A LIVING LIE

(MENSONGES)

BY

PAUL BOURGET

TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH

BY

JOHN DE VILLIERS

NEW YORK

R. F. FENNO & COMPANY

112 FIFTH AVENUE

LONDON: CHATTO & WINDUS

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. A Provincial Corner of Paris II. Simple Souls III. A Lover and a Snob IV. The 'Sigisbée' V. The Dawn of Love VI. An Observer's Logic VII. The Face of a Madonna VIII. The Other Side of the Picture IX. An Actress in Real Life X. In the Toils XI. Declarations XII. Cruel to be Kind XIII. At Home XIV. Happy Days XV. Colette's Spite XVI. The Story of a Suspicion XVII. Proofs XVIII. The Happiest of the Four XIX. All or Nothing XX. The Abbé Taconet

MY DEAR DE VILLIERS,

In the first place, you must let me thank you for having undertaken the task of introducing 'Mensonges' to the English-reading public; and also express the hope that this novel, which is no longer new, may not cause a recurrence of that misconception which too often arises when a work written in and for a Latin country is suddenly transplanted to Anglo-Saxon soil.

One of the most grievous results of such misconception, and one which French writers—I speak from experience—feel most keenly, is the reproach of immorality. Balzac spent a lifetime in defending himself against that charge; so it was with Flaubert; so it is with Emile Zola. I well remember how hurt I felt myself when, in the course of an action brought some ten years since against a publishing firm in London—who had, by the way, issued a translation of the work without my permission—'Un Crime d'Amour' was harshly spoken of by one of your judges. Not only then, but on many occasions, have I had an opportunity of remarking that the English regard the novelist's art from a standpoint differing entirely from that taken up by French writers. That difference is well worth dwelling upon here, for the problem it raises is neither more nor less than the problem of the whole art of novel-writing.

To French writers—and I refer more particularly to the great school which follows Balzac and Stendhal—the first quality of that art is analytical precision. Balzac called himself 'a doctor of social sciences.' Stendhal-Beyle, when asked his profession, used to reply, 'Observer of the human heart'; and upon the title-page of 'Rouge et Noir' he wrote as a motto the significant words, 'The truth, the ugly truth.' Every word of Flaubert's correspondence breathes forth the conviction that the novelist must always and before all else paint life as it is. These writers and their disciples do but follow, consciously or unconsciously, the scientific movement of the age. They are sociologists and psychologists who write in an imaginative form. The attitude they usually take up towards the object they are studying is explained by the fact that, as analysts, they are obliged to assume that absolute indifference to morality or immorality which should animate every savant whilst pursuing his investigations.

For them the whole question resolves itself into this: they must look the bare realities of life full in the face, reproduce them with absolute fidelity, and reject nothing they find; it should be their aim to produce a work of truth rather than a work of beauty. That is why Balzac, for example, did not hesitate, in 'Splendeurs et Misères des Courtisanes,' and in 'La Cousine Bette,' to lay bare with the brutal bluntness of a police report the lowest depths of Parisian vice. That, too, is why Flaubert had no compunction in placing before the readers of his 'Madame Bovary' the repulsive picture of Emma and Léon meeting in a house of ill-fame in Rouen. In his conception of imaginative literature the writer takes no heed of what will please or displease, what will comfort or afflict, what will affect or disgust. His aim is to add one document more to the mass of information concerning mankind and society collected by physiology, psychology, and the history of languages, creeds, and institutions. The novelist is merely a chronicler of actual

life, and the value of his testimony lies in its truth.

It is easy to see, as I shall presently prove, that these æsthetics are intimately related to that great principle of intellectual conscientiousness which, under the name of science, animates the present age; and this relationship would in itself endow with idealism an art which has apparently no ideal. But a big objection to these theories has long been formulated—an objection that seems to spring up most readily in English minds when confronted with the bold utterances such theories authorise. The novel, it is said, necessarily appeals to the popular taste and places its impress upon the imagination of readers who are totally devoid of the ideal impartiality of those who take up a scientific standpoint. When such readers dip into a work like 'Splendeurs et Misères' or 'Madame Bovary,' they at once enter into the very life and spirit with which these books are permeated. The author's genius, reproducing in vivid colours scenes of questionable morality, makes them almost real, and to man, naturally imitative, such studies

form a standing danger. If a bad example is contagious in real life, surely, it is urged, it is none the less so when enhanced by the magic of a master's style.

