CHAPTER II

Nearly two years ago Durtal had ceased to associate with men of letters.

They were represented in books and in the book-chat columns of magazines

as forming an aristocracy which had a monopoly on intelligence. Their

conversation, if one believed what one read, sparkled with effervescent

and stimulating wit. Durtal had difficulty accounting to himself for the

persistence of this illusion. His sad experience led him to believe that

every literary man belonged to one of two classes, the thoroughly

commercial or the utterly impossible.

The first consisted of writers spoiled by the public, and drained dry in

consequence, but "successful." Ravenous for notice they aped the ways of

the world of big business, delighted in gala dinners, gave formal

evening parties, spoke of copyrights, sales, and long run plays, and

made great display of wealth.

The second consisted of café loafers, "bohemians." Rolling on the

benches, gorged with beer they feigned an exaggerated modesty and at the

same time cried their wares, aired their genius, and abused their

betters.

There was now no place where one could meet a few artists and privately,

intimately, discuss ideas at ease. One was at the mercy of the café

crowd or the drawing-room company. One's interlocutor was listening

avidly to steal one's ideas, and behind one's back one was being

vituperated. And the women were always intruding.

In this indiscriminate world there was no illuminating criticism,

nothing but small talk, elegant or inelegant.

Then Durtal learned, also by experience, that one cannot associate with

thieves without becoming either a thief or a dupe, and finally he broke

off relations with his confrères.

He not only had no sympathy but no common topic of conversation with

them. Formerly when he accepted naturalism--airtight and unsatisfactory

as it was--he had been able to argue esthetics with them, but now!

"The point is," Des Hermies was always telling him, "that there is a

basic difference between you and the other realists, and no patched-up

alliance could possibly be of long duration. You execrate the age and

they worship it. There is the whole matter. You were fated some day to

get away from this Americanized art and attempt to create something less

vulgar, less miserably commonplace, and infuse a little spirituality

into it.

"In all your books you have fallen on our _fin de siècle_--our _queue du

siècle_--tooth and nail. But, Lord! a man soon gets tired of whacking

something that doesn't fight back but merely goes its own way repeating

its offences. You needed to escape into another epoch and get your

bearings while waiting for a congenial subject to present itself. That

explains your spiritual disarray of the last few months and your

immediate recovery as soon as you stumbled onto Giles de Rais."

Des Hermies had diagnosed him accurately. The day on which Durtal had

plunged into the frightful and delightful latter mediæval age had been

the dawn of a new existence. The flouting of his actual surroundings

brought peace to Durtal's soul, and he had completely reorganized his

life, mentally cloistering himself, far from the furore of contemporary

letters, in the château de Tiffauges with the monster Bluebeard, with

whom he lived in perfect accord, even in mischievous amity.

Thus history had for Durtal supplanted the novel, whose forced banality,

conventionality, and tidy structure of plot simply griped him. Yet

history, too, was only a peg for a man of talent to hang style and

ideas on, for events could not fail to be coloured by the temperament

and distorted by the bias of the historian.

As for the documents and sources! Well attested as they might be, they

were all subject to revision, even to contradiction by others exhumed

later which were no less authentic than the first and which also but

waited their turn to be refuted by newer discoveries.

In the present rage for grubbing around in dusty archives writing of

history served as an outlet for the pedantry of the moles who reworked

their mouldy findings and were duly rewarded by the Institute with

medals and diplomas.

For Durtal history was, then, the most pretentious as it was the most

infantile of deceptions. Old Clio ought to be represented with a

sphinx's head, mutton-chop whiskers, and one of those padded bonnets

which babies wore to keep them from bashing their little brains out when

they took a tumble.

Of course exactitude was impossible. Why should he dream of getting at

the whole truth about the Middle Ages when nobody had been able to give

a full account of the Revolution, of the Commune for that matter? The

best he could do was to imagine himself in the midst of creatures of

that other epoch, wearing their antique garb, thinking their thoughts,

and then, having saturated himself with their spirit, to convey his

illusion by means of adroitly selected details.

That is practically what Michelet did, and though the garrulous old

gossip drivelled endlessly about matters of supreme unimportance and

ecstasized in his mild way over trivial anecdotes which he expanded

beyond all proportion, and though his sentimentality and chauvinism

sometimes discredited his quite plausible conjectures, he was

nevertheless the only French historian who had overcome the limitation

of time and made another age live anew before our eyes.

