Away, then, with the senseless iteration of the word _popular_,

applied to new works in poetry, as if there were no test of excellence

in this first of the fine arts but that all men should run after

its productions, as if urged by an appetite, or constrained by a

spell!--The qualities of writing best fitted for eager reception are

either such as startle the world into attention by their audacity and

extravagance; or they are chiefly of a superficial kind, lying upon

the surfaces of manners; or arising out of a selection and arrangement

of incidents, by which the mind is kept upon the stretch of curiosity,

and the fancy amused without the trouble of thought. But in everything

which is to send the soul into herself, to be admonished of her

weakness, or to be made conscious of her power;--wherever life and

nature are described as operated upon by the creative or abstracting

virtue of the imagination; wherever the instinctive wisdom of

antiquity and her heroic passions uniting, in the heart of the poet,

with the meditative wisdom of later ages, have produced that accord of

sublimated humanity which is at once a history of the remote past and

a prophetic enunciation of the remotest future, _there_, the poet must

reconcile himself for a season to few and scattered hearers.--Grand

thoughts (and Shakespeare must often have sighed over this truth), as

they are most naturally and most fitly conceived in solitude, so

can they not be brought forth in the midst of plaudits without

some violation of their sanctity. Go to a silent exhibition of the

productions of the sister Art, and be convinced that the qualities

which dazzle at first sight, and kindle the admiration of the

multitude, are essentially different from those by which permanent

influence is secured. Let us not shrink from following up these

principles as far as they will carry us, and conclude with

observing--that there never has been a period, and perhaps never will

be, in which vicious poetry, of some kind or other, has not excited

more zealous admiration, and been far more generally read, than good;

but this advantage attends the good, that the _individual_, as well

as the species, survives from age to age; whereas, of the depraved,

though the species be immortal, the individual quickly _perishes_; the

object of present admiration vanishes, being supplanted by some other

as easily produced; which, though no better, brings with it at least

the irritation of novelty,--with adaptation, more or less skilful, to

the changing humours of the majority of those who are most at leisure

to regard poetical works when they first solicit their attention.

Is it the result of the whole, that, in the opinion of the Writer, the

judgement of the People is not to be respected? The thought is most

injurious; and, could the charge be brought against him, he would

repel it with indignation. The People have already been justified,

and their eulogium pronounced by implication, when it was said,

above--that, of _good_ poetry, the _individual_, as well as the

species, _survives_. And how does it survive but through the People?

What preserves it but their intellect and their wisdom?

--Past and future, are the wings

On whose support, harmoniously conjoined,

Moves the great Spirit of human knowledge--

_MS._

The voice that issues from this Spirit is that Vox Populi which the

Deity inspires. Foolish must he be who can mistake for this a local

acclamation, or a transitory out-cry--transitory though it be for

years, local though from a Nation. Still more lamentable is his error

who can believe that there is anything of divine infallibility in

the clamour of that small though loud portion of the community, ever

governed by factitious influence, which, under the name of the PUBLIC,

passes itself, upon the unthinking, for the PEOPLE. Towards the

Public, the Writer hopes that he feels as much deference as it is

entitled to: but to the People, philosophically characterized, and to

the embodied spirit of their knowledge, so far as it exists and moves,

at the present, faithfully supported by its two wings, the past and

the future, his devout respect, his reverence, is due. He offers it

willingly and readily; and, this done, takes leave of his Readers,

by assuring them--that, if he were not persuaded that the contents

of these Volumes, and the Work to which they are subsidiary, evince

something of the 'Vision and the Faculty divine'; and that, both in

words and things, they will operate in their degree, to extend the

domain of sensibility for the delight, the honour, and the benefit

of human nature, nothwithstanding the many happy hours which he

has employed in their composition, and the manifold comforts and

enjoyments they have procured to him, he would not, if a wish could

do it, save them from immediate destruction;--from becoming at this

moment, to the world, as a thing that had never been.

[Footnote 5: The learned Hakewill (a third edition of whose book bears

date 1635), writing to refute the error 'touching Nature's perpetual

and universal decay,' cites triumphantly the names of Ariosto,

Tasso, Bartas, and Spenser, as instances that poetic genius had not

degenerated; but be makes no mention of Shakespeare.]