I do not think that, in stating the case for the other side I have weakened their argument. At the first glance, it seems irrefutable. I think, however, that novelists of the school of Balzac and Flaubert may justly reply that the morality of a book is something totally distinct from the danger that its perusal presents. Before deciding whether the total effect of a certain class of literature is worth the danger it incurs, it would be necessary to ascertain how far a work has been properly or improperly understood by all its readers. I, for my part, am fully convinced that the safety of society is absolutely dependent upon a true knowledge of human life, and that every work composed in a spirit of truth is on that account alone conducive of good. If the work occasionally shocks or offends a reader, it is none the less certain that it adds to the knowledge of the laws governing the minds and passions of men. Now, it is impossible to cite an example where the general conclusions drawn by a novelist of the analytical school have

ever been contrary to the eternal laws set forth in the Decalogue.

Balzac might well have headed the last part of his 'Splendeurs et Misères' with this prophetic admonition from the Scriptures, The way of the ungodly shall perish. Flaubert could have chosen no better epigraph for the title-page of 'Madame Bovary' than the Seventh Commandment; and, if a modest disciple may be permitted to compare himself with these great masters, and his humble productions with their superior works, the novel now presented to the English public has its moral in the words addressed by the Abbé Taconet to Claude Larcher and in the lesson of social Christianity they teach.

These few remarks are necessary for the comprehension of passages in the following pages that might be considered crude outside the Parisian circle in which they were written. When 'Mensonges' was first published, nearly ten years ago, it was generally admitted that the picture was very faithfully drawn. On the other hand, it evoked a lively discussion in the Press concerning the value of the process by which this study had been produced—in other words, the value of psychological analysis.

Eminent critics reproached me with carrying the dissection of motives too far, and with too frequently laying bare the exquisitely delicate fibres of the heart. I well remember that amongst my masters Alexandre Dumas was most assiduous in warning me of the dangers of my method. 'It is a very fine thing to show how a watch works,' he would say to me, 'but not if by doing so you prevent it from telling the time.'

That all life is, to a great extent, unconscious is perfectly true, and a psychological analyst may therefore imperil the beauty of the particular life he proposes to describe by bringing into undue prominence and bestowing too much care upon its hidden workings. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to own that in so doing I may have deserved reproach; but I am persuaded that, if such be the case, the fault is mine and not that of the method employed. Every work of art, if critically considered, will be found to contain incongruities which the genius of the artist must conceal. The drama, for instance, in its use of dialogue, must compress into a few minutes conversations that would, in reality, occupy whole hours. It would therefore seem a priori as if all semblance of truth were in that case impossible. In the same way a lyric poet, by attempting to express in scholarly rhyme and in verse of complicated structure the most simple and spontaneous feelings of the heart, would seem to undertake a most paradoxical, I had almost said an

absurd, task. And yet the dialogue of a Shakespeare or of a Molière has all the movement and colour of life itself. Heine's Lieder and Shelley's lyrics are real vibrations of the heart; and, to come back to the psychological novel, I may surely hold up the works of George Eliot, Tourguenieff, and Tolstoi in reply to the objection that a too minute analysis of character and feeling substitutes a dry anatomical study for the glow and ardour of passion. If 'Mensonges' may not be added to the list, it can only be because its author has not the necessary skill to wield what is, after all, a most excellent instrument.

These are a few of the ideas which I beg you to lay before the readers of the English version of my story in order that their hearts may be inclined to indulgence before they turn to the work itself. Allow me to thank you, as well as MM. Chatto and Windus, once more for having thought this study of Parisian life worthy the distinction of such a careful and masterly translation as yours.