Hysterical, garrulous, manneristic as he was, there was yet a truly epic

sweep in certain passages of his History of France. The personages were

raised from the oblivion into which the dry-as-dust professors had sunk

them, and became live human beings. What matter, then, if Michelet was

the least trustworthy of historians since he was the most personal and

the most evocative?

As for the others, they simply ferreted around among the old state

papers, clipped them, and, following M. Taine's example, arranged,

ticketed, and mounted their sensational gleanings in logical sequence,

rejecting, of course, everything that did not advance the case they were

trying to make. They denied themselves imagination and enthusiasm and

claimed that they did not invent. True enough, but they did none the

less distort history by the selection they employed. And how simply and

summarily they disposed of things! It was discovered that such and such

an event occurred in France in several communities, and straightway it

was decided that the whole country lived, acted, and thought in a

certain manner at a certain hour, on a certain day, in a certain year.

No less than Michelet they were doughty falsifiers, but they lacked his

vision. They dealt in knickknacks, and their trivialities were as far

from creating a unified impression as were the pointillistic puzzles of

modern painters and the word hashes cooked up by the decadent poets.

And worst of all, thought Durtal, the biographers. The depilators!

taking all the hair off a real man's chest. They wrote ponderous tomes

to prove that Jan Steen was a teetotaler. Somebody had deloused Villon

and shown that the Grosse Margot of the ballade was not a woman but an

inn sign. Pretty soon they would be representing the poet as a

priggishly honest and judicious man. One would say that in writing their

monographs these historians feared to dishonour themselves by treating

of artists who had tasted somewhat fully and passionately of life. Hence

the expurgation of masterpieces that an artist might appear as

commonplace a bourgeois as his commentator.

This rehabilitation school, today all-powerful, exasperated Durtal. In

writing his study of Gilles de Rais he was not going to fall into the

error of these bigoted sustainers of middle-class morality. With his

ideas of history he could not claim to give an exact likeness of

Bluebeard, but he was not going to concede to the public taste for

mediocrity in well- and evil-doing by whitewashing the man.

Durtal's material for this study consisted of: a copy of the memorial

addressed by the heirs of Gilles de Rais to the king, notes taken from

the several true copies at Paris of the proceedings in the criminal

trial at Nantes, extracts from Vallet de Viriville's history of Charles

VII, finally the _Notice_ by Armand Guéraut and the biography of the

abbé Bossard. These sufficed to bring before Durtal's eyes the

formidable figure of that Satanic fifteenth century character who was

the most artistically, exquisitely cruel, and the most scoundrelly of

men.

No one knew of the projected study but Des Hermies, whom Durtal saw

nearly every day.

They had met in the strangest of homes, that of Chantelouve, the

Catholic historian, who boasted of receiving all classes of people. And

every week in the social season that drawing-room in the rue de Bagneux

was the scene of a heterogeneous gathering of under sacristans, café

poets, journalists, actresses, partisans of the cause of Naundorff,[1]

and dabblers in equivocal sciences.

[Footnote 1: A watchmaker who at the time of the July monarchy attempted

to pass himself off for Louis XVII.]

This salon was on the edge of the clerical world, and many religious

came here at the risk of their reputations. The dinners were

discriminately, if unconventionally, ordered. Chantelouve, rotund,

jovial, bade everyone make himself at home. Now and then through his

smoked spectacles there stole an ambiguous look which might have given

an analyst pause, but the man's bonhomie, quite ecclesiastical, was

instantly disarming. Madame was no beauty, but possessed a certain

bizarre charm and was always surrounded. She, however, remained silent

and did nothing to encourage her voluble admirers. As void of prudery as

her husband, she listened impassively, absently, with her thoughts

evidently afar, to the boldest of conversational imprudences.

At one of these evening parties, while La Rousseil, recently converted,

howled a hymn, Durtal, sitting in a corner having a quiet smoke, had

been struck by the physiognomy and bearing of Des Hermies, who stood out

sharply from the motley throng of defrocked priests and grubby poets

packed into Chantelouve's library and drawing-room.

