The Fortunes of Victor Hugo in England 9780231893961

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
I. The Introduction of Victor Hugo to the English (1823–1830)
II. The Foundation of Hugo’s English Reputation: “Notre Dame de Paris” (1831–1836)
III. The Reaction against Hugo’s Romantic Dramas (1830–1840)
IV. Hugo’s Lyric Poetry in England (1832–1840)
V. Intermission (1840–1852)
VI. Hugo Reappears – in the Channel Islands (1852–1859)
VII. “Les Misérables” in England (1862–1863)
VIII. “Les Travailleurs de la mer” in England (1864–1866)
IX. “L’Homme qui rit” in England (1867–1870)
X. The High Tide of Hugo’s English Prestige: as Novelist (1874–1885)
XI. The High Tide of Hugo’s English Prestige: as Poet (1872–1885)
XII. The Death of Hugo and the Decline of his Prestige (1885–1902)
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

STUDIES

IN ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE NUMBER

LITERATURE

134

The Fortunes of Victor Hugo in England

The Fortunes of Victor Hugo in England BY K E N N E T H WARD HOOKER

New York : Morningside Heights COLUMBIA U N I V E R S I T Y 1938

PRESS

COPYRIGHT COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY

1938 PRESS,

NEW

YORK

FOREIGN AGENTS: OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS, H U M P H R E Y MILFORD, A M E N HOUSE,

LONDON,

E.C.

4,

BOMBAY, INDIA; K V A N G SHANGHAI, CHINA;

ENGLAND, HSUEH

MARUZEN

IN

B.

THE

I.

BUILDING,

HOUSE,

C O M P A N Y , LTD., 6

TORI-NICHOME,

MANUFACTURED

AND

PUBLISHING

TOKYO,

UNITED

NICOL

ROAD,

I4O PEKING

ROAD,

NIHONBASHI,

JAPAN

S T A T E S OF

AMERICA

T O T H E M E M O R Y OF MY F A T H E R HORACE WILLARD

HOOKER

Preface who would follow the fortunes of any French poet in England during the nineteenth century may expect to find misunderstanding rather than comprehension, indifference rather than appreciation, and suspicion rather than good-will. This may be regarded almost as a truism, since it has been observed by all students of Anglo-French literary relations during the Victorian era. The pioneer study in this field is Professor Marcel Moraud's Romantisme français en Angleterre de 1814 à 1848, which surveys English opinion of the French préromantiques and of Vigny, Lamartine, Hugo, Dumas, Balzac, and George Sand, and concludes that these writers made almost no impression on the English reading public. This conclusion is certainly the right one; yet I think Professor Moraud's explanation for the failure needs considerable modification. He has usually ascribed English indifference to ignorance—guided, perhaps, by the maxim Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner; and this creates the impression that the English would have approved French Romanticism if they had known enough about it. Where this maxim would not apply, he has explained English disapproval by reference to "moralistic criticism," supposing that this phrase contained its own condemnation. These explanations, which are guided by excessive generosity toward French Romanticism itself, evade the larger issues inherent in national prejudice and difference of opinion. The subject of Victor Hugo's prestige in England offers peculiar attractions to the student of international prejudice. During the nineteenth century Hugo's name raised in the English mind a multitude of associations which were distinctly "French"; he became, in a sense, the "representative" Frenchman. Furthermore, the English consistently and emTHE

READER

vili

Preface

phatically disapproved of Hugo and of all the "French" traits which he supposedly embodied. We have, then, an opportunity to study the psychology of English Francophobia, by tracing the reputation of a writer who was considered to have a particularly Gallic flavor. And for those to whom "prejudiced" is strictly a term of abuse, it may be useful to learn that English prejudice, in this manifestation at least, possessed certain homely virtues of its own. One might name half a dozen French authors whom the Victorians found more repugnant than Hugo. It was of course his leadership of the Romantic "revolution" of the i83o's that first brought Hugo's name into prominence, making it the symbol for all the monsters, glorified courtesans, and bandits who peopled the literature of that time. But later in the century other Frenchmen came forward to lead the forces of Satan—Balzac the vulgar, the pessimist Flaubert, that "nasty" man Zola, and Baudelaire the very flower of evil. The difference was that these authors could not be read in England; they were beyond the pale. Hugo, by his frequent professions of social piety, by his choice of worthy and colossal subjects, by his enormous European fame, acquired an English public, even an English reputation, and was given a chance to prove his worth. It is reasonable to expect, then, that the collapse of Hugo's reputation should tell us something significant of English taste. The capital difficulty in a study of this kind is that of finding an accurate index of public opinion. We wish to know the reaction of the average Englishman to Victor Hugo's writings, but it is obvious that the "average Englishman" is only a myth, and certain that he never recorded his opinion for posterity. O f the possible sources of information on Hugo's success perhaps the most authoritative would be the of publishers' sales and editions. The available records and copies printed have been used in this study, and

literary records of sales for the

Preface

ix

numbers of editions the English Catalogue and the British Museum Catalogue have been consulted. But very little information can be gathered from these sources, for during the nineteenth century few publishers kept complete records of their sales or copies printed. In the absence of this most accurate index, we must rely upon the comments of literary experts, critics, reviewers, and writers in general—all those who, for one reason or another, undertook to record or to mold English opinion on Hugo's works. An investigation should, and perhaps will, be made of English criticism of Hugo recorded in correspondence and memoirs. The present study, however, embraces only the publicly expressed English opinions of the poet. The problem of discriminating among these publicly expressed judgments is a difficult one. During the first part of the century one might isolate a pure stream of Tory opinion in the Quarterly Review, or of liberalism in the Westminster; but after 1830 one cannot expect consistency of opinion from any of the English periodicals. It is likewise impossible to measure with any accuracy the influence of individual reviewers or of periodicals, for in this era of unsigned articles no one knew whom he was reading. Some of the unsigned reviews of Hugo's works were written by such men as John Morley, Robert Louis Stevenson, Leigh Hunt, and A. C. Swinburne, yet they depended very little on personal authority for their influence, because only a few readers knew the secret of their authorship. Before i8$o certain reviews— the Westminster and the Foreign Quarterly, for instance— were measurably superior to the others on the subject of French literature, but during the latter half of the century there were so many changes in personnel and character among the periodicals that none could be established as the supreme authority. On the subject of Hugo, it is approximately true that the public considered one man's opinion as good as another's.

X

Preface

It is a pleasure to record my obligations to Professor Ernest Hunter Wright, who first aroused my interest in this subject, and to Professor Emery E. Neff and Professor George Sherburn, for many helpful criticisms. I also wish to express my gratitude toward Professor Marcel Moraud, for permission to quote from his book Le Romantisme français en Angleterre, to Professor Horatio Smith, Professor Jean-Albert Bédé, and Professor S. H . Nobbe, for reading the manuscript, and to Miss Ruth Z. Temple, for several corrections. K E N N E T H WARD Northfield, Minnesota June 23, 1938

HOOKER

Contents I : INTRODUCTION OF VICTOR HUGO TO T H E ENGLISH (1823-1830) Anglo-French relations under the Restoration; Political, social, literary. — Hugo's first poems and novels, and Stendhal's reviews of them. — English foreign reviewing. — Early criticism of Cromwell, Les Orientales, and Le Dernier jour d'un condamné. — Bug-]argal and Lady Morgan. II : T H E FOUNDATION OF HUGO'S ENGLISH REPU T A T I O N : NOTRE DAME DE PARIS ( 1 8 3 1 - 1 8 3 6 ) The announcement of Notre Dame, 1829. — The first French edition, 1831. — Hazlitt's translation, 1833: Political controversy; Hugo vs. Scott. — La Esmeralda and British chivalry.—The reaction after 1834. Ill : T H E R E A C T I O N AGAINST HUGO'S ROMANTIC DRAMAS (1830-1840) French drama in England. — Hernani and The Pledge. — Marion Delorme. — Le Roi s'amuse and The King's Fool. — Reports of Lucrèce Borgia and Marie Tudor. — The English attack, 1834-1838, led by the Quarterly Review. — Moralistic criticism of the later dramas. — New points of view, 1839—1840. IV : HUGO'S L Y R I C POETRY IN E N G L A N D ( 1 8 3 2 1840) French poetry in England. — First introductions to Hugo's poems.—Translations. — Foreign instructors: Janin, Nisard and Mazzini. — English critics. V : INTERMISSION (1840-1852) Hugo and the new English attitude. — Retrospective criticism. — Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné, Le Rhin and Les Bur graves. — The long silence, 1843-18$ 2.—

27

43

67

84

xii

Contents Hugo in politics. — Apostasy and exile. — Napoléon le petit.

VI : HUGO REAPPEARS — I N T H E C H A N N E L ISLANDS (1852-1859) 10$ The Jersey exiles. — Expulsion and protest, 18 j j . — Residence in Guernsey. — Les Contemplations and La Légende des siècles. V I I : LES MISÉRABLES I N E N G L A N D ( 1 8 6 2 - 1 8 6 j ) 143 Circulation of the novel. — Criticisms by Swinburne and the Quarterly. — The chorus of disapproval. Victor Hugo, the representative Frenchman. V I I I : LES TRAVAILLEURS DE LA MER I N E N G L A N D (1864-1866) 159 The Toilers of the Sea: its circulation in England. — Comparison with Les Misérables. — Hugo's view of nature. — English objections to The Toilers. IX : L'HOMME QUI RIT I N E N G L A N D ( 1 8 6 7 - 1 8 7 0 ) 171 Nature of the work. — The controversy over its translation. — English criticism. — After 1869. X : T H E H I G H T I D E OF HUGO'S E N G L I S H PREST I G E : AS N O V E L I S T ( 1 8 7 4 - 1 8 8 $ ) 186 The triumph of 1870. — The success of Quatre-vingttreize. — Hugo's novels and the wider English public. — The reaction to Hugo's last prose writings. X I : T H E H I G H T I D E OF H U G O ' S E N G L I S H PREST I G E : AS POET ( 1 8 7 2 - 1 8 8 j ) 211 French poetry in England. — Hugo's triumph: L'Année terrible ( 1 8 7 2 ) . — English instructors: Swinburne, Buchanan, Roden Noel, E. Dowden, George Saintsbury, C. E. Vaughan. — La Légende des siècles ( 1 8 7 7 ) . — The Unbelievers: G. H . Lewes, F. W. H. Myers and Matthew Arnold. — Hugo's last poetry.

