written many years ago, still they are largely reprinted at
the present day--at times in _Éditions de luxe_ at a guinea
per volume, and at others in People's Editions, priced as low
as sixpence,--so that while at the period they were written
their circulation was comparatively small, of late years it
has increased almost a hundred-fold.
So long as the present prosecution was in the hands of the
fanatics who initiated "The Maiden Tribute" of "The Pall Mall
Gazette," and whose mouthpieces in both Houses of Parliament
have gulled the Legislature with cock and bull sensational
stories of there being ten houses in a single London street
where young girls are accommodated with private rooms and
supplied with indecent books for perusal,... so long as the
prosecution remained in those hands, I was content to leave
the decision to the sound common-sense of an English jury.
Now, however, that the Government has thought proper to throw
its weight into the scale, with the view of suppressing a
class of books which the law has never previously interfered
with--otherwise the works I have quoted from could only be
issued in secret and circulated by stealth--circumstances are
changed, and I ask for my own and other publishers' guidance
whether, if Zola's novels are to be interdicted, "Tom Jones"
and "Roderick Random," "Moll Flanders" and "The Country
Wife," "The Maid's Tragedy" and "The Relapse," in all of
which the grossest passages are to be met with will still be
allowed to circulate without risk of legal proceedings.
In the Extracts now submitted to your notice, and which you
must be well aware could be multiplied almost a hundred-fold,
I have made no selections from cheap translations of the
classics with their manifold obscenities ... nor from popular
versions of foreign authors, whose indecency surpasses
anything contained in the English versions of "Nana" and "The
Soil," and who, unlike M. Zola, exhibit no moral tendency
whatever in their writings.
The Temperance cause never before found so potential an
advocate as M. Zola proved himself to be in "L'Assommoir."
A great writer who has exercised the wide influence on
contemporary literature that M. Zola has done, whose works
have been rendered into all the principal European languages,
and who commands a larger audience than any previous
author has ever before secured, is not to be extinguished
by having recourse to the old form of legal condemnation,
and especially at the bidding of a fanatical party, the
disastrous effects of whose agitation on the health of our
soldiers is recognised and lamented by all military, and by
most sensible, men.
[Illustration: Aix-in-Provence, the Plassans of the
Rougon-Macquarts--Photo by Martinet & Jouven]
Is life as it really exists--with the vice and degradation
current among the lower classes, and the greed, the
selfishness, and the sensuality prevalent in the classes
above--to be in future ignored by the novelist who, in
the case of M. Zola, really holds the historian's pen? Is
_actual_ life to be no longer described in fiction, simply
because the withdrawal of the veil that shrouds it displays
a state of things unadapted to the contemplation--not of
grown-up men and women, but of "the young person of fifteen,"
who has the works of all Mr. Mudie's novelists to feast
upon? This certainly was not the law in the days of Defoe,
Swift, and Fielding, and it needed a canting age, that can
gloat over the filthiest Divorce cases, while pretending to
be greatly shocked at M. Zola's bluntness; but above all, it
required a weak-kneed Government, with one who was once a
literary man himself at its head, [Lord Salisbury] to strain
the law in a way that an educated alderman refused to do the
other day in reference to Boccaccio's "Decameron."
Time, we are told, brings round its revenges, and the books
burnt by the common hangman in one age come to be honoured in
the next. England may render itself ridiculous in the eyes
of Europe by visiting the works of M. Zola with the same
kind of condemnation which the civilised world has accorded
to the writings of the degraded Marquis de Sade; still it
requires no particular foresight to predict that a couple of
generations hence, when the tribe of prejudiced scribes--who,
ignorant for the most part of their own country's literature,
now join in the hue and cry against M. Zola--are relegated
to their proper obscurity, the works of the author of the
Rougon-Macquart Family will take rank as classics among the
productions of the great writers of the past.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
HENRY VIZETELLY.