Among these smirking and carefully composed faces, Des Hermies,

evidently a man of forceful individuality, seemed, and probably felt,

singularly out of place. He was tall, slender, somewhat pale. His eyes,

narrowed in a frown, had the cold blue gleam of sapphires. The nose was

short and sharp, the cheeks smooth shaven. With his flaxen hair and

Vandyke he might have been a Norwegian or an Englishman in not very good

health. His garments were of London make, and the long, tight,

wasp-waisted coat, buttoned clear up to the neck, seemed to enclose him

like a box. Very careful of his person, he had a manner all his own of

drawing off his gloves, rolling them up with an almost inaudible

crackling, then seating himself, crossing his long, thin legs, and

leaning over to the right, reaching into the patch pocket on his left

side and bringing forth the embossed Japanese pouch which contained his

tobacco and cigarette papers.

He was methodic, guarded, and very cold in the presence of strangers.

His superior and somewhat bored attitude, not exactly relieved by his

curt, dry laugh, awakened, at a first meeting, a serious antipathy which

he sometimes justified by venomous words, by meaningless silences, by

unspoken innuendoes. He was respected and feared at Chantelouve's, but

when one came to know him one found, beneath his defensive shell, great

warmth of heart and a capacity for true friendship of the kind that is

not expansive but is capable of sacrifice and can always be relied upon.

How did he live? Was he rich or just comfortable? No one knew, and he,

tight lipped, never spoke of his affairs. He was doctor of the Faculty

of Paris--Durtal had chanced to see his diploma--but he spoke of

medicine with great disdain. He said he had become convinced of the

futility of all he had been taught, and had thrown it over for

homeopathy, which in turn he had thrown over for a Bolognese system, and

this last he was now excoriating.

There were times when Durtal could not doubt that his friend was an

author, for Des Hermies spoke understandingly of tricks of the trade

which one learns only after long experience, and his literary judgment

was not that of a layman. When, one day, Durtal reproached him for

concealing his productions, he replied with a certain melancholy, "No, I

caught myself in time to choke down a base instinct, the desire of

resaying what has been said. I could have plagiarized Flaubert as well

as, if not better than, the poll parrots who are doing it, but I decided

not to. I would rather phrase abstruse medicaments of rare application;

perhaps it is not very necessary, but at least it isn't cheap."

What surprised Durtal was his friend's prodigious erudition. Des Hermies

had the run of the most out-of-the-way book shops, he was an authority

on antique customs and, at the same time, on the latest scientific

discoveries. He hobnobbed with all the freaks in Paris, and from them he

became deeply learned in the most diverse and hostile sciences. He, so

cold and correct, was almost never to be found save in the company of

astrologers, cabbalists, demonologists, alchemists, theologians, or

inventors.

Weary of the advances and the facile intimacies of artists, Durtal had

been attracted by this man's fastidious reserve. It was perfectly

natural that Durtal, surfeited with skin-deep friendships, should feel

drawn to Des Hermies, but it was difficult to imagine why Des Hermies,

with his taste for strange associations, should take a liking to

Durtal, who was the soberest, steadiest, most normal of men. Perhaps Des

Hermies felt the need of talking with a sane human being now and then as

a relief. And, too, the literary discussions which he loved were out of

the question with these addlepates who monologued indefatigably on the

subject of their monomania and their ego.

At odds, like Durtal, with his confrères, Des Hermies could expect

nothing from the physicians, whom he avoided, nor from the specialists

with whom he consorted.

As a matter of fact there had been a juncture of two beings whose

situation was almost identical. At first restrained and on the

defensive, they had come finally to _tu-toi_ each other and establish a

relation which had been a great advantage to Durtal. His family were

dead, the friends of his youth married and scattered, and since his

withdrawal from the world of letters he had been reduced to complete

solitude. Des Hermies kept him from going stale and then, finding that

Durtal had not lost all interest in mankind, promised to introduce him

to a really lovable old character. Of this man Des Hermies spoke much,

and one day he said, "You really ought to know him. He likes the books

of yours which I have lent him, and he wants to meet you. You think I am

interested only in obscure and twisted natures. Well, you will find

Carhaix really unique. He is the one Catholic with intelligence and

without sanctimoniousness; the one poor man with envy and hatred for

none."

Là-bas · 第 2 / 22 章