Contents,

Xlll

XII : T H E D E A T H OF H U G O A N D T H E DECLINE OF HIS PRESTIGE (1885-1902) 2J4 English opinion of Hugo's funeral. — The reaction. — The "Hugo Legend" and its exposure. — The deluge of posthumous works. — The centenary (1902). NOTES

269

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

INDEX

321

The Fortunes of Victor Hugo in England

CHAPTER

ONE

The Introduction of Victor Hugo to the English (1823-1830) A C Q U A I N T A N C E with the name of Victor Hugo began in 1 8 2 3 , when Stendhal introduced the young poet to readers of Colburn's New Monthly Magazine.* During the stormy period of the French Romantic revolution the name, bandied about by the "Foreign Varieties" columnists, gained certain political and literary associations, and became slightly familiar to English ears. But it was not until 1 8 3 3 , with the translation of Notre Dame de Paris, that the individuality of Hugo emerged from this nimbus of classifications: until then, for the average English reader, he was only a French author. It will be necessary, therefore, to know something of the Englishman's view of French authors in the 1820's. Professor Marcel Moraud, in his extensive work on this subject,t states that before 1850 French literature "made progress in England only when it encountered a relatively favorable atmosphere," 1 and demonstrates clearly that AngloFrench political relations influenced the literary relations of the two countries. This will not surprise anyone who is familiar with the early nineteenth century English reviews, for it is well known that the Edinburgh, the Quarterly, and the Westminster had accustomed their readers to accept and to formulate politically-biased opinions on all subjects, whether literary, social, musical, medical, or even mathematical. Naturally this type of reviewing profoundly affected ENGLISH

* "Foreign Publications: Odes et poésies sacrées," New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 9, pp. 1 2 j — 126 (March, 1 8 2 3 ) . t Le Romantisme française en Angleterre Je 1S14 à 1S4S, Paris, H . Champion (Bibliothèque de la Revue de Littérature comparée, t. 9 0 ) , 1 9 ) } .

4

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

English thought on foreign matters, with the result that England's view of her neighbors was sometimes obscured by political or otherwise extraneous considerations. Thus, for more than a decade the public received no clear, unprejudiced accounts of America, because of a quarrel between the Edinburgh and the Quarterly.* During the first two decades of the century prejudice against France was particularly well nourished. In the background was the French Revolution, a horrid specter which Tory reviewers were careful to keep constantly in the public eye. J. S. Mill protested in the Westminster Review in 1826 that people of his own time were . . . unduly panic-stricken about the Revolution because they knew too little. . . . What the T o r y prints choose to tell them of this most interesting period of modern history, so much they know, and nothing more: that is, enough to raise in their minds an intense yet indefinite horror of French reforms and reformers, and as f a r as possible of all reforms and reformers. 2

Even stronger than the memories of the Revolution was the present fear of Republican principles. These were closely associated with France because there they had been tested and put into effect; it behooved the defenders of England's Crown and Aristocracy to prove that no good had come of the experiment. In such a demonstration it was easy to enlist both Tory and Whig writers, for its inevitable corollary was that the English system of government was far superior. Actually, the French pioneers in Democracy were upheld in England * The Edinburgh Review, campaigning against Canning's foreign policy, especially in the Napoleonic Wars, had stressed the imprudence of provoking neutrals, particularly America. T o defend the T o r y government, the Quarterly promptly took the other side, and fought America through the War of 1 8 1 2 with as much bitterness as the armies in the field. Both sides made free use of the weapon of exaggeration: and the Quarterly, moreover, carried the campaign well into the i 8 i o ' s and extended it to every field of American endeavor—political, social, and literary. See Walter J . Graham, Tory Criticism in the Quarterly Review, New Y o r k , Columbia University Press, 1 9 2 1 .

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

j

only by the small Liberal minority, a scattered and heterogeneous group. The greatest stimulus to English prejudice was given by the Napoleonic Wars, in which England had been actively engaged from 1793 to 1802 and from 1803 to 1815. The Wars reflected no real personal enmity between Englishmen and Frenchmen, but they did enforce a prolonged estrangement of the two nations and break many literary and social, as well as political ties. On the English side whatever active hatred existed was directed at Napoleon rather than at the French; when the news of the Emperor's abdication arrived, in April, 1814, English animosity burst upon his head, and there was even a feeling of sympathy for the French people as "victims" of his tyranny and extravagance.3 Although they exulted in their victory, the English people were not ungenerous in their attitude toward their vanquished neighbors —perhaps because the long estrangement had excited a certain curiosity about the present condition of France. Visitors soon began to cross the Channel, and they sent back to the English press long, but usually superficial accounts to satisfy this curiosity. The return of Napoleon in May, 1815, was an unfortunate episode for Anglo-French relations, for it brought this tentative rapprochement to an abrupt end. The reports of that triumphal march from Cannes to Paris not only renewed English fear and hatred of the Emperor but obliterated sympathy toward the French as his "victims." A modern historian * may say of the French on this occasion that, "being but human, they put imagination in the place of reason," but the English in 1815 were not able to take so charitable a view. They could not go on forever sympathizing with victims who manifested such distressing willingness to be victimized; instead, they began to charge the French with hy* Carlton J . H. Hayes, Political and Social History Y o r k , Macmillan, 1928, Vol. i , p. 569.

of Modern

Europe,

New

6

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

pocrisy. This notion was confirmed by reports of the welcome given by Paris to the Bourbons in 1814, to Napoleon in 181 j , and to the Bourbons again after Waterloo; for the newspaper accounts of these demonstrations did not indicate any real difference in the attitude of the French people, whether they were cheering for Legitimacy or for the persistent Emperor. English readers, unaware that their newspapers were judging by the French press and that newly created censorships in France had caused these phenomena, explained this simply by reference to "French fickleness." 4 And the idea of Gallic hypocrisy and fickleness was by no means unfamiliar to the English mind, which still remembered the chaos of French political economy from 1789 to 1799. Reports of Parisian life and customs during the first years of the Restoration only strengthened the English suspicions. The Parisians manifested an unbecoming gaiety after Waterloo: they pursued and captured Pleasure as though nothing had happened. The febrile glitter of the Court, the swarms of amusement-seekers from all over the world, the frequency of scandal in high places—all these gave Englishmen a bad impression of the French capital, and they soon began to look beneath the mask of Parisian brilliance, and find Vice lurking. Having convicted their neighbors of political instability, the English proceeded to the charge of moral instability, and we shall find that "French immorality" became one of the most dogmatic of Victorian tenets. Against the political and social prejudices which have been mentioned, French literature made little headway in England before 1820. During the first years of the Restoration the main source of information on French affairs was the "account" of the English traveler; but very little news of contemporary literature could be gleaned from these reports, and Lady Morgan's France was the only book of the sort which provoked any literary discussion. By 1820, however, the re-

Introduction of Hugo to the English

7

views and magazines had resumed their surveys of literary activities across the Channel, and in a fairly satisfactory manner. Their notices were sometimes unjust, often inaccurate, and almost always prejudiced, but at least they told the public something about the new writers, and in certain instances even recommended that they might safely be read in England. The English reviews seldom agreed about anything, but on one point at least there was an exact coincidence of opinion even between the Edinburgh and the Quarterly. In 1821 the Edinburgh devoted three long articles to a demonstration of England's superiority to France in science, industry, and literature. 5 The idea soon gained wide currency, for other reviews corroborated it—notably the Quarterly and Blackwood's Magazine, the leading exponents of Toryism, and the mildly Liberal New Monthly MagazineThis philosophical agreement between organs normally divergent in opinion is perhaps only to be explained by remembering that they were all English periodicals. But it is not surprising that England's superiority in contemporary literature seemed to them incontestable. N o known French poet could be ranked with Byron, Wordsworth, or Coleridge, while Scott was indisputably the master of the novel. Indeed, the French themselves were beginning to pay to Byron, Scott, and Moore the supreme tribute of imitation. Today we may recall Stendhal, Chateaubriand, and Mme. de Staël as rivals of the great English writers of that time, but in 1821 English reviewers could hardly give them such consideration. Stendhal was well known for his Vie de Haydn and Histoire de la peinture en Italie—indeed, these works were better known in England than in France—but the English esteemed him as a connoisseur of art and music.7 Chateaubriand, whom Tom Moore styled "the only contemporary French poet," had an English reputation; but the translators made pious homilies of his works, and the critics gave him credit only for eloquence.8 Mme. de Staël fared somewhat bet-

8

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

ter: she was lionized when she came to England in 1 8 1 3 ; Corinne had a temporary vogue, and the Germany was staunchly supported by her many English literary friends. Yet Mr. R. C. Whitford, a careful student of Mme. de Staèl's reputation in England, concludes that "the artistic excellence of her writings had remarkably little influence upon the growth of her fame." 0 It was the fate of all the French heralds of Romanticism to be regarded in England as imitators rather than innovators. For the current opinion was that French literature was dying of old age, and that the new writers were only producing feeble imitations of the classics: this, indeed, was an important postulate in the demonstration of English superiority. And even to those Englishmen who could understand the French innovations and reforms, they must have seemed very mild; for it is necessary to remember that English Romanticism was more than twenty years old. The novelties of Corinne, of René, or even of Benjamin Constant's Adolphe could hardly impress foreign readers who were, so to speak, no longer subject to the Werther mood. 10 England's superiority in the whole realm of letters seemed indisputable, but there was one branch of literature in which the French were clearly pre-eminent. With all the inspired poetry, fiction, and revolutionary criticism that English Romanticism produced, there was not a single memorable drama. The ordinary theatrical fare of the time is well classified by Professor Thorndike as "the Illegitimate, Melodrama, Romance and Claptrap"—and the monotony of this was broken only by an occasional importation from the Continent. 11 Such was the poverty of English drama, that the London managers could offer to their half-filled theatres only revivals and stilted adaptations. In Paris, on the other hand, the theatres flourished, and were supplied with an abundance of new plays written by men who knew how to hold their audience. MM. Lebrun, Delavigne, Jouy, Scribe, Arnault, and Soumet

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

9

have failed of attaining to permanent renown, but at least they were competent playwrights, and their abilities must have been envied by the British theatrical hacks. Visitors in Paris could not but notice the contrast between French and English dramatists, and the observations and reports which they sent back to the English press created a strong demand in London for news of the French theatres. Thus, in all the Paris correspondence and "Foreign Varieties" contributed to English periodicals after 1820, the theatrical report became an important feature. The critics were unable to keep abreast of all the news of the couloirs, but they showed intelligent appreciation of some of the new productions. For instance, Jouy's Sylla was praised by the Quarterly, and hailed by Blackwood's as an "audacious innovation," showing the uselessness of the Unities; Colburn's New Monthly Magazine and Blackwood's both recommended Le Paria and the Vepres siciliennes of Delavigne as "brilliant" plays, and some of Lebrun's work was favorably received. 12 Perhaps it was this same contrast which gave the French classical drama such high repute in England for a few years after 1 8 1 5 . The company which brought Talma and Mile. George to London in 1 8 1 7 to play the great dramas of Moliere, Racine, and Corneille, must have astounded English playgoers accustomed to such spectacles as Maturin's Bertram. They were visitors from a high ethereal realm: they spoke of serious matters, with pure diction. The Tory Quarterly and Blackwood's, zealous in raising public standards and in preserving the ideals of aristocratic literature as well as government, recommended these pieces very highly, but the public soon discovered that it could not enter the realm of Talma. 13 The plays of Racine and Corneille were doubtless very estimable, but the English could neither understand nor enjoy them. Consequently, as soon as they were praised above Shakespeare, loyal Britishers turned about and defended their national Bard.