The letter was dated September 18, 1888, on which very day the sessions
of the Central Criminal Court began, but the Crown applied for a
postponement of the trial, and as Vizetelly's counsel, who had been
instructed to oppose any postponement, failed to attend, and Vizetelly
himself was refused admittance by an officious policeman, the case was
at once put off until October. This was very prejudicial to Vizetelly's
business, particularly as the attacks of certain prints did not cease.
Looking back, it greatly astonishes the writer that no application was
ever made to commit the publishers of several London and provincial
newspapers for circulating comments on a case which was _sub judice_,
comments well calculated to prevent the defendant from obtaining
a fair trial. But that idea does not seem to have occurred either
to Vizetelly or to anybody about him. He at first had felt fairly
confident respecting the issue of the case, and, as an old journalist,
had entertained nothing but contempt for the terriers of the profession
who barked at his heels. But his confidence had been shaken by
the intervention of the Government and was finally undermined by
well-meaning friends who, owing to the postponement of the proceedings,
had many an opportunity to tender counsel. Their motives were most
honourable and praiseworthy, no doubt. But the effects of their
solicitude were disastrous. "In the multitude of counsellors there is
wisdom," it has been said, but in Vizetelly's case there came chaos.
While some urged him to fight, others begged that he would do no such
thing. There was an incessant _chassê-croisê_ of advice; and Vizetelly,
now resolving on one course, and now on another, was at last at a loss
what to do. Had he been a younger man the case would have been very
different, for in his prime he had evinced much energy of disposition,
and in difficult moments had relied on his own sound common-sense.
But he was now sixty-eight years old, and though he was still of most
industrious habits, the strenuous life he had led had left its mark
upon him. Moreover, a complaint from which he suffered had taken a
very serious turn, and frequent physical suffering was not conducive
to perspicuity and energy of mind. Again, there was the position of
his business to be considered. In consequence of the prosecution and
the misrepresentations of the newspapers, the trade became afraid to
handle any books he published, and thus his sales rapidly decreased.
Besides, he found it difficult to obtain efficient counsel for his
trial. The Parnell Commission was then sitting, and most of the great
men of the bar were retained in it. Mr. (now Sir Robert) Finlay, Q. C.,
who was applied to, could not take the brief, having in hand already a
large number, which the barristers engaged before the commission had
been obliged to decline. Other men were similarly circumstanced, and
there was one who honestly admitted that he did not like the case, and
would therefore prove a very poor advocate. Eventually Mr. Francis B.
Williams, Q. C., Recorder of Cardiff, was retained, with Mr. A. R.
Cluer, now a London police magistrate, as his junior.
Beset as he was by various friends, who held that in the state of
public opinion he was not likely to secure an acquittal, Vizetelly at
last allowed some inquiries to be made as to what would happen if he
pleaded guilty and withdrew the three incriminated Zola translations,
such as they were then, from circulation. A letter bearing on this
question, says: "If the rest of Zola's works that are open to
objection are withdrawn, the Solicitor-general will be content that
the defendant be not sentenced to imprisonment. He thinks that the
taxed costs of the prosecution should be paid, and will leave the
amount of fine (if any) to the judge, not pressing for a heavy one
if the defendant is a man of small means." This communication gave a
new aspect to the case. The question was no longer one of three of
Zola's works, all of them might have to be withdrawn. Private testimony
respecting the narrow puritanism animating the authorities at that
moment indicated that they would show no fairness in considering the
matter of other books by Zola, at least in the form of translations;
for it is a fact that while Vizetelly's expurgated English versions
were being prosecuted, the French volumes still entered the country
and were freely sold there and circulated by libraries! Thus all who
knew French were privileged to read Zola _verbatim_, whereas those
who did not know that language were not allowed to peruse expurgated
renderings of his books. Under the circumstances set forth above,
Vizetelly finally resolved to contest the case; but, unfortunately, the
inquiries instituted on his behalf had made his hesitation known to the
prosecution and inclined it therefore to vigorous courses.