[Footnote 6: This flippant insensibility was publicly reprehended by

Mr. Coleridge in a course of Lectures upon Poetry given by him at the

Royal Institution. For the various merits of thought and language in

Shakespeare's _Sonnets_, see Nos. 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 54, 64, 66, 68,

73, 76, 86, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114,

116, 117, 129, and many others.]

[Footnote 7: Hughes is express upon this subject in his dedication of

Spenser's Works to Lord Somers, he writes thus 'It was your Lordship's

encouraging a beautiful edition of _Paradise Lost_ that first brought

that incomparable Poem to be generally known and esteemed.']

[Footnote 8: This opinion seems actually to have been entertained by

Adam Smith, the worst critic, David Hume not excepted, that Scotland,

a soil to which this sort of weed seems natural, has produced.]

[Footnote 9: CORTES, _alone in a night-gown_.

All things are hush'd as Nature's self lay dead;

The mountains seem to nod their drowsy head.

The little Birds in dreams their songs repeat,

And sleeping Flowers beneath the Night-dew sweat:

Even Lust and Envy sleep; yet Love denies

Rest to my soul, and slumber to my eyes.

DRYDEN'S _Indian Emperor_.]

[Footnote 10: Since these observations upon Thomson were written, I

have perused the second edition of his _Seasons_, and find that even

_that_ does not contain the most striking passages which Warton points

out for admiration, these, with other improvements, throughout the

whole work, must have been added at a later period.]

[Footnote 11: Shenstone, in his _Schoolmistress_, gives a still more

remarkable instance of this timidity On its first appearance (see

D'Israeli's 2d Series of the _Curiosities of Literature_) the Poem was

accompanied with an absurd prose commentary, showing, as indeed some

incongruous expressions in the text imply, that the whole was intended

for burlesque. In subsequent editions, the commentary was dropped, and

the People have since continued to read in seriousness, doing for the

Author what he had not courage openly to venture upon for himself.]

PREFACE TO CROMWELL

BY VICTOR HUGO. (1827)[A]

The drama contained in the following pages has nothing to commend

it to the attention or the good will of the public. It has not, to

attract the interest of political disputants, the advantage of the

veto of the official censorship, nor even, to win for it at the outset

the literary sympathy of men of taste, the honour of having been

formally rejected by an infallible reading committee.

It presents itself, therefore, to the public gaze, naked and

friendless, like the infirm man of the Gospel--_solus, pauper, nudus_.

Not without some hesitation, moreover, did the author determine to

burden his drama with a preface. Such things are usually of very

little interest to the reader. He inquires concerning the talent of

a writer rather than concerning his point of view; and in determining

whether a work is good or bad, it matters little to him upon what

ideas it is based, or in what sort of mind it germinated. One seldom

inspects the cellars of a house after visiting its salons, and when

one eats the fruit of a tree, one cares but little about its root.

On the other hand, notes and prefaces are sometimes a convenient

method of adding to the weight of a book, and of magnifying, in

appearance at least, the importance of a work; as a matter of tactics

this is not dissimilar to that of the general who, to make his

battle-front more imposing, puts everything, even his baggage-trains,

in the line. And then, while critics fall foul of the preface and

scholars of the notes, it may happen that the work itself will

escape them, passing uninjured between their cross-fires, as an army

extricates itself from a dangerous position between two skirmishes of

outposts and rear-guards.

These reasons, weighty as they may seem, are not those which

influenced the author. This volume did not need to be _inflated_, it

was already too stout by far. Furthermore, and the author does not

know why it is so, his prefaces, frank and ingenuous as they are, have

always served rather to compromise him with the critics than to shield

him. Far from being staunch and trusty bucklers, they have played him

a trick like that played in a battle by an unusual and conspicuous

uniform, which, calling attention to the soldier who wears it,

attracts all the blows and is proof against none.

Considerations of an altogether different sort acted upon the author.