io

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

The Racine-Shakespeare controversy, which had been smoldering since the death of Voltaire, flared up again in 1 8 1 7 at a vigorous challenge from Lady Morgan. Her defense of Shakespeare raised, without clarifying, a great many issues; but at least it had the effect of provoking thoughtful people to combat. In France, Defauconpret, Jouy, La Harpe, MarieJoseph Chenier, and others answered for Racine, but the tide of battle turned against them. Lady Morgan's France has been called a "spark which touched off the powder-keg" of French Romanticism; it started an argument which led to Stendhal's Racine et Shakespeare ( 1 8 2 3 ) , and the triumph, at least temporary, of the English poet on the French stage in 1828 and 1832, when Macready and Miss Smithson offered their famous interpretations. In England, likewise, the literary conservatives spoke first: Croker administered a severe rebuke to Lady Morgan in the Quarterly. But a whole army of English critics —Lamb, De Quincey, Landor, Scott, Wilson, Lockhart, the Coleridges, and Hazlitt in his lectures—enlisted on Shakespeare's side, and by 1820 they had won an easy victory. Such a conclusion was of course inevitable, but certainly the battle was not fought in vain, for it stimulated Shakespeare criticism and clarified many vague notions of the English concerning Racine and Corneille: here at last was furnished some basis of palpable fact, which might serve to introduce readers to the actual texts. Yet few readers ventured far into the plays without reverting to the time-honored English opinion that Racine and Corneille lacked vigor, originality, profundity, imagination, and passion. One of the chief English objections was that the verse used in French tragedy—the Alexandrine—is tedious, pedestrian, and despotic in its limitation of the Fancy. The Alexandrine was singled out for abuse because it was the best-known French verse form in England: actually the objection reflects a thorough distaste for all French verse. The English rationalized their indifference rather skillfully, but in reality they disliked

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

11

French poetry because they were unable to hear or understand its beauties and subtleties. The difficulties of French prosody are not to be overcome by reading appreciative reviews, nor on the other hand will they succumb to a direct attack upon the texts. T o master them, a reader must have special qualifications: a knowledge of French pronunciation, a command of the French poetical vocabulary, and an understanding of certain structural differences between French and English verse. During the first three or four decades of the nineteenth century very few Englishmen could meet even the qualifications relating to skill in the language, for the French tongue had fallen into disuse through the Napoleonic Wars. French had been, during the eighteenth century, the polite language of Europe; the well-educated Englishman learned it when he made his Grand Tour and used it all his life for reading and as a useful adjunct to his own social vocabulary. But the Wars put an end to the Grand Tour, and deprived Englishmen of the easier method of learning the language. The qualifications relating to French poetic diction and prosody were perhaps even more unattainable. With all the minute attention devoted in the English schools to Greek and Latin prosody, no one seems to have thought of investigating the metrical structure of French poetry, classical or modern. Consequently, even those English readers who attained some proficiency in the language continued to be confused by the irregular, un-English mixtures of anapaests, dactyls, etc., in the normal French verse. This explanation may account for the indifference of the English public to French poetry. But among the critics we find the same indifference, and here it was prompted not merely by ignorance but by principle. Romantic criticism had sanctioned the new diction and vocabulary which we associate with Wordsworth; it had at the same time condemned the abstractions and circumlocutions of Augustan poetry. But France had not yet purged her literature of these

i2

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

"pseudo-classical abominations," and the French poetry known in England in 1820—that of Racine, Corneille, Molière, Boileau, La Fontaine—was full of them. Indeed, the French poets were considered the original offenders: English writers complained that their desiccating influence had dried up the springs of poetic feeling in England. This was the time of the Byron-Bowles controversy, and the critics who were demolishing Pope's reputation did not forget that the "spider" of Twickenham had taken Boileau as his model. As a measure of the Romantic critics' appreciation of French poetry, let us hear some of their opinions: s. T. COLERIDGE: T h e French have lost their poetical language. 1 4 SOUTHEY: Ronsard . . . w o u l d have been a great poet if he had not been a Frenchman. B u t poetry of the highest order is as impossible in t h a t curst language as it is in Chinese. 1 5 DE QUINCEY: T h e French literature is now in the last stage of phthisis, dotage, palsy, or w h a t e v e r image w i l l best express the most abject state of senile—(senile? N o ! of a n i l e ) — i m b e c i l i t y . Its c o n stitution, as y o u w e l l k n o w , was in its best days marrowless and w i t h o u t n e r v e , — i t s y o u t h w i t h o u t hope, and its manhood w i t h o u t dignity.16 HAZLITT: T h e French . . . are not a people of imagination; . . . H e n c e their poetry is the poetry of abstraction; it . . . is essentially conventional and commonplace. It rejects every thing that is not cast in a given m o u l d . 1 7

Most English complaints had to do with the limitations of French poetry—its small vocabulary of abstract words which excluded anything "ignoble," "low," or "technical," and its traditional, hollow imagery. Hence we should expect to hear congratulations from England when the "mould" was broken, and the bonnet rouge clapped on the old Dictionary. But the French Romantic battle was not won in a day: the new poets had to struggle against prejudice in France, while for a long time they were not even recognized as innovators in England. A careful reading of Béranger's songs, Delavigne's Messéniennes, Lamartine's Méditations poétiques, Vigny's Poèmes,

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

13

and Victor Hugo's Ballades should have convinced English critics that a change was coming over French poetry—but these productions were neither carefully read nor thoughtfully considered. Lamartine, whose French reputation was growing so rapidly, received more attention than the others, but perhaps he would have preferred oblivion to his English fame. Tom Moore introduced the Méditations to readers of the Edinburgh as a bungling attempt to imitate the graces of English poetry; 1 8 Blackwood's declared that Lamartine suited the French taste, but could not be read or even "tolerated" in England; while even the Liberal London Magazine, normally Francophil in its leaning, found the Méditations worthy only of gentle, condescending ridicule. 19 The success of Béranger was attributed by Jeffrey to political partisanship, and Delavigne's great popularity was usually ascribed to French patriotism (an explanation which remains satisfactory). 20 Obviously the poet of Waterloo could not have found support or appreciation in England. The English literary arbiters did not, however, continue to condemn French Romanticism without even a show of justice. They had begun by criticizing it on trivial, extra-literary grounds. But Jeffrey put an end to these hasty judgments by suggesting in the Edinburgh ( 1 8 2 2 ) an idea which no one else had thought of: namely, that the English were incompetent judges of French poetry, because they could not understand it.- 1 His suggestion set in motion an entirely new train of thought, which bore fruit in a long series of articles (in Blackwood's, the New Monthly, and London Magazine between 1822 and 1824) on French verse, and how to read it. These articles raised Lamartine and Béranger in English esteem and gave promise of a more sympathetic attitude toward the new French literature, but subsequent criticism indicated that they were inspired by a transitory wave of cosmopolitanism which took no firm hold on the English mind.

14

Introduction of Hugo to the English

Far more prophetic of the permanent English attitude were certain remarks which appeared in the London Magazine in 1 8 2 0 . Discussing the prestige of B y r o n in France, a London contributor expressed regret that Byron's influence was leading the French to disregard or despise their old literary models. . . . Our reason for so feeling is not an enthusiastic admiration of what is called the classical style in France, but rather a fear, that, if the French take to embracing the doctrines of the romantic school, we shall have them out-heroding Herod,—turning all proprieties and discretions topsyturvy—in short, behaving as they did in regard to liberty, disgracing a good cause by an indiscreet manner of supporting it. 22 English criticism between 1 8 2 3 and 1 8 3 9 assures us that the London reviewer's fears were justified: the most frequent charges brought against French Romanticism were those of excess and exaggeration. Their own Romantic literature had come into the world so long before that the English had f o r gotten the pains which attended its birth. Consequently, they were able to view the French literary revolution as indifferent bystanders, and point out the mistakes their neighbors were making. Victor Hugo's first poems, now issued in one volume under the title Odes et ballades, originally appeared in three publications: Odes et poésies diverses (June, 1 8 2 2 ) , Nouvelles Odes (March, 1 8 2 4 ) , and lastly the complete collection of Odes et ballades (October, 1 8 2 6 ) . In the earliest of these works H u g o made an attempt to breathe some warmth and life into the traditional ode forms, but only scholars might judge of his success in this technical reform. O f greater interest to the lay reader was their political message; at the time of publication they were somewhat admired in French Ultra-Royalist circles as decorous ceremonial pieces, expressive of a commendable loyalty to Church and State. Appropriately enough, the Odes gained f o r H u g o the recognition of Louis X V I I I ;

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

15

in September, 1822, a Royal pension was assigned to the young Royalist poet. But his fame did not immediately spread beyond the Ultra group: it was not until the Ballades appeared, in 1826, that Hugo's poetry began to evoke a response from the wider French public. Hugo made a bid for more vulgar fame in February, 1823, by giving to the world Han d'Islande, a tale of terror in the style of Radcliffe and Maturin. This romance—which any man, whether French, English, or Icelandic, would call extravagant—met with strong opposition from the critics, but was far more widely read than his poems. Consequently, with a blood-and-thunder novel on the stalls, and with his Odes circulating in the Ultra salons, Hugo was well on the way to literary fame in France by the middle of 1823. In England, Hugo had the misfortune to be introduced by Stendhal, who, for reasons partly literary and chiefly political, could find nothing to commend in his first writings. That Hugo's introduction to the English should have been an unfavorable comment from a well-known French critic seems an ill omen for his later reputation. Still more unfortunate for the young poet and "horror" novelist was the fact that Stendhal's opinions of his works were the only ones offered to English reiders before 1828; so that for five years his English reputation was molded by a pronounced enemy. Ho'w Stendhal came to monopolize the reviewing of French books :or the English press has been adequately explained by Miss C-unnell and Professor Moraud.* Stendhal's contributions include a series of notices and sketches in Colburn's New Month.y Magazine from November, 1822, to July, 1829, the well-known Letters from Paris, by Grimm's Grandson sent to the London in 1825, and a few reviews for the Athenaeum in i823.- :) Inasmuch as the New Monthly and the London were the only magazines which seriously attempted foreign * See

Doris

M o r a u d , ip. cit.,

Gunnell,

Stendhal

C h a p t e r 4.