The trial took place on October 31, 1888, at the Old Bailey, before the
Recorder, Sir Thomas Chambers, whose literary bent may be indicated in
a few words: his favourite poet was Hannah More. The jury appeared to
be of the usual petty-trading class. The prosecution was conducted by
the Solicitor-general, then Sir Edward Clarke, who had already made a
considerable reputation by certain cross-examinations, and who at a
subsequent period defended the unhappy Oscar Wilde, when the latter
was convicted of unnatural offences. Sir Edward opened the proceedings
at no great length. He first pointed out that, in the case of "The
Queen _v._ Hicklin," Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had ruled that the
object for which a publication might be issued had nothing to do with
the question of its obscenity, the test of which was whether the
matter so published had a tendency to deprave and corrupt those into
whose hands the publication might fall. He also mentioned that it had
been ruled in the Hicklin case that no excuse was supplied by the
circumstance that other literature--especially that of two or three
centuries previously--might contain passages conflicting with one's
judgment as to what was fit for circulation. Then he passed to "The
Soil," asserting that it was full of bestial obscenity, without a spark
of literary genius or the expression of an elevated thought. That, of
course, was his opinion of the book; and several years later he amused
a great many people by giving his opinions on literature at large,
thereby arousing the ire of a distinguished writer, Mr. Edmund Gosse,
who unfortunately made the mistake of telling Sir Edward Clarke that
he was a lawyer and not a _littérateur_--even as Mr. Chamberlain in
his fiscal campaign subsequently reproached Mr. Asquith for discussing
business when he was not a business man. But whatever might be Sir
Edward Clarke's calling, he had a right to hold opinions on literature
and to express them. Even a tinker may have literary views and may make
them known, though it does not follow that they will be adopted by the
community generally.
Having concluded his address, the Solicitor-general proceeded to read
some passages from "The Soil," and he had scarcely begun when a faint
stir among the public brought a loud cry of "Silence!" from the ushers.
Ernest Vizetelly, who was seated at the solicitors' table, then turned
and perceived several French newspaper correspondents and others
striving to preserve their gravity, which had been disturbed by the
curious manner in which Sir Edward Clarke pronounced the French names
confronting him in the pages of "The Soil." For a time one might have
imagined he was reading a novel of the kail-yard, for he persistently
pronounced "Jean" as if it were a Scottish name. For instance:
"There was a lass, and she was fair,
At kirk and market to be seen;
When a' the fairest maids were met,
The fairest maid was bonnie Jean."[22]
The effect was the more curious as in Zola's book Jean, of course, is a
man, whereas from Sir Edward Clarke's pronunciation it might have been
inferred that he was a woman! However, the slaughter of French names
did not continue long. The jurymen expressed their views clearly enough
by interrupting a passage describing how the girl Françoise Mouche
brings the cow, La Coliche, to the bull at the farm of La Borderie.
The mere idea that such a thing could happen evidently amazed and
disgusted them; but their surprise would probably have been less great
if, instead of being Londoners, they had been yokels from the country,
for, as various correspondents informed the writer subsequent to the
trial, instances of the same kind could have been easily adduced from
different parts of the United Kingdom, notably Wales.
One of the Pecksniffian arguments at that time was that Zola wrote for
his own countrymen, and that even if he were justified in addressing
them as he did, there was no excuse for placing translations of his
works in the hands of English people, to whom those works did not
apply. This was ridiculous, English society being quite as deeply,
though by reason of the national hypocrisy, not so openly corrupt as
French society. As for the case of Françoise Mouche and the cow, La
Coliche, one might have found, as already stated, numerous instances of
young girls being similarly employed in Great Britain. But of course
such matters were not to be spoken of or written about! They must be
cloaked over, covered up, so that they might continue unhindered!