It seemed to him that, although in fact, one seldom inspects the

cellars of a building for pleasure, one is not sorry sometimes to

examine its foundations. He will, therefore, give himself over once

more, with a preface, to the wrath of the _feuilletonists. Che sara,

sara_. He has never given much thought to the fortune of his works,

and he is but little appalled by dread of the literary _what will

people say_. In the discussion now raging, in which the theatre and

the schools, the public and the academies, are at daggers drawn, one

will hear, perhaps, not without some interest, the voice of a solitary

_apprentice_ of nature and truth, who has withdrawn betimes from the

literary world, for pure love of letters, and who offers good faith in

default of good taste, sincere conviction in default of talent, study

in default of learning.

He will confine himself, however, to general considerations concerning

the art, without the slightest attempt to smooth the path of his own

work, without pretending to write an indictment or a plea, against or

for any person whomsoever. An attack upon or defence of his book is

of less importance to him than to anybody else. Nor is personal

controversy agreeable to him. It is always a pitiful spectacle to

see two hostile self-esteems crossing swords. He protests, therefore,

beforehand against every interpretation of his ideas, every personal

application of his words, saying with the Spanish fablist:--

Quien haga aplicaciones

Con su pan se lo coma.

In truth, several of the leading champions of "sound literary

doctrines" have done him the honour to throw the gauntlet to him, even

in his profound obscurity--to him, a simple, imperceptible spectator

of this curious contest. He will not have the presumption to pick it

up. In the following pages will be found the observations with which

he might oppose them--there will be found his sling and his stone;

but others, if they choose, may hurl them at the head of the classical

Goliaths.

This said, let us pass on.

Let us set out from a fact. The same type of civilization, or to use

a more exact, although more extended expression, the same society, has

not always inhabited the earth. The human race as a whole has grown,

has developed, has matured, like one of ourselves. It was once a

child, it was once a man; we are now looking on at its impressive old

age. Before the epoch which modern society has dubbed "ancient," there

was another epoch which the ancients called "fabulous," but which it

would be more accurate to call "primitive." Behold then three great

successive orders of things in civilization, from its origin down to

our days. Now, as poetry is always superposed upon society, we

propose to try to demonstrate, from the form of its society, what the

character of the poetry must have been in those three great ages of

the world--primitive times, ancient times, modern times.

In primitive times, when man awakes in a world that is newly created,

poetry awakes with him. In the face of the marvellous things that

dazzle and intoxicate him, his first speech is a hymn simply. He is

still so close to God that all his meditations are ecstatic, all his

dreams are visions. His bosom swells, he sings as he breathes.

His lyre has but three strings--God, the soul, creation; but this

threefold mystery envelopes everything, this threefold idea embraces

everything. The earth is still almost deserted. There are families,

but no nations; patriarchs, but no kings. Each race exists at its own

pleasure; no property, no laws, no contentions, no wars. Everything

belongs to each and to all. Society is a community. Man is restrained

in nought. He leads that nomadic pastoral life with which all

civilizations begin, and which is so well adapted to solitary

contemplation, to fanciful reverie. He follows every suggestion,

he goes hither and thither, at random. His thought, like his life,

resembles a cloud that changes its shape and its direction according

to the wind that drives it. Such is the first man, such is the first

poet. He is young, he is cynical. Prayer is his sole religion, the ode

is his only form of poetry.

This ode, this poem of primitive times, is Genesis.

By slow degrees, however, this youth of the world passes away. All

the spheres progress; the family becomes a tribe, the tribe becomes a

nation. Each of these groups of men camps about a common centre, and

kingdoms appear. The social instinct succeeds the nomadic instinct.

The camp gives place to the city, the tent to the palace, the ark to

the temple. The chiefs of these nascent states are still shepherds,

it is true, but shepherds of nations; the pastoral staff has already

assumed the shape of a sceptre. Everything tends to become stationary

and fixed. Religion takes on a definite shape; prayer is governed by

rites; dogma sets bounds to worship. Thus the priest and king share

the paternity of the people; thus theocratic society succeeds the

patriarchal community.