et

I'Angle/erre,

Paris,

1909,

Appendix;

and

16

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

reviewing between 1823 and 1828, we may be certain that Stendhal strongly influenced English thought on French subjects. His reviews helped to gain English readers for his friend Mérimée, for Béranger, and for Paul-Louis Courier, but on the whole he retarded the progress of French Romanticism in England. As Professor Moraud observes: One cannot help regretting that our romanticism should have found no French interpreter in England except Stendhal. He arrived on the scene . . . at a time . . . when it would have been easy to profit by the earlier work of English critics. Yet he did nothing of the sort. . . . On the whole, he did our romantic poets more harm than good.*' 24

Although he called himself "one of the most sincere and determined partisans of the romantic school," 25 Stendhal could not bring himself to commend Chateaubriand, Vigny, or Hugo, and his remarks on Lamartine were, at best, condescending. For, however sincere a partisan of Romanticism he might have been, Stendhal was an even stronger partisan of Bonapartism and opponent of the Bourbons; t while on the other hand Chateaubriand was the bulwark of Legitimacy, and the three younger poets were committed to his political cause. Their Conservateur Littéraire ( 1 8 1 8 - 1 8 2 0 ) , it will be remembered, had been carried on as a literary supplement to Chateaubriand's Conservateur. Stendhal's opposition to the new Romantic poets resulted not only from political disagreement but from his scorn for their childishness and ineffectuality: in his English reviews Lamartine, Vigny, and Hugo were usually represented as idle, rich youngsters, who were * " O n ne peut s'empêcher de regretter que notre romantisme n'ait trouvé d'autre interprète français en Angleterre que Stendhal. Il arrivait . . . à un moment . . . où il eut été facile de profiter des efforts antérieurs de la critique anglaise. Il n'en fit rien. . . . Dans l'ensemble, il a plutôt desservi qu'aidé nos poètes romantiques." t It was appropriate that Stendhal, a bitter enemy of the Bourbons, should write f o r the English Liberal Magazines, as the New Monthly, the London, and the Westminster had little sympathy f o r the ruling family of France. The Bourbon invasion of Spain in 1823 called forth many hostile comments from the English Liberal press.

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

17

poetic only because it was fashionable, and melancholy only because Lord Byron had been so. Knowing Stendhal's feelings in this matter, we should regard it as only natural that the first thing the English learned of Hugo was his political affiliation. Reviewing the first Odes in the New Monthly (March, 1 8 2 3 ) , Stendhal announced that the Edinburgh was mistaken in regarding Lamartine as the chief Ultra poet. No, M. "de la Martine" belonged to the Ultras, "but their poet par excellence is M. Hugo." The new chief was briefly described: This gentleman's poetical talent bears some resemblance to that of Young. . . . His compositions are cold, antithetical and exaggerated, but without the ever-flashing coruscations of wit which light us through the gloom of the " N i g h t T h o u g h t s . " His principal merit, in the eyes of his countrymen, is his skill in the manipulation of French versification. His excellence in this respect cannot be denied. But this quality is not sufficient to save his compositions f r o m the charge of being supremely tiresome. 28

It is hard to recognize him in this piece of crabbed prose, but this is Stendhal. And curiously enough, his evaluation contains much of the substance of later English opinion on Hugo's poetry: the references to antithesis and exaggeration, the complaint about Hugo's intellectual poverty, and the palliative remark on French versification will all become familiar in the course of this study. Such an introduction might seem unfortunate for Hugo's prestige in England, but as a matter of fact there was little possibility that the Odes would be read there anyway.* The only reputation they could have gained him among a people ignorant of his language—a reputation built upon hearsay, and supported by reviewing—was not really worth having. Far more injurious to Hugo's English prospects was Stendhal's review of Han d'Jslande, contributed a month later to the * None of the Odes or Ballades circulated in England until the 1830*5, and no English edition appeared until after 1 9 1 2 .

18

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

same magazine. For Han was translated into English * in 1825, and if Colburn had chosen to pufï the book it might have had a large circulation. As it was, only three comments on it—all from French sources—appeared in the English press in 1823, and they were so unfavorable that when the translation was published it passed completely unnoticed. Jerdan's weekly Literary Gazette observed in February, 1823, that "the new Romance . . . entitled Flan d'Islande [sic]" was considered in Paris "only remarkable for its absurdity and its contemptible pretension to imitate the productions of Sir Walter Scott;" 27 while the London repeated the complaint of a French Ultra critic that Hugo, the poet, should "contend in extravagance and bizarrerie, with authors . . . who take exaggeration for sublimity, horror for interest, and noise for glory." 28 Stendhal's review was far more comprehensive than these, for he told the story of Han in some detail, but his estimate of the novel was even lower. After presenting several samples of Hugo's "disgusting horrors" and "gratuitous abominations," Stendhal characterized the book as the most extraordinary and ultra horrible production of a disordered imagination that has ever f r o z e n the blood and blanched the cheeks of romance readers. . . . T h e author, M . H u g o , . . .

is one of the

most distinguished members of a society . . . called La Société Bonnes

Lettres.

des

. . . These soi-disant reformers profess it to be their

intention to restore literature to that moral and classical dignity w h i c h invested it under Louis X I V . H a n d'Island offers a remarkable proof of the absurdity of their efforts, or the insincerity of their professions. 29

After the hostile review of 1823, Stendhal allowed Hugo's name to sink into oblivion until 1825. His comments in the London during that year added nothing to the earlier appraisal, and yet they were all that kept the young poet's * V i c t o r H u g o , Hans

of Iceland,

translated f r o m the F r e n c h , w i t h etchings by

G . C r u i k s h a n k , i 6 m o . , L o n d o n , 1 8 2 5 . A c c o r d i n g to L a d y Pollock note 1 0 ) this w o r k was intended f o r juvenile readers.

(infra,

p. ¿ 4 0

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

19

reputation alive in England. "Grimm's Grandson" conveyed the news of Hugo's elevation to the Légion d'honneur, but he also assured the English that Hugo and Vigny were "unknown ten leagues from Paris," and that the Société des Bonnes Lettres was made up of "the driest and dullest people in the world." 30 Bug-Jar gal, a second tale of terror from Hugo's pen, appeared in 1826, but no account of it reached England. The next year Stendhal unbent so far as to tell the New Monthly Magazine readers that the author of Odes et ballades (1826) "possesses warmth of imagination, and might be a poet, if he would only learn to write French." 3 1 Inasmuch as he never tired of describing to the English the literary "revolution" in Paris, it does seem as if this stern critic might have given more attention to the Ballades, which exhibited a good deal of revolutionary spirit. All that he ventured to say was that "the public had viewed them with indifference" 3 2 — a rather inaccurate statement. After 1827 Stendhal lost his monopoly in foreign reviewing, and real English opinions on French literature began to appear in the reviews and magazines. This indicated, not only that the English were reading more French books but that they were no longer willing to accept third-hand opinions on them, or gossip gleaned from foreign sources. We have noted that certain critics had attempted in 1822 to cultivate a more intelligent attitude toward France in England. The same reform had been steadily advocated from 1824 by the organ of "Philosophic Radicalism"; in the Westminster Review J . S. Mill and his fellows had taunted the Edinburgh and the Quarterly with insularity and hidebound prejudice, and had embraced the cause of cosmopolitanism. By 1828 political and social relations between the two countries were friendly, the English colony in Paris was re-forming, and at home the public was beginning to take a more lively interest in French literary activities.

20

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

The most striking proof of this increased interest was the foundation, in 1828, of two periodicals devoted exclusively to the reviewing of foreign literature: the Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany published by the great importer of books, Bossange, and the eminently successful Foreign Quarterly Review published by Treuttel, Wiirtz & Co., another large importing house. The latter review, which employed more expert and seasoned critics than Bossange's enterprise, was destined to provide the most authoritative information on French literature in England for eighteen years. These two specialized reviews were supplemented by the weekly Athenaeum, founded in 1828 by J . S. Buckingham and edited, for a time, by the Liberal debaters F. D. Maurice and John Sterling, and later by the learned Mr. Dilke. In January, 1829, the Athenaeum hailed the establishment of these new reviews as an event marking the commencement of a new era in our literature. . . . W e did not study a French, a German, or an Italian book, with feelings at all similar to those which we experienced on taking up an English one. W e regarded the literature of other countries as a subject of far-off contemplation, and scarcely realized the idea of its being the expression of the thoughts of existing men. . . . These false notions we expect to see entirely eradicated by the works of which we are speaking; and the mere establishment of them has done . . . much to introduce a more living communion between England and other countries. 33

The Athenaeum itself made efforts to give the public sound information on French literature, by securing contributions from such well-known French critics as Sainte-Beuve and Jules Janin. In these new periodicals, as well as in the Literary Gazette, the New Monthly, and the Westminster, English opinions on Hugo's works began to appear after 1827. The first to be reviewed was the long closet drama in verse, Cromwell, which

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

21

came out in book form, with its famous Preface, in December, 1827. Cromwell was an experiment, and the Preface was intended to furnish a key to its mysteries and various prolegomena to the Romantic drama in general. Inasmuch as the English had accepted these principles long before, and were heartily sick of experimental, unplayable dramas, it is not surprising that they devoted little attention to Cromwell. Only one critic noticed the play: in June, 1828, it was reviewed in the Foreign Quarterly by the translator and novelist Leitch Ritchie, later known for his "Library of Romance." Ritchie found in Cromwell "all the materials both of a tale and a drama," but protested that Hugo had actually created "neither the one nor the other . . . " ; furthermore, he strongly objected to the superficial imitation of Shakespeare: T h e burlesque, as he himself observes, is natural to the moderns, and will come, whether we do call on it or not; but the introduction of the three fools, who mingle in his play, something like the chorus of the Greek tragedy travestied, is a gratuitous piece of buffoonery which we cannot away with. 3 4

The play itself disappointed Ritchie; and he judged, as posterity has done, that the Preface was the more valuable part of the work: W e did not take up a volume of French poetry of this goodly bulk, without being f u l l y prepared to undergo a treatise of proportionate weight on the classic and romantic. In the present case, however, there is a leaven of ingenuity and good sense, that raises up the otherwise torpid and heavy mass into something which forms really almost as palatable fare as critic could desire. 35

Here one may observe the constitutional distaste of the English for treatises on aesthetics, and this may help to explain why Hugo's poetry never caused such excitement in England as it did in France. Since the 1830's, English readers have known that Hugo achieved a great reform in versification and in aesthetic standards. But this knowledge never