Besides, it was abominable to assert such things. The rural districts
of England were moral paradises, safe in the guardianship of parson and
squire! Only London was immoral, poor, wicked London, which bears the
weight of many a sin which is not its own. It would be interesting,
indeed, to know how far those moral paradises, the rural districts,
contribute to the illegitimate births with which London is at times
reproached. Is there even a single day in the year when London does not
witness the arrival in its midst of some unfortunate country girls who
have left their homes to hide their shame among the multitude of its
inhabitants?
But one must return to the trial. When Sir Edward Clarke had read
a few of his extracts the demeanour of the jury and their repeated
interruptions plainly indicated what their verdict would be. Even then,
no doubt, the better course would have been to let the trial proceed,
in order that counsel might have his opportunity of presenting the
defence, if not for the enlightenment of the jury, at least for that
of the public at large. Mere passages,--there were twenty-five, some,
no doubt, rather long ones, incriminated in a volume of hundreds of
pages--proved nothing. One might find scores and scores of passages in
the Bible which if taken without the context and the general knowledge
one has of the book might make it appear undesirable. In the case
of "The Soil," the facts should have been expounded, whether they
influenced the jury or not. But Vizetelly's counsel, Mr. Williams, was
evidently quite disheartened; he deemed it useless to prolong the case;
and so after the briefest of consultations the plea of "not guilty" was
withdrawn for one of "guilty." It was a complete collapse.
Mr. Williams, however, began to address the Recorder in mitigation
of punishment, and in doing so referred to Zola as "a great French
writer." "Oh, no, a voluminous French writer, if you like," said Sir
Edward Clarke. "A popular French writer," the Recorder suggested. "A
writer who certainly stands high among the literary men of France,"
Mr. Williams retorted; whereupon Sir Edward Clarke exclaimed in a
pompous way, "Do not malign the literature of France!" Whether the
Solicitor-general was qualified to express any opinion of weight on the
literature of France might well have been doubted by all who had heard
him pronounce the name "Jean." But Mr. Williams got in a last word.
Confirming his description of Zola, he said: "It is apparent to all who
have studied the literature of France at the present day."[23] And he
might have added that Zola had but lately been made a knight of the
Legion of Honour for the very book, for having issued an expurgated
edition of which Vizetelly was about to be punished. On that subject
Sir Edward Clarke stated that he did not ask for imprisonment, and
however much one may differ from him, particularly in literary matters,
it is essential one should recognise that, having won the day, he
showed some forbearance. Vizetelly had naturally pleaded guilty, not
only to the indictment respecting "The Soil," but to those respecting
"Nana" and "Piping Hot," which were not gone into. The Recorder
admonished him and then sentenced him to pay a fine of a hundred pounds
and to enter into his recognisances in two hundred pounds to be of good
behaviour for twelve months.[24]
But a very important matter has still to be mentioned. A certain
undertaking was given in court respecting the Zola translations
published by Vizetelly. The present writer, his brothers, and many
friends who were present, as well as the defendant himself, distinctly
understood that undertaking to be that the three incriminated volumes
and all other works by Zola which were as objectionable as those three
should be withdrawn from circulation; but it was not said that none
of Zola's books should ever be sold. On that point it is advisable
to quote the shorthand writers' transcript, which shows how the
Solicitor-general interpreted the undertaking: "_Sir Edward Clarke_: Of
course I am very glad that a course has been taken which will not only
stop from circulation the three books contained in these indictments,
but which carries with it an undertaking by Mr. Vizetelly that he will
be no party to the circulation of any other of the works which M. Zola
has produced, any others--I should like to say--which are at least as
objectionable as those which are indicted before your Lordship to-day."
