committed the defendant for
trial at the Central Criminal Court, admitting him, meanwhile, to bail
in his own recognisances.
Vizetelly's committal led to great rejoicing among the Pharisees; and
to improve the occasion the "National Vigilants" summoned a bookseller
named Thomson at Guildhall (September 7) for selling an English version
of Boccaccio's "Decameron." Mr. Forrest Fulton--subsequently knighted
and appointed Common Sergeant of the City of London--prosecuted and
asked for a committal, but Mr. Horace Avory, defendant's counsel,
replied that the "Decameron" had been in circulation for over four
hundred years, that there were three copies of the work in the English
language in the Guildhall Library and some two hundred in the British
Museum; and he contended that this classical work was not indecent in
the eyes of the law. Mr. Alderman Phillips, who heard the case, quietly
remarked that he himself had read the book both in Italian and in
English, and he refused to send the defendant for trial, as he did not
believe that any jury would return a conviction.
This was a rebuff for the fanatics, who now concentrated their energy
on the prosecution of Vizetelly. The latter had taken his committal
in a defiant spirit, promptly issuing the following notice to his
customers: "The trade is informed that there are no legal restrictions
on the sale of 'Nana,' 'Piping Hot,' and 'The Soil,' and that none can
be imposed until a jury has pronounced adversely against these books
which the publishers still continue to supply." This announcement,
which was perhaps ill advised--though in counsel's opinion well within
one's legal rights--momentarily enraged the "Vigilants," but they were
about to receive important help. The Government, encouraged by the
press, took up the prosecution, thus relieving the agitators of the
cost of their suit.
Affairs now began to assume a more serious aspect, the question was no
longer one of fighting a band of fanatics, but of contending against
the law-officers of the Crown who would bring all the weight of their
authority to bear upon the jury. In these circumstances Vizetelly
decided to print a series of extracts from the works of English
classic authors,[21] by way of showing that if Zola's novels were
suppressed one ought also to suppress some of the greatest works in
English literature. These extracts, which were preceded by quotations
from Macaulay on the suggested suppression of the works of Congreve,
Wycherley, etc., and by Zola's own explanation of the scope and
purpose of his Rougon-Macquart series, covered a very wide field. Among
the many authors laid under contribution were Shakespeare, Beaumont
and Fletcher, Massinger, John Ford, Thomas Carew, Sir George Etherege,
Dryden, Congreve, Otway, Prior, Defoe, Swift, Sterne, Fielding,
Smollett, Byron, etc., the series running from the time of Elizabeth to
the early part of the nineteenth century. At the same time Vizetelly
drafted an open letter to Sir A. K. Stephenson, the Solicitor to the
Treasury, who now conducted the prosecution, and copies of the letter
and of the extracts were forwarded to all the members of the Government
and the leading London newspapers. The letter ran as follows:----
SIR,--As the Treasury, after a lapse of four years since the
first appearance of the translations of M. Zola's novels,
has taken upon itself the prosecution instituted for the
suppression of these books, I beg leave to submit to your
notice some hundreds of Extracts, chiefly from English
classics, and to ask you if in the event of M. Zola's novels
being pronounced "obscene libels," publishers will be allowed
to continue issuing in their present form the plays of
Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger, and other old
dramatists, and the works of Defoe, Dryden, Swift, Prior,
Sterne, Fielding, Smollett, and a score of other writers--all
containing passages far more objectionable than any that can
be picked out from the Zola translations published by me.