22

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

helped them to enjoy his poetry: the novelty of it impressed none but the literary experts and historians. "The French," as Mr. Edmund Wilson justly observes, "have always reasoned about literature far more than the English have; they always want to know what they are doing and why they are doing it." 36 It was in 1829 that Hugo's name first came into prominence in England. Early in that year the Paris publisher Gosselin issued the great lyric poems Les Orientales and the story of Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné—two works far more noteworthy than any Hugo had previously written. The Orientales enjoyed an immediate success in France, partly because of public sentiment in favor of the Greek war of independence, which furnished their inspiration, but mainly because of their richness of color and gorgeous imagery. The vogue of Le Dernier Jour was no less considerable; as the Literary Gazette reported in March, 1829, the brief narrative soon caused Paris to be "inundated with 'Last Days.' " 37 Although its appeal was substantially that of Han d'Islande, Hugo's new romance contained what was meant to be food for thought: an argument against capital punishment. The first English comment on Les Orientales was a confession of critical impotence. "We poor mortals," wrote a bewildered reviewer in the Literary Gazette, associating himself, we must suppose, with all English readers, "can never follow the poet in his fanciful flights. The greater part of his late productions are [sir] totally incomprehensible to vulgar minds." 38 The London, however, was not too timid to grapple with the new poems. The attitude of this magazine in 1829 was consistent with its prophecy in 1820, that French Romanticism would soon be "out-heroding Herod": confronted with Les Orientales, the London reviewer had only to say, " I told you so":

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

23

W e could wish to see the romantic somewhat more soberly indulged in. . . . W e would suggest to M. Hugo, that there is an abundance of subjects, novel, striking, and (if he must have them so) »»classical, in the visionary, and even in the material world, without his recurring to the ghastly and disgusting. . . . M. Hugo's flights are incomparably wilder, his licenses in language and versification bolder, but . . . as a poet, . . . we consider him f a r beneath M. Lamartine. 3 9

The London reviewer nevertheless did Hugo great service, by quoting Les Djinns, a poem so striking in form and content that it must have demonstrated, even to English readers unfamiliar with French, that the poet was breaking new ground. Toward Hugo's other works the London showed great severity; Cromwell was censured for "great misconception of character, and a general vagueness or indeterminateness of execution," while the three romances were herded together as examples of "the raw-head and bloody-bone school," in which "the horrible is . . . carried to an excess that is painful and repulsive, except occasionally when it lends itself to the ridiculous." 40 More encouraging to the young poet and novelist were two articles devoted to him by the foreign reviews. Henry Southern, formerly literary editor of the Westminster, wrote for the Foreign Quarterly a detailed analysis and appraisal of all Hugo's published works except Cromwell; and his warm recommendation probably neutralized the bad impression left by Stendhal and the London, for the Foreign Quarterly was regarded in 1829 as the highest authority on French literature, and Southern himself ranked with Bowring as an expert on the subject. Southern's article was especially serviceable to Hugo in that it quoted many of his best poems and included synopses of his romances, for of Hugo's writings only Han d'Islande had as yet been published in England. Here for the first time it was made clear that Hugo had risen above the little clique of Ultra poets which Stendhal had stigmatized: Southern deplored Hugo's early Royalism, but was

24

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

careful to show that the later Odes, Ballades, and Orientales were inspired, not by political interest but by "fancy and personal experience," and were characterized by "delicate tenderness . . . and amiable play of the imagination." Stendhal had called Hugo an imitator of Young; Southern found his inspiration in Wordsworth, and declared La Grand-mere "worthy of the author of 'We are Seven.' " Even the romances received Southern's praise—and higher praise than they have received in England before or since. The critic recognized that they consisted of "situations of great horror," achieved by "working upon the passion of fear," but nevertheless he claimed for his author "a taste and knowledge of art which save him from overstepping the mark." Southern's exposition of Le Dernier Jour was somewhat remarkable, for its curiously un-English solution of the moral-aesthetic dilemma: acknowledging that the story was "an outrage upon the feelings of society," he nevertheless decided that "the pleasure arising from contemplating the workmanship of the weapon diverts the mind from considering its deadly purposes." 4 1 Very few of Southern's countrymen were prepared to follow his course out of the dilemma; English morality could never have quietly submitted to any such substitution of the aesthetic faculty for the moral. The Foreign Review also tried to be helpful to Hugo, but without such success. This reviewer made the mistake of offering spiritless translations of Hugo's poetry, and his mistake had the double effect common to such attempts—of boring his readers and misrepresenting the poet. As a commentary on the poems, he presented a number of conflicting opinions of other critics, and tried to reconcile "the sublime and the extravagant, great beauties and numberless defects." However, the Foreign reviewer showed some familiarity with Hugo's prose works; he gave an accurate résumé of Le Dernier Jour, and admired the "energetic fire of youth" and "vigorous poetic thought" in Han d'lslande and "Bay-Jurgall" [sir]. 42

Introduction

of Hugo to the English

25

Of all Hugo's writings before Notre Dame, Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné seems to have had the greatest success in England, if its success can be measured by the amount of discussion it provoked. The slender tale was little read, for no translation of it appeared until 1840, but its thesis became familiar to English readers through the efforts of reviewers. The Westminster, always zealous for projects of reform, thought Hugo's argument worthy of serious advocacy, and pronounced very favorably on it in 1829: It is a mark of the progress of civilization when . . . sympathy is turned into the recesses of the prison. . . . W e must do M. H u g o the justice to say, that his work is likely to be as beneficial as it is brilliant: it is not very like real life, but it strongly interests the imagination. It does that which poetry so rarely does, it gilds the truth: it serves as a stimulant to good. 4 *

Blackwood's Magazine also recommended the work, but only for its narrative method. Of Hugo's plan to write a romance which should undermine the death penalty, "Maga" could only say that "the means and the end are about equally extravagant. . . . It is not, however, to be wondered at, that he who makes a romance the vehicle of his politics, should form his politics after the dictates of romance," 44 —a criticism which savors more of the Augustan age than of the century which witnessed Mrs. Stowe's triumph. However, "Maga" offered a more forward-looking criticism of Hugo's impressionism: The minute circumstances . . . are drawn with a curious which makes us start back f r o m the picture as f r o m a horrible . . . What is most new throughout this French book, is the tion of the true poetical connexion between visible external and internal feelings and emotions. 45

fidelity, reality. percepthings,

Almost no attention had been paid to the second of Hugo's romances, Bug-Jar gal, which recounted the adventures of a heroic Negro during the Haitian revolt. This story, published

26

Introduction

of Hugo

to the English

in 1826, had been briefly described by Southern, but it remained for Lady Morgan, in her account of France in 1829— i8jo, to bring the wild romance before the bar of critical justice. During her visit to Paris, a young Romanticist had endeavored to recommend the virtuous Negro to Lady Morgan, but she quietly subdued him by remarking that "according to physiologists, the African organization does not lend itself to such qualities. . . . The most enlightened man will, I believe, generally be found the best"—a truly Johnsonian rebuke. Nevertheless, she granted that Bug-Jar gal was "written with vivacity, and many of the scenes have a dramatic verity about them." 48 On the whole, Lady Morgan's comments on Hugo seem very kind and encouraging. It would hardly be surprising, indeed, if Lady Morgan came to regret her kindness. For in 1819, writing for his Conservateur Littéraire, Hugo had characterized Lady Morgan as an affected Irishwoman, whose heroines were all flattering portraits of herself. When this criticism reappeared in Hugo's collection of essays, Littérature et philosophie mêlées ( 1 8 3 4 ) , the English weekly Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction came upon it, put it into English, and offered it in a dish of literary gossip. 47

CHAPTER

TWO

The Foundation of Hugo's English Reputation: "Notre Dame de Paris" (1831-1836) CRITICISM of Hugo and the reporting of Parisian rumors about him might have gone on forever without giving the public at large any real understanding or appreciation of his works. For not even the most sympathetic and painstaking of reviewers can thoroughly arouse, or long sustain, interest in an author whom the public cannot read ; and it was Hugo's fate to be often mentioned, but never translated in the early years of England's acquaintance with him. Of his publications before 1830, only Han d'Islande, a slight performance, had been Englished, and it had passed unnoticed in 1825. Hernani, whose first appearance caused a great tumult in the literary world of Paris in 1830, was adapted to the English stage, and drew London audiences to the D r u r y Lane for a few nights in 1 8 3 1 , but even that most glamorous of his creations did not carry Hugo's fame across the Channel to the wider English public. The first work capable of achieving this was the great novel, Notre Dame de Paris, published in Paris in 1 8 3 1 and translated into English in 1 8 3 3 . ENGLISH

When Les Orientales were ready f o r the press, late in 1828, Hugo and his publishers decided that the time had come for launching a collection of his œuvres complètes. Gosselin accordingly brought out Les Orientales with an introductory Prospectus announcing the complete edition (which, however, was not published until 1832 by Renduel). The Prospectus was written especially for the occasion by Sainte-

28

"Notre

Dame

de

Paris"

Beuve (who was at that time on very good terms with H u g o ) . 1 In this advertisement Hugo's poetry was compared favorably with that of Ronsard, Cromwell was called the greatest modern drama, and, in the field of romance, SainteBeuve did not hesitate to rank Hugo's name with Walter Scott's. This form of réclame was quite common in France; it had been used to great advantage in bringing out editions of Béranger, d'Arlincourt, and others. In England, however, more subtle methods of literary recommendation were in vogue: novels were " p u f f e d " by the reviews at the behest of their publishers, but the public was not supposed to know. In view of this it is rather amusing to find the London Magazine shocked at the naïve, direct French method of advertising. In announcing the proposed new edition of Hugo, the London referred to Sainte-Beuve's Prospectus as a "disgusting babble about [Hugo's] âme complète de poète, . . . which extols him outrageously," and took Hugo to task for allowing its publication: A n author is not, in justice, to be rendered accountable f o r the exaggerations of his friends . . . or the puffs of publishers; but for the sake of good taste—for decency—he ought not to permit them . . . to precede, and to be bound up in a volume which be gives to the public. 2

It was in this Prospectus that Notre Dame de Paris was first announced. The vicissitudes which delayed the completion of the novel until about September, 1830, and its publication until March 1 7 , 1 8 3 1 , need not delay the present reader. A c cording to his first agreement with Gosselin, Hugo was to have it ready by April, 1829, and this will account for the announcement, in the March issue of the London, that Notre Dame was "now in the press." 3 But we are concerned here with the manner of its announcement in 1829, since it brought up immediately one of the questions which most in-

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

29

terested later critics. Sainte-Beuve's claim, that "à une époque où l'imitation de Walter Scott est presque une contagion nécessaire, même pour des très hauts talents, Victor Hugo s'est tenu à l'abri du soupçon par une diversité de manière incontestable," 4 was accepted as a challenge, and at that time Scott was the great favorite of English novel-readers. The London reviewer promptly took up the cudgels, and angrily repudiated Sainte-Beuve's comment as A

complacent

assertion, . . . and . . .

an assertion

that

nobody

will be inclined to dispute. T h e diversity between " W a v e r l y , " " I v a n hoe" . . .

or any other given romance of Sir W a l t e r , and

"Hans

d'Islande" [ s / f ] , " B u g - J a r g a l " and " L e dernier jour d'un c o n d a m n é " is, in t r u t h , incontestable!

