[13] _L'Homme qui rit._
[14] This letter, accepting the first contribution of R. L. S., has
by an accident been preserved, and is so interesting, both for its
occasion and for the light it throws on the writer's care and
kindness as an editor, that by permission of his representatives I
here print it. '93 stands, of course, for the novel _Quatre-vingt
Treize_.
_15 Waterloo Place, S. W., 15/5/74_
DEAR SIR,--I have read with great interest your article on Victor
Hugo and also that which appeared in the last number of Macmillan. I
shall be happy to accept Hugo, and if I have been rather long in
answering you, it is only because I wished to give a second reading
to the article, and have lately been very much interrupted.
I will now venture to make a few remarks, and by way of preface I
must say that I do not criticise you because I take a low view of
your powers: but for the very contrary reason. I think very highly
of the promise shown in your writings and therefore think it worth
while to write more fully than I can often to contributors. Nor do I
set myself up as a judge--I am very sensible of my own failings in
the critical department and merely submit what has occurred to me
for your consideration.
I fully agree with the greatest portion of your opinions and think
them very favourably expressed. The following points struck me as
doubtful when I read and may perhaps be worth notice.
First, you seem to make the distinction between dramatic and
novelistic art coincide with the distinction between romantic and
18th century. This strikes me as doubtful, as at least to require
qualification. To my mind Hugo is far more dramatic in spirit than
Fielding, though his method involves (as you show exceedingly well)
a use of scenery and background which would hardly be admissible in
drama. I am not able--I fairly confess--to define the dramatic
element in Hugo or to say why I think it absent from Fielding and
Richardson. Yet surely Hugo's own dramas are a sufficient proof that
a drama may be romantic as well as a novel: though, of course, the
pressure of the great moral forces, etc., must be indicated by
different means. The question is rather a curious one and too wide
to discuss in a letter. I merely suggest what seems to me to be an
obvious criticism on your argument.
Secondly, you speak very sensibly of the melodramatic and clap-trap
element in Hugo. I confess that it seems to me to go deeper into his
work than you would apparently allow. I think it, for example, very
palpable even in _Notre Dame_, and I doubt the historical fidelity
though my ignorance of mediaeval history prevents me from putting my
finger on many faults. The consequence is that in my opinion you are
scarcely just to Scott or Fielding as compared with Hugo. Granting
fully his amazing force and fire, he seems to me to be deficient
often in that kind of healthy realism which is so admirable in
Scott's best work. For example, though my Scotch blood (for I can
boast of some) may prejudice me I am profoundly convinced that
Balfour of Burley would have knocked M. Lantenac into a cocked hat
and stormed la Tourgue if it had been garrisoned by 19 x 19 French
spouters of platitude in half the time that Gauvain and Cimourdain
took about it. In fact, Balfour seems to me to be flesh and blood
and Gauvain & Co. to be too often mere personified bombast: and
therefore I fancy that _Old Mortality_ will outlast '93, though
_Notre Dame_ is far better than _Quentin Durward_, and _Les
Miserables_, perhaps, better than any. This is, of course, fair
matter of opinion.
Thirdly, I don't think that you quite bring out your meaning in
saying that '93 is a decisive symptom. I confess that I don't quite
see in what sense it decides precisely what question. A sentence or
so would clear this up.
Fourthly, as a matter of form, I think (but I am very doubtful) that
it might possibly have been better not to go into each novel in
succession; but to group the substance of your remarks a little
differently. Of course I don't want you to alter the form, I merely
notice the point as suggesting a point in regard to any future
article.
Many of your criticisms in detail strike me as very good. I was much
pleased by your remarks on the storm in the _Travailleurs_. There
was another very odd storm, as it struck me on a hasty reading in
'93, where there is mention of a beautiful summer evening and yet
the wind is so high that you can't hear the tocsin. You do justice
also and more than justice to Hugo's tenderness about children.
That, I think, points to one great source of his power.
It would be curious to compare Hugo to a much smaller man, Chas.
Reade, who is often a kind of provincial or Daily Telegraph Hugo.
However that would hardly do in the Cornhill. I shall send your
article to the press and hope to use it in July. Any alterations can
be made when the article is in type, if any are desirable. I cannot
promise definitely in advance; but at any rate it shall appear as
soon as may be.
Excuse this long rigmarole and believe me to be, yours very truly,