According to the writer's recollection, and that of his relatives
and friends, Mr. Williams in giving the undertaking applied to the
incriminated books the expression, "in their present form"; but
these words do not appear in the shorthand notes which the writer
holds. Nevertheless the language of Sir Edward Clarke suggests that
some similar words had been used. It followed that Vizetelly, in all
good faith, believed that he was entitled to sell Zola's books if he
rendered them unobjectionable by further expurgation. But when other
proceedings ensued it was even suggested that he was not entitled to
sell them under any circumstances; and he was actually admonished for
having inserted in his catalogue the words "Undergoing revision" after
the titles of "La Terre" and "Nana." This plainly showed that the real
secret desire of the authorities and the "Vigilants" was to _suppress
translations of Zola altogether_. They cared not a jot what Vizetelly
might attempt in order to satisfy their narrow puritanism, they were
determined to regard all expurgation as inadequate, to pursue and
persecute Vizetelly till he abandoned that author altogether. And to
effect this they were ready to strain the law as it had never, perhaps,
been strained before.
Meantime Zola, who naturally heard of Vizetelly's trial, attached,
personally, little importance to it. He held that the English were
making themselves ridiculous by setting up a puritanical standard
of morality when their own literature contained many examples of
outspokenness going far beyond anything that he had ventured upon.
Apart from the writers of the past, he had some acquaintance with
modern English novels such as had been translated into French, there
being various series of that kind;[25] and he took the view that many
of them, with the glamour they cast over vice and even their artful
reticence, were certainly calculated to demoralise people, whereas
his own rough frankness could only give the reader a shock, as indeed
it was intended to do. At the same time he was not surprised at the
outcry, for there had been one in France, where the ground was far
better prepared for outspokenness than in England, where the cant
of the Victorian era had ever striven to set restrictions on the
novelist's art. Thackeray, we know, had chafed under them, and had
written on his preface to "Pendennis": "Even the gentlemen of our
age ... we cannot show as they are, with the notorious foibles and
selfishness of their lives and their education. Since the author of
'Tom Jones' was buried no writer of fiction among us has been permitted
to depict to his utmost power a MAN. We must drape him, and give him a
certain conventional simper, Society will not tolerate the Natural[26]
in our Art."
As for the issue of the affair for the Vizetellys, of whom Zola then
knew little, having only had a few business transactions with them, he
did not feel deeply affected, for the matter seemed to him to resolve
itself into a moderate pecuniary loss which, he imagined, the defendant
would be well able to incur, having made considerable profits on the
incriminated books.[27] For the rest, when in later years Ernest
Vizetelly showed him various newspaper cuttings imputing to him a
variety of statements, Zola remarked that some he had never made, while
as for others his words had evidently been misconstrued.
As it happened, the affair proved far more serious for Vizetelly & Co.
than Zola had thought possible. The firm then had several thousand
pounds locked up in illustrated books which were not nearly ready for
publication. The sales of its existing books had been declining for
several months, so that its receipts had become small, though its
expenses remained heavy and it had liabilities such as are always
incurred in trade. Under these circumstances it was felt that the
Zola translations, being a valuable property, could not be entirely
sacrificed. The undertaking given in court was interpreted in the sense
previously indicated, and, though the books were absolutely withdrawn
for a time, it was decided to put them on the market again after they
had been adequately expurgated.
A good deal of this work was entrusted to Ernest Vizetelly, but he
was hampered by important restrictions. He learnt that the books were
stereotyped and that his alterations must be such as might be effected
in the plates, for it would be too expensive to reset the books in
their entirety, though a few pages might be reset here and there. Under
these conditions, as sentences and paragraphs often had to be struck
out or considerably abbreviated, it became very difficult to fill the
gaps which occurred. Ernest Vizetelly at least did the best he could.
He spent two months on the work and deleted or modified three hundred
and twenty-five pages of the fifteen volumes handed to him. Henry
Vizetelly was in poor health at the time; but he himself attended to a
few volumes, and his son's work was sent to him for inspection before
it was forwarded to the printers. Whether he himself went through it in
its entirety or not cannot be stated positively; but at all events the
work was passed, and some of the Zola volumes were reissued.