Cela saute aux

yeux!5

This challenge was by no means forgotten, and as soon as Notre Dame was put into English it stirred up a controversy between the partisans of Scott and Hugo. When Notre Dame appeared in Paris, it soon gained preference over all other novels of the Romantic school, even Cinq Mars. Within the first eighteen months 3,100 copies of Gosselin's editions were sold, which may be taken to indicate a notable success at that time. But the novel made so many friends, and so few enemies, that no controversy comparable to the "Battle of Hernani" ensued; and consequently the Paris correspondents found little to tell their English readers about it. During the two years before its translation the English public heard nothing of Hugo's greatest prose masterpiece except what one or two critics told them. As in 1829, the fullest and most accurate account of Hugo's new work was given by Henry Southern in the Foreign Quarterly Review. Southern, fearing that "Notre Dame . . . is not a work likely to figure in English, so that, probably, our notice of it may be the only form in which it will be presented to the reader," translated several long passages to show the

3°

"Notre

Dame

de

Paris"

variety of its excellences.* The choice of passages proves that he not only knew and appreciated the book but also knew his public well: he arrested the attention of the thrill-hunters by recounting the scene of the attack on Notre Dame, and he also revealed the true artistic flavor of Hugo's work by presenting such passages as the election of the pape des fous, the description of Notre Dame and the history of Quasimodo. In his commentary Southern immediately undertook the inevitable comparison of Scott and H u g o , and of course stood with the English novelist. In fact, H u g o was given little credit for originality in this first estimate; Southern asserted that he could trace the greater part, both of the personages and the incidents which occur, to very obvious sources. . . . H e has adopted the gloom and mystery of Mrs. Radcliffe, the supernatural effects of Maturin, and the wild and unearthly personages which Walter Scott has given various examples of in such characters as Flibbertigibbet and Fenella. 6

It was in Hugo's heroine, the gipsy Esmeralda, that Southern discovered Fenella's lineal descendant; and he also found the source of Claude Frollo somewhere "between Dr. Faustus and the Father Ambrosio of Monk Lewis." Yet on the whole, the charge of plagiarism was not pressed too far in this article. And Southern warmly recommended the novel; he assured English readers that it was "not, as in the writings of our Horace Smith, overwhelmed with masses of crude and undigested lore," and predicted that it would "appeal to an appetite which is shared by the peer with the peasant." T o the author, Southern paid the highest tribute that H u g o had yet received in England: " H e is eloquent, his fancy is active, his . . . language, rich and forcible; . . . he can never be accused of dullness." 7 Other accounts of Notre Dame appeared at the same time * Southern's prediction now seems somewhat ridiculous, inasmuch as f o u r translations were made w i t h i n the six years f r o m 1 8 ) 3 to 1 8 3 9 .

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

31

(July, 1 8 3 1 ) in less influential English magazines. The Englishman's Magazine, an ambitious but short-lived monthly, published translations of two long passages, with an equivocal commentary, and the same passages were translated in the weekly Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction. They were both "harrowing" scenes—the description of Frollo's horrible death, and the scene in the trou aux rats—and they gave little evidence that Hugo had progressed beyond the "blood-and-thunder" stage. It is worth noting that both these periodicals hailed Notre Dame as a "celebrated novel, already in its fifth edition"; 8 this shows that Gosselin's efforts to advertise the work by printing "new editions" with slight changes every few weeks were not without avail."' These first reviews were encouraging, but they could not be very helpful to Notre Dame while it remained inaccessible to the English public. During 1832 there was no further mention of Hugo's novel in the press, and it was not until the middle of 1833, when the translation was under way, that Englishmen began to discuss it further. In July of that year the Edinburgh Review offered its first comment on Hugo, and paid him a striking tribute. In a discussion of "Recent French Novelists," the Whig reviewer represented Hugo "disputing the prize with Lamartine" for lyric poetry and occupying "one of the most eminent positions" in the theatrical world; he also placed him . . . indisputably at the head of romance, since the publication of his " N o t r e Dame de Paris." . . . Superior to his contemporaries in creative imagination,—being in f a c t the only one of them who seems to see his way with some clearness, or to possess the power of inventing, brooding over, and working out with patience one leading view . . . he is yet more visibly elevated above their sphere of in* Hugo claimed that Noire Dame went to eight editions in eighteen months, 9 but the researches of M. Bire, M. Derome, and Mr. J . P. Anderson have shown that these were, in reality, only impressions, in small quantities and with variations in chapter headings, of two editions.

32

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

spiration by the purer spirit with which his works, as a whole, have been animated, the generous sympathy f o r goodness and devotion of every kind which he evinces. . . . 1 0

Such praise from the Edinburgh was worth any number of puffs from the Mirrors and Literary Gazettes; and it went far toward giving Hugo a position in the respectable world. The translation of Notre Dame published in August, 1833, by Effingham Wilson gave most English readers their first real introduction to Victor Hugo. The work was adequately, in some instances skillfully, done, yet it had one feature which prevented the novel from receiving a fair hearing in England. For the translator, William Hazlitt the younger, was a proselyting Liberal, and he introduced his version with a "Prefatory Notice, Literary and Political of Hugo's Romances." The manner in which Hugo was dragged into the English political arena is rather curious: for at the very time when he was trying to please both Royalists and Republicans in France, answering charges of apostasy and even antedating his political poems in an effort to seem consistent, he was definitely welcomed into the Liberal camp in England. Actually there is no clear political doctrine in Notre Dame. But in Hazlitt's "Prefatory Notice," where Hugo was contrasted with Scott the "upholder of ancient tyranny," the French novelist appeared as a violent anti-Royalist and Republican. The translator's quarrel with Scott was wholly extra-literary, strictly political in its bearing: We are sorry that the total absence of anything like an expression of philanthropic sentiment in . . . this writer [ S c o t t ] , coupled with his well-known conduct whenever the great concerns of his kind were in question, compels us to regard the service rendered by him to the great cause of human improvement as absolutely unintentional. The grand study of the progress of human society and manners was to him a book shut, clasped and sealed. Witness his f u r y when any one affirmed . . . that they not only had progressed, but were progressing, and ought to progress! 1 1

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

33

As a contrast to this, and for evidence of Hugo's Liberalism, Hazlitt referred his readers to the unflattering portrait of Louis X I and Hugo's sympathy for the truands in Notre Dame* Thus he made a political issue of the novel by praising its author at the expense not only of Scott but of Tories in general. He did not have to wait long for an answer. Jerdan's Literary Gazette immediately stepped into the breach—not as an organ of Tory opinion, but as a champion of Scott's writings—and called Hazlitt's attack a revolting affront to our moral feeling and to our literary taste— and a true sign of a mind "infinitely small," which can only understand a fame raised " O n the piled ruins of another's name. . . . " T h e sting of the gnat is lost upon marble; a defence of the noble monument upreared by the genius of Scott is indeed a work of supererogation. 1 2

Even the radical Examiner, from whom Hazlitt might have expected sympathy, turned against him. Noting that the translator had "asked pardon for a burst of political feeling," he promptly replied, "We can grant none for a burst of political balderdash, or a burst of anything else so utterly out of place." 1 3 The official Tory answer to Hazlitt appeared, appropriately enough, in that ancient stronghold of British conservatism, the Gentleman's Magazine. In January, 1834, Sylvanus Urban poured out a great torrent of wrath upon Effingham Wilson and his "entire set of ill-tempered, surly, spiteful . . . reviewers and translators," representing them as caged animals, ready, if the word " K i n g " were mentioned, * Those who read carefully with this expectation in view must have been disappointed. For Louis X I appears to disadvantage» not because Hugo was an antiRoyalist but only because Louis' cruelty furnished excellent material for the kind of harrowing description of which Hugo was an acknowledged master. Likewise, in his opposition of Louis X I and the truands, H u g o only took advantage of a good opportunity for antithesis and clever dialogue.

"Noire

34

Dame

de Paris"

to " g o into convulsions, and foam and stretch their claws." 14 The Athenaeum, whether because Effingham Wilson was connected with it * or because of its moderately Liberal tendency, took Hazlitt's side in the controversy and emphasized the "anti-Royalist thesis" of Notre Dame. But here the claim was rested upon a generalization rather than upon any specific passage: Victor H u g o . . . has no veneration for kings, or princes, or persons of gentle lineage. . . . H e seems to be of the opinion, that nature has dealt out her measure of good and evil in much the same proportion to all. . . , 1 6

The comparison of Scott and Hugo did not long hold the course which Hazlitt had set: from a discussion of politics it soon changed into a debate on plagiarism. Southern, as we have seen, had questioned the originality of Hugo's creations; and the Edinburgh had agreed with him in calling La Esmeralda "a Parisian Fenella." 17 Sylvanus Urban now insisted that Hugo was indebted to the English novelist not only for his "general train of thinking," but, specifically, for the sketch of Louis X I 18 —the very passage which had been acclaimed by the Liberals. The Athenaeum, however, undertook to refute the charge that La Esmeralda was copied from Fenella, and assured the public that "no character can be more intimately identified with the genius of Victor Hugo, than this interesting, generous, and high-minded gipsy girl." As a parting shot, the critic added, "Scott's Fenella, indeed was itself a copy." 19 And the Examiner found all "the difference between them of a being of warm blood, and the plastered gewgaw figure on the top of a Twelfth cake. La Esmeralda has all the reality that Fenella wants." * M . M o r a u d refers to the publisher as " E f f i n g h a m Wilson de l ' A t h e n a e u m . "

15

B u t I c a n find n o t h i n g to c o n n e c t him w i t h the p e r i o d i c a l ; and M r . Leslie A . M a r chando the historian

of

the Athenaeum,

i n f o r m s me that

Wilson certainly

had

n o t h i n g to do w i t h the weekly at t h a t time, f o r his name is not to be f o u n d in the marked

files.

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

35

In October, 1833, a second translation, executed by the translator of Chateaubriand, Frederic Shoberl, was offered by the publisher Bentley. This work bore the title by which Notre Dame has become known to the majority of English readers—The Hunchback of Notre Dame.21 Several years later "Father Prout" (F. S. Mahoney), reviewing Shoberl's version in Fraser's Magazine, took exception to this change of title and charged that Bentley had disregarded Hugo's intentions by concentrating attention on Quasimodo instead of on the cathedral itself. 22 It seems to me that he would have done better to congratulate Bentley upon his knowledge of English taste, of which this change of title is indeed characteristic. For the antiquaries were outnumbered perhaps a hundred to one by the readers who were just looking for a good story: and these latter were certain to concentrate their attention on the human (or monstrous) characters anyway. Shoberl's version had no political significance, and in his preface, instead of a Liberal manifesto, he offered parts of the warm recommendation from the Edinburgh Review, which, as has been noted, afforded the best advertisement the novel could have. Thus the political quarrel died down after 1833, and from then until 1835 the novel enjoyed a great success in England —chiefly because of its merits as a piece of pure fiction, of colorful romance. The Foreign Quarterly, the Examiner, and Leigh Hunt in the True Sun * had revealed the best qualities of Notre Dame from the scholarly and artistic points of view —its marvelous reconstruction of the Gothic scene and the exquisite fitting of the style to the subject. But the rank and file of English readers has never tasted the real antiquarian flavor of Hugo's novel; this pleasure was reserved for readers well versed in the French language and in mediaeval lore. Most English reviewers praised the book for its more obvious * For a French translation of Leigh Hunt's enthusiastic critique of Notre see Marcel Moraud, op. cit., p. 206.