Believe me,

Yours very faithfully,

PAUL BOURGET.

HYÈRES, January 30, 1896.

A LIVING LIE

CHAPTER I A PROVINCIAL CORNER OF PARIS

'The gates are closed, sir,' said the driver, bending down from his box.

'Closed at half-past nine!' exclaimed a voice from the interior of the cab. 'What a place to live in! You needn't trouble to get down. The pavement's dry—I'll walk.'

The door of the vehicle swung open, and a young man stepped gingerly out, pulling the collar of his fur-lined coat a little more closely about his throat. The dainty patent-leather shoes that left just an inch of the embroidered silk socks visible, the plain black trousers and opera hat, showed that the wearer was in evening dress. The cab was one of those superior conveyances that ply for hire outside the Paris clubs, and the driver, little accustomed to this provincial corner of the city, began to peer, with almost as much interest as his fare, into the strange street that, although situated on the borders of the Faubourg Saint-Germain, had such an old-world look about it. At the time we write of—the beginning of February, 1879—the Rue Coëtlogon, running from the Rue d'Assas to the Rue de Rennes, still possessed the peculiarity of being shut off from the rest of the world by gates, while at night it was lit up by an oil lamp, hanging, in the old-fashioned way, from a rope swung right across the roadway. Since then the appearance of the

place has changed a good deal. The mysterious-looking house on the right, standing in its own bit of garden, and affording no doubt a quiet retreat to some retiring old dame, has disappeared. The vacant land, that rendered the Rue Coëtlogon as inaccessible to vehicles on the one side as did the iron gates on the other, has been cleared of its heaps of stones. Gas jets have taken the place of the oil lamp, and only a slight unevenness in the pavement now marks the position of the posts upon which the gates hung. These were never locked, but only swung to at night; there was therefore no necessity for the young man to pull the bell, but before entering the narrow lane he stopped for a few moments to take in the strange scene presented by the dark outline of the houses on the left, the garden on the right, a confused mass of unfinished buildings at the bottom, and the old oil lamp in the middle. Overhead a bright wintry moon hung in the vast expanse of the heavens, through which sped a few swift-sailing clouds. As they scudded across the face

of the moon, and flew off into the dark immensity beyond, they seemed only to enhance the metallic brilliancy of the luminary by the momentary shadow they cast in sweeping by.

'What a scene it would make for a parting!' murmured the young man, adding, in a somewhat louder tone:

Had any observant passer-by happened to hear these two lines from Victor Hugo he would have recognised a man of letters by the way in which they were delivered. The solitary speaker bore indeed a name well to the fore in the literature of the day. But names so quickly disappear and get forgotten in the incessant onward rush of new works, self-assertive claims, and fleeting reputations that the successes of ten years ago seem as distant and as vague as those of another age. Two dramas of modern life, a little too directly inspired by the younger Dumas, had brought this young man—he was thirty-five or more, but he looked barely thirty—momentary renown, and he had not yet spoilt his name by putting it at the bottom of hastily written articles or upon the covers of indifferent novels. He was known only as the author of 'La Goule' and 'Entre Adultères,' two plays of unequal merit, full of a pessimism frequently conventional, but powerful in their trenchant analysis, their smart dialogue, and their painful striving after the

Ideal. In 1879 these plays were already three years old, and Claude Larcher, who had allowed himself to drift into a life of idle pleasure, was beginning to accept lucrative and easy work, being no longer fit to make any fresh and long-sustained effort.

Like many analytical writers, he was accustomed to study and probe himself incessantly, though all his introspection had not the least influence upon his actions. The most trifling occurrences served as a pretext for indulging in examination of himself and his destiny, but long-continued dualism of this kind only resulted in keeping his perceptive faculties uselessly and painfully alert. The sight of this peaceful street and the thought of Victor Hugo immediately reminded him of the resolutions he had been vainly formulating for some months past to lead a retired life of regular work. He reflected that he had a novel on order for a magazine, a play to write that had already been accepted, and reviews to send to a 'daily,' whilst, instead of being seated at his table in the Rue de Varenne, here he was gadding about at ten o'clock at night dressed like an idler and a snob. He would pass the remainder of the evening and a part of the night at a soirée given by the Comtesse Komof, a Russian lady of fashion living in Paris, whose receptions at

the grand mansion in the Rue de Bel-Respiro were as magnificent as they were mixed. He was about to do even worse. He had come to fetch another writer, ten years younger than himself, who had till that moment led precisely the noble life of hard work for which he himself so longed, in one of the houses in this modest and quiet Rue Coëtlogon.

René Vincy—that was the name of his young colleague—had just leapt with one bound into the full glare of publicity, thanks to one of those strokes of literary luck which do not occur twice in a generation. The 'Sigisbée,' a comedy in one act and in verse, a fanciful, dreamy work, written without any hopes of practical success, had brought him sudden fame. Like our dear François Coppée's 'Le Passant,' it had taken the blasé capital by storm, and had called forth not only unanimous applause in the Théâtre Français, but a chorus of praise in the newspapers next day. Of this astonishing success Claude could claim a share. Was he not the first in whose hands the manuscript of the 'Sigisbée' had been placed? Had he not taken it to Colette Rigaud, the famous actress of the House of Molière? And Colette, having fallen in love with the principal part, had smoothed away all obstacles. It was he, Claude Larcher, who, consulted by Madame Komof upon the choice of a play to be performed in her salon, had suggested the 'Sigisbée;' the Comtesse had acted upon his suggestion,

and the performance was to take place that evening. Claude, who had undertaken to chaperon the young poet, had come at the appointed hour to the Rue Coëtlogon, where René Vincy lived with his married sister.

This extreme kindness of an already successful author towards a mere novice was not entirely devoid of a tinge of irony and pride. Claude Larcher, who spent his time in slandering the wealthy and cosmopolitan world in which the Comtesse Komof moved, and in which he himself was always mixing, felt his vanity slightly tickled by being able to dazzle his friend with the glamour of his fashionable connections. At the same time the malicious cynic was amused by the simplicity of the poet and by his childish awe of that magic and meaningless word—Society. He had already enjoyed, as much as a play, Vincy's shyness during their first visit to the Comtesse a few days before, and thoughts of the fever of expectancy in which René must now be made him smile as he approached the house in which his young friend lived.

'And to think that I was just as foolish as that once!' he murmured, remembering that he, too, as well as René, had had his début; then he thought, 'That is a feeling of which those who have always lived in that kind of world have no idea; and how absurd it is for us to go and visit these people!'

Whilst philosophising in this manner Claude had stopped before another gate on the left, and, finding it locked, had rung the bell. The passage to which this gate gave access belonged to a three-storeyed house separated from the street by a narrow strip of garden. The porter's lodge was under the arch at the end of the passage, but either the concierge was absent or the pull at the bell had not been sufficiently vigorous, for Claude was obliged to tug a second time at the rusty ring that hung at the end of a long chain. He had time, therefore, to examine this dull, dismal-looking house, in which there was only one window lit up. This was on the ground floor, and belonged to the suite of rooms occupied by the Fresneaus, four windows of which looked out upon the little garden.

Mademoiselle Emilie Vincy, the poet's sister, had married one Maurice Fresneau, a teacher, whose colleague Claude had been upon first coming to Paris—a début of which the pampered author of 'La Goule' was weak enough to be ashamed. How happy he would have been had he been able to say that he had frittered away his patrimony at cards or upon women! He, however, kept up a close acquaintance with his former colleague, out of gratitude for pecuniary services rendered long ago. He had at first interested himself in René chiefly for the sake of this old comrade of less happy days, but had afterwards yielded to the charm of the young man's nature. How often, when tired of his artificial life and tortured by painful indolence and bitter passions, had he not come to obtain an hour's rest in René's modest room, next to that in which the light was now burning, and which was the dining-room. In the short interval that elapsed between his two rings, and thanks to the swift imagination of his artistic mind, this room suddenly rose up before