Meanwhile the nations are beginning to be packed too closely on the

earth's surface. They annoy and jostle one another; hence the clash

of empires--war. They overflow upon another; hence, the migrations of

nations--voyages. Poetry reflects these momentous events; from ideas

it proceeds to things. It sings of ages, of nations, of empires. It

becomes epic, it gives birth to Homer.

Homer, in truth, dominates the society of ancient times. In that

society, all is simple, all is epic. Poetry is religion, religion is

law. The virginity of the earlier age is succeeded by the chastity

of the later. A sort of solemn gravity is everywhere noticeable, in

private manners no less than in public. The nations have retained

nothing of the wandering life of the earlier time, save respect

for the stranger and the traveller. The family has a fatherland;

everything is connected therewith; it has the cult of the house and

the cult of the tomb.

We say again, such a civilization can find its one expression only in

the epic. The epic will assume diverse forms, but will never lose its

specific character. Pindar is more priestlike than patriarchal, more

epic than lyrical. If the chroniclers, the necessary accompaniments

of this second age of the world, set about collecting traditions and

begin to reckon by centuries, they labour to no purpose--chronology

cannot expel poesy; history remains an epic. Herodotus is a Homer.

But it is in the ancient tragedy, above all, that the epic breaks out

at every turn. It mounts the Greek stage without losing aught, so to

speak, of its immeasurable, gigantic proportions. Its characters

are still heroes, demigods, gods; its themes are visions, oracles,

fatality; its scenes are battles, funeral rites, catalogues. That

which the rhapsodists formerly sang, the actors declaim--that is the

whole difference.

There is something more. When the whole plot, the whole spectacle

of the epic poem have passed to the stage, the Chorus takes all that

remains. The Chorus annotates the tragedy, encourages the heroes,

gives descriptions, summons and expels the daylight, rejoices,

laments, sometimes furnishes the scenery, explains the moral bearing

of the subject, flatters the listening assemblage. Now, what is the

Chorus, this anomalous character standing between the spectacle and

the spectator, if it be not the poet completing his epic?

The theatre of the ancients is, like their dramas, huge, pontifical,

epic. It is capable of holding thirty thousand spectators; the plays

are given in the open air, in bright sunlight; the performances last

all day. The actors disguise their voices, wear masks, increase their

stature; they make themselves gigantic, like their roles. The stage is

immense. It may represent at the same moment both the interior and

the exterior of a temple, a palace, a camp, a city. Upon it,

vast spectacles are displayed. There is--we cite only from

memory--Prometheus on his mountain; there is Antigone, at the top of

a tower, seeking her brother Polynices in the hostile army (_The

Phoenicians_); there is Evadne hurling herself from a cliff into the

flames where the body of Capaneus is burning (_The Suppliants_ of

Euripides); there is a ship sailing into port and landing fifty

princesses with their retinues (_The Suppliants_ of Æschylus).

Architecture, poetry, everything assumes a monumental character. In

all antiquity there is nothing more solemn, more majestic. Its history

and its religion are mingled on its stage. Its first actors are

priests; its scenic performances are religious ceremonies, national

festivals.

One last observation, which completes our demonstration of the epic

character of this epoch: in the subjects which it treats, no less than

in the forms it adopts, tragedy simply re-echoes the epic. All

the ancient tragic authors derive their plots from Homer. The same

fabulous exploits, the same catastrophes, the same heroes. One and

all drink from the Homeric stream. The Iliad and Odyssey are always

in evidence. Like Achilles dragging Hector at his chariot-wheel, the

Greek tragedy circles about Troy.

But the age of the epic draws near its end. Like the society that

it represents, this form of poetry wears itself out revolving upon

itself. Rome reproduces Greece, Virgil copies Homer, and, as if to

make a becoming end, epic poetry expires in the last parturition.

It was time. Another era is about to begin, for the world and for

poetry.

A spiritual religion, supplanting the material and external paganism,

makes its way to the heart of the ancient society, kills it, and

deposits, in that corpse of a decrepit civilization, the germ of

modern civilization. This religion as complete, because it is true;

between its dogma and its cult, it embraces a deep-rooted moral. Arid

first of all, as a fundamental truth, it teaches man that he has two

lives to live, one ephemeral, the other immortal; one on earth, the

other in heaven. It shows him that he, like his destiny, is twofold:

that there is in him an animal and an intellect, a body and a soul; in

a word, that he is the point of intersection, the common link of

the two chains of beings which embrace all creation--of the chain

of material beings and the chain of incorporeal beings; the first

starting from the rock to arrive at man, the second starting from man

to end at God.

A portion of these truths had perhaps been suspected by certain wise

men of ancient times, but their full, broad, luminous revelation dates

from the Gospels. The pagan schools walked in darkness, feeling their

way, clinging to falsehoods as well as to truths in their haphazard

journeying. Some of their philosophers occasionally cast upon certain

subjects feeble gleams which illuminated but one side and made the

darkness of the other side more profound. Hence all the phantoms

created by ancient philosophy. None but divine wisdom was capable of

substituting an even and all-embracing light for all those flickering

rays of human wisdom. Pythagoras, Epicurus, Socrates, Plato, are

torches: Christ is the glorious light of day.

Nothing could be more material, indeed, than the ancient theogony. Far

from proposing, as Christianity does, to separate the spirit from the

body, it ascribes form and features to everything, even to impalpable

essences, even to the intelligence. In it everything is visible,

tangible, fleshly. Its gods need a cloud to conceal themselves from

men's eyes. They eat, drink, and sleep. They are wounded and their

blood flows; they are maimed, and lo! they limp forever after. That

religion has gods and halves of gods. Its thunderbolts are forged on

an anvil, and among other things three rays of twisted rain (_tres

imbris torti radios_) enter into their composition. Its Jupiter

suspends the world by a golden chain; its sun rides in a four-horse

chariot; its hell is a precipice the brink of which is marked on the

globe; its heaven is a mountain.

Thus paganism, which moulded all creations from the same clay,

minimizes divinity and magnifies man. Homer's heroes are of almost the

same stature as his gods. Ajax defies Jupiter, Achilles is the peer

of Mars. Christianity on the contrary, as we have seen, draws a broad

line of division between spirit and matter. It places an abyss between

the soul and the body, an abyss between man and God.

At this point--to omit nothing from the sketch upon which we have

ventured--we will call attention to the fact that, with Christianity,

and by its means, there entered into the mind of the nations a new

sentiment, unknown to the ancients and marvellously developed

among moderns, a sentiment which is more than gravity and less than

sadness--melancholy. In truth, might not the heart of man, hitherto

deadened by religions purely hierarchical and sacerdotal, awake and

feel springing to life within it some unexpected faculty, under the

breath of a religion that is human because it is divine, a religion

which makes of the poor man's prayer, the rich man's wealth, a

religion of equality, liberty and charity? Might it not see all things

in a new light, since the Gospel had shown it the soul through the

senses, eternity behind life?

Moreover, at that very moment the world was undergoing so complete

a revolution that it was impossible that there should not be a

revolution in men's minds. Hitherto the catastrophes of empires

had rarely reached the hearts of the people; it was kings who fell,

majesties that vanished, nothing more. The lightning struck only in

the upper regions, and, as we have already pointed out, events seemed

to succeed one another with all the solemnity of the epic. In the

ancient society, the individual occupied so lowly a place that, to

strike him, adversity must needs descend to his family. So that he

knew little of misfortune outside of domestic sorrows. It was an

almost unheard of thing that the general disasters of the state should

disarrange his life. But the instant that Christian society became

firmly established, the ancient continent was thrown into confusion.

Everything was pulled up by the roots. Events, destined to destroy

ancient Europe and to construct a new Europe, trod upon one another's

heels in their ceaseless rush, and drove the nations pell-mell, some

into the light, others into darkness. So much uproar ensued that it

was impossible that some echoes of it should not reach the hearts

of the people. It was more than an echo, it was a reflex blow. Man,

withdrawing within himself in presence of these imposing vicissitudes,

began to take pity upon mankind, to reflect upon the bitter

disillusionments of life. Of this sentiment, which to Cato the heathen

was despair, Christianity fashioned melancholy.

Prefaces and prologues to famous books · 第 31 / 41 段