Dame,

36

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

merits—its thrills, horrors, "power," and "strength." The Mirror, for instance, emphasized "the highly wrought and poetic vigour of the descriptive scenes" and "the graphic vraisemblance of the scenes of action," 23 and the Athenaeum thought it "the most powerful of all Victor Hugo's writings." 24 Indeed, the "power" of it was almost too much for poor old Sylvanus Urban, who complained that wretchedness, and misery, and sin, as the terrible wrecks of unhallowed and ungovernable passion, come drifting across the dark and perturbed tide of events, in fearful succession. . . . The agonized bosom of the reader is seen panting and throbbing over a tale of woe, but too powerfully conceived and exhibited. 25

Yet the same qualities were thoroughly enjoyed by Father Prout, who recommended the novel to readers of Fraser's Magazine: This work has within it all the elements of immortality: the bellringer of Notre Dame sends forth a peal . . . that thrills to the very inmost penetralia of the soul. . . . We admire the skill and pathetic power. . . . The concluding passages . . . offer some of the most pathetic pages we ever remember to have bedewed with (irresistibly flowing) tears.26

It is apparent that the vogue of the roman larmoyant was not yet extinct. The great favorite among Hugo's characters was Esmeralda the gipsy girl. Quasimodo arrested the attention by his singularity and by the antithesis of his hideous exterior and beautiful soul; Claude Frollo's mental turmoil and horrible machinations sent chills down the spine; but hard-headed Englishmen fell in love with the tzigane. Father Prout called her "an exquisite creature; . . . in truth a beautiful conception, and divinely bodied forth;" 27 the Literary Gazette, "a creation of the bright and lyrist spirit of poetry;" 28 and Mr. Henry Bulwer, in his account of France published in 1834, "one of the most delicate females ever drawn by the pen of

"Notre romance."

29

Dame de Paris"

37

But these were lukewarm compliments compared

with that of sentimental Sylvanus Urban, who completely broke down when poor Esmeralda, whose only fault is love, whose only crime is being too beautiful, and whose only weakness is being too confiding . . . is delivered first to the torment, in a manner that harrows up the soul of the reader, and makes him wish Monsieur Victor Hugo and his work were alike annihilated; and secondly she is hanged. . . . 3 0 There was something about the girl which aroused the English gentleman's spirit of chivalry, and made him want to protect her from Phoebus de Chateaupers and Claude Frollo. But, to complete the picture, we must take account of the Englishwoman's attitude toward Esmeralda. This was well expressed by Mrs. Trollope, in her book on Paris and the Parisians in 1 8 ) 5, when she called upon the women of England to help her defend Shakespeare against Hugo: T o chastise as he deserves an author who may be said to defy mankind by the libels he has put forth on the whole race, requires a stouter and a keener weapon than any woman can wield; but when they prate of Shakespeare, I feel that it is our turn to speak. How much of gratitude and love does every woman owe to him! How has he painted her? . . . as Portia, . . . Juliet. . . . Then turn and see for what we have to thank our modern painter [ H u g o ] . Who are his heroines?—Lucrèce Borgia, Marion de Lorme, . . . besides his novel heroine, whom Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer calls "the most delicate female ever drawn by the pen of romance"—the Esmeralda, . . . whose sole accomplishments are dancing and singing in the streets, and who,—delicate creature! . . . being caught up by a horseman in a midnight brawl, throws her arms round his neck, swears he is very handsome, and thenceforward shows the delicate tenderness of her nature, by pertinaciously doting upon him, without any other . . . encouragement whatever than an insulting caress bestowed upon her one night when he was drunk . . . delicate female! 3 1 Alas for British chivalry!—and what could the gentlemen who sentimentalized over poor Esmeralda have told their wives

"Notre

3«

Dame de Paris"

about her? She may have seemed an "exquisite creature" to Father Prout, and to Mr. Bulwer a "delicate female"; but Mrs. Grundy knew definitely that she was a baggage. After 1834 the popularity of Notre Dame in England, and the esteem in which it was held, suffered a sharp decline. The reaction was caused in small part perhaps by faults inherent in the novel, but chiefly it was due to the unsavory reputation of Hugo's later dramas, which almost effaced the memory of his earlier successes. Notre Dame is said to have caused Goethe to recoil in horror, and certain features of the story could hardly have been wholly agreeable to the English. Even in the heyday of its popularity there were a few protests against its "indecency" and "extravagance." The Literary Gazette had raised the important question, "Are these volumes fit for the youthful eye, or for the girlish ear?" 3 2 and had found it necessary to answer No. Hugo's scene of le mariage de Quasimodo, in which he conducted his reader into the tomb to show him the skeletons of Quasimodo and La Esmeralda locked in close embrace, was characterized by the Englishman's Magazine as "an idea . . . both unnatural and disgusting"; * 3 3 and Frollo's meditations were in some instances similarly condemned. As to the novel's "extravagance," we find even such unlike periodicals as the Gentleman's Magazine and the Westminster in substantial agreement. Sylvanus Urban called it "a work not true to nature," and complained that "the construction of the story is wretched, loose, disjointed, and unsatisfactory; all is meant for strong effects"; 3 4 while the Westminster condemned the whole "Unnatural School" of French Romantic writers: The

"Notre

Dame

de P a r i s "

is

certainly

far

superior

to

"Han

d ' I s l a n d e . " I t has m a d e the m o s t of the U n n a t u r a l School, a n d w i l l l o n g be a proof of w h a t talent c a n e f f e c t f o r a w o r k in w h i c h the * The Engliibman's, moreover, was not a bigoted or illiberal magazine, since it numbered among its contributors Hood, Lamb, Leigh Hunt, Hallam, and Tennyson.

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

39

characters never could have existed, and the incidents never could have happened; . . . But the school itself remains inherently and eternally low. . . , 3 5

These faults, however, would not have greatly injured the novel's English reputation by themselves. For there is nothing in the story to shock a modern reader or even a reader in 1835 who was not hoping to be shocked; and nobody expected a romance to be very true to life. But after 1834 the English press united in a campaign against the immoral, depraved dramas of Hugo and Dumas; and as a result most of the critics examined the novels with the purpose of finding in them offenses similar to those which were being perpetrated on the stage. The reports of Marion Delorme ( 1 8 3 1 ) , Le Roi s'amuse ( 1 8 3 2 ) , Lucrèce Borgia and Marie Tudor ( 1 8 3 3 ) which reached England caused Hugo to be condemned by the Quarterly Review in 1834 for "gross dereliction of decency" and "abandonment of all moral principle"; 36 and anyone familiar with the influence of that Argus-eyed guardian of British morals will realize that such a judgment was comparable to excommunication in the Middle Ages. The Athenaeum and the Foreign Quarterly joined in the campaign, and before long all the critics were representing Hugo as an author "gone mad," a charlatan who would stoop to anything in order to please his public. The vicious effects of this system of wholesale condemnation were well illustrated in the Quarterly's first pronouncement on Hugo's novels, in April, 1836. In his search for evidence comparable to Hugo's dramatic horrors, the critic found little in Notre Dame, much in Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné. Consequently he devoted almost the whole of his article to Hugo's earlier tale, and dismissed the really great novel with the trifling comment that it was "an imitation of Sir Walter Scott—whom, soit dit en passant, it resembles as Goose Gibby in his helmet and buff coat might resemble the

4°

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

noble chivalry of Lord Evandale." 3 7 The same injustice, the same twisting of perspective may be found in Mrs. Trollope's Paris and the Parisians in 18}$, which, as we have seen, gave expression to the strictly prudish fastidiousness of the English bluestockings. Even while admitting that Notre Dame was Hugo's best work, she concentrated attention on his dramatic monstrosities, and thought that she had sufficiently disposed of the novel when she reported that it was "always alluded to with much more of contempt than admiration; and . . . ridiculed in circles whose praise was fame." 38 Needless to say, Mrs. Trollope had frequented the classicist salons, and was fond of taking shelter under their respectable authority. Even after the storm of protest against the dramas was over, Notre Dame remained under the ban of English opprobrium. The only critic willing to view it apart from its author's ill fame was Jules Janin, whose articles in the Athenaeum in 1837 showed at least a desire to rehabilitate its artistic reputation. 30 So thorough and far-reaching was the English reaction that we find the Spectator, which had been most enthusiastic about the novel in 1833, referring to it in 1839 as "a book which few men . . . possessed of English tastes and feelings, would care to read a second time." 40 The wide circulation and discussion of Notre Dame so increased English respect for Hugo's abilities as a novelist that in 1833 the publishers and critics brought to light his earlier prose works, and examined them with some care. Bug-Jargal, which had remained anonymous until 1829, was translated and published by Smith & Elder in Leitch Ritchie's "Library of Romance," under the title The Slave King ( 1 8 3 3 ) ; and the little volume, recommended by the Sunday Times, the Courier, the Monthly Magazine, and even the Athenaeum, became fairly well known in England. 41 A year later Claude Gueux, Hugo's second narrative manifesto against capital punishment, was translated and published in the Athenaeum.*2 But these works also fell under the ban after 1834, and

"Notre

Dame de Paris"

41

they were even less able than Notre Dame to sustain attacks from the English moralists. One authority, the Edinburgh Review, used them as a contrast to the "immoral" dramas, looking back with a certain wistfulness to the first sources of Hugo's inspiration: Comparing his earlier tales, . . . in which, amidst all the horrors in which they deal, a spirit of humanity, a fine sensibility to virtue and nobleness, always left the mind something to repose upon with satisfaction,—with his later works,*' . . . in which scarcely any humane or generous emotion leavens the mass of licentiousness, incest, and murder, . . . — w e regret to think that instead of disengaging himself more and more from the evil influences of his day, they seem rather to be acquiring a firmer hold over his mind. . .

Most critics, however, re-examined Hugo's earlier works with the expectation, sometimes with the purpose, of finding more evidence of depravity. The unfortunate effects of this method of criticism may be discerned even in the work of so wellinformed a writer as Jules Janin, whose eagerness to exhibit Hugo's horrors to Athenaeum readers led him into a curious mistake: "Bug Jargal is a frightful negro—as horrible as Han d'Islande. He has every passion and every vice." 4 4 The Quarterly, as I have indicated, passed over Notre Dame and seized upon Le Dernier Jour to demonstrate the low taste of the French public. This was easily proved, but it afforded only the most superficial explanation of Hugo's argument against capital punishment: The truth is, that M. Victor Hugo wanted to dash off a book suited to the depraved taste of the times, and hit upon le dernier jour d'un condamné, as a piquant subject: but when he had finished his story, he perceived that it was at once odious and idle, equally destitute of interest or instruction; and the metaphysical apology was then introduced to cover the feebleness and inanity of the original performance.'15 * In particular, Le Roi s'amuse and Lucrèce

Borgia.

42

"Notre

Dame

de

Paris"

Here also we find a first sample of the bitter medicine of satire which English critics were to administer to Hugo throughout the rest of the century: commenting on the format of Le Dernier Jour, the Quarterly remarked M . H u g o has contrived that . . . his volume should be less offensive than it seems, f o r it is . . . divided into so many chapters, and each chapter is . . . so c a r e f u l l y separated by blank leaves and open spaces, that of 3 12 pages, of w h i c h the volume consists, there are b u t 1 j 8 . . . of letter-press, the rest b e i n g — w h a t w i t h o u t our previous explanation would seem a miracle in modern French literat u r e — q u i t e pure. . . . It has never before been our good f o r t u n e to b u y so m u c h w h i t e paper while we thought w e were purchasing a b o o k ; yet, so far are w e f r o m complaining of this substitution, t h a t w e should have liked our bargain still better if the printer's ink had not spoiled any of the pages. 40

The "book-making" devices of Hugo's publishers were being revealed to the French public in the course of the author's numerous lawsuits, but it is rather surprising to find an English complaint.

CHAPTER

THREE

The Reaction against Hugo's Romantic Dramas (1830-1840) G R E A T success of Notre Dame seemed to promise that Victor Hugo would be held higher in English esteem than he actually was during the years that followed. For the novel found a permanent place among English favorites; it continued to be in demand, and remained until the end of the century Hugo's best-liked, though not his most widely-read, romance. But in the 1830's, as we have seen, its immediate vogue was to a great extent curtailed by the ill fame of the French Romantic drama, which caused not only Hugo's plays, but his novels and his poetry, and the works of his cohorts in the struggle, to fall into disrepute. It now becomes necessary to inquire more minutely into the subject of these dramas, to learn what manner of theatrical enterprise could be found so objectionable, so monstrous, as to bring a whole literature under the shadow of English opprobrium. THE

It is rather surprising that the drama should have caused the downfall of French Romanticism in England, for, as was suggested in Chapter I, French drama had a better chance of success in England than French poetry or fiction. In 1830 as in 1820, England was dissatisfied with her own dramatic productions; the London theatres were still overrun with "the Illegitimate, and Claptrap," and even such mediocre successes as Sheridan Knowles's Hunchback and Virginius, or Jerrold's Black-Ey'd Susan, were few and far between. The dependence of English playwrights on French originals, moreover, had not diminished but increased. Toward the end of the year 1830, a writer in Fraser's Magazine candidly ad-

44

Htigo's Romantic

Dramas

mitted that "our modern dramas are avowedly taken from the French, and adapted by a process which, as far as intellect is concerned, is not above the craft of a tinker, to English manners." * 1 Since they depended on the French dramatists for much of their amusement, it was natural that the English should follow the news of the Parisian stage with keen interest. The French plays most in demand for English adaptation were not, however, those of the Romantic crusaders, but the well-knit comedies, farces and social dramas of playwrights who were less interested in literary revolution than in pleasing their audiences. A few Romantic dramas were brought out in London: three or four of Victor Hugo's, the Henri III ( 1 8 3 2 ) and La Tour de Nesle of Dumas, and others; but the English stage was almost never without at least one selection from the works of MM. Scribe, Mézères, or that prolific and versatile adaptor Planché. After Hernani and Henri III had had their run the English lost their taste for the French Romantic dramas, for reasons which we shall presently consider; but their demand for Scribe's plays and Planché's adaptations continued unabated. Knowing the English attitude toward French classical literature, we should expect the "Battle of Hernani" to have had a considerable reverberation across the Channel. The English were plainly enough on Hugo's side; they had long been waiting for the "mould" of French classical drama to be broken, and had even shown some willingness to approve Hugo's plans for breaking it, as outlined in the preface to Cromwell. In 1828 and 1829 the foreign reviews had familiarized the public with some of the new French writers, and the tone of their criticism had been anything but unfriendly. The Edinburgh Review, very influential and con* T h i s estimate is e x a g g e r a t e d ; of the notable new plays produced in L o n d o n in 1 8 ) 0 , s o m e w h a t less than half were f r o m F r e n c h originals.

Hugo's Romantic

Dramas

45

spicuous for its sympathy toward French Romanticism during this whole period, pronounced favorably upon the new school of drama in April, 1830, naming MM. Delavigne, Dumas, Hugo, and de Vigny as the "most worthy of commendation" of the new dramatists. Hugo especially was congratulated in this article for his far-sighted and intelligent leadership in the classic-romantic controversy; the critic expressed approval because he had not quarreled over trifles, but had "rested the merits of the cause on more enlarged principles." 2 Nevertheless, the crisis passed without causing much excitement in England. The "Battle of Hernani" was, indeed, reported by almost all the Paris correspondents, but only as an amusing scene; and the play itself received no attention at the time. The Athenaeum, for instance, judged that "the sensation created in Paris . . . is to be ascribed . . . rather to the interest taken in the feud between the classicists and the romanticists . . . than to the really intrinsic merit of the performance itself." 3 Presented for the first time on February 25, 1830, the play was not reviewed in England until October, and then only by the Foreign Quarterly. This review was not written by Southern, but by the dramatic critic George Moir, translator of Schiller's Wallenstein, and it was by no means as sympathetic toward Hugo as Southern's articles had been. Representing the French Romantic drama as an attempt to "substitute . . . the wild variety of Shakespeare . . . and the alternate splendour and gloom of Calderon" for the old French classical models, Moir felt bound to remind Hugo and his fellows that they were still imitators, whether they followed Seneca and Racine, or Shakespeare and Calderon. Moreover, Hernani seemed to him to come "very far indeed from realizing that ideal of the French tragedy" in which its author believed. "While it sparkles with poetical beauties," he remarked, "the play . . . errs grievously against the weightier matters of the law;—the

46

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

laws of historical truth, and of universal nature." Specifically, he protested that the representation of Charles V was inconsistent and historically untrue, and that the characters of Hernani and Ruy Gomez were "deformed by contradictions." 4 Mr. Moir took a rather high and mighty tone with Hugo's play; he scorned to accept Charles V's conversion, for instance, because he thought it had been introduced " f o r no other purpose but to produce a coup-de-théâtre." But coups de théâtre were not unpopular in England; and a certain Mr. James Kenney, who knew the tastes of London audiences from long experience, realized that Hernani was rich enough in coups de théâtre, sudden peripeties, and the usual trappings of melodrama, to have a successful run in London. Even as Mr. Moir was denouncing the play, in October, 1830, Mr. Kenney was submitting a neat, well-made version of it, under the title The Pledge, or, Castilian Honour, to the management of Drury Lane. The version was accepted, though with much hesitation, and six months later, after a long series of quarrels between Kenney and the management, it appeared on the boards. The great Macready took the part of Don Leo (Ruy Gomez), Miss Phillips that of Dona Zanthe (Dona Sol), and Wallack that of Hernani. The Pledge was well received in London, but it is difficult to ascertain whether Kenney or Hugo received the more credit for its success. Playgoers were informed of Hugo's authorship of the piece, but many readers must have been completely unaware of the fact, for several reviewers neglected to mention it, and the published version was advertised in the Athenaeum as "Mr. Kenney's new tragic drama," with no reference to Hugo either in its title or in its recommendations.5 Kenney was careful to retain, and even to augment, the stage devices and effects of Hernani, but he omitted or abridged the long monologues, the rhetorical tirades, the untranslatable puns and jokes. Most English commentators

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

47

highly approved of these changes; indeed the London Times, the Literary Gazette, and the Athenaeum openly asserted that Kenney had improved upon his original. We are told by Leigh Hunt, on whom The Pledge made a great impression, that the audience was quite carried away by the fifth act, and that the second and third acts were very well applauded. His own enthusiasm was most stirred by the intensely dramatic conclusion, "from the first ghostly appearance of the mask in black, to the agonizing deaths of the lovers." 0 It was, in fact, the sequence of fearful happenings and tense situations that chiefly appealed to the English. "The situations and incidents," observed the Athenaeum, "are not only good and strong, but more numerous than in almost any drama we remember." 7 The Times reviewer, even while recognizing in it "all the materials of melodrama, . . . banditti, conspirators, subterraneous retreats, disguises," showed genuine appreciation of its swift action and dramatic intensity.8 Professor Moraud, in commenting on Leigh Hunt's enthusiasm for the fifth act, gives his opinion that Ce cinquième acte, si shakespearien dans son décor, sa poésie, et son intensité dramatique . . . pour le public anglais, mettait Victor Hugo incontestablement au-dessus de tous les dramatistes contemporains et en faisait presque l'égal de Shakespeare.9

What English tribute to Hernani or its author Professor Moraud may have found to substantiate this lofty view of Hugo's prestige, I cannot say. In the absence of any definitely revealed evidence, we can only suppose, not that Hugo was so esteemed in 18 j i, but that he is so esteemed today by Professor Moraud. For the English never gave their whole-hearted approval to Hugo's play, and took only a passing interest in it. The Examiner, although as enthusiastic as most of the critical arbiters, predicted that "The Pledge will not become a stock piece, and we are much mistaken if it holds its ground

4

8

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

to the end of the season." 1 0 As a matter of fact, the play ran for eight nights between April 8 and April 22; and surely we must suppose that English theatre-goers would have suffered a play of Shakespearian proportions to remain among them somewhat longer than this. La Légion d'honneur, its successor at the Drury Lane, had a considerably longer run— which might almost lead us to believe that Hugo, instead of being esteemed "incontestablement au-dessus de tous les dramatistes contemporains," was less admired than the adaptor Planché. The objections which placed The Pledge on a level very considerably below that of Shakespeare in England were what Professor Moraud deplores as "considérations morales" and "considérations d'ordre pratique, presque commercial." The dénouement of the piece was not merely remote from English experience, but almost beyond English comprehension ; and the subject was considered unfit for modern audiences, or, at best, "quaint." There was no doubt a time [observed The Examiner] when the notions of hospitality, the strained points of honour, and the demoniacal principles of revenge, which form the groundwork of Mr. K E N N E Y ' S tragedy . . . did actually prevail: but those times, those principles . . . have passed away; and now, they scarcely point a moral—for they are inapplicable to our amended state of society; they scarcely adorn a tale—for we refuse our sympathy to that which oifends our reason: still less are they calculated to excite our interests, during five acts of tedious tragedy, and unrelieved by any incidents more germane to our modern sensibilities.11

The Literary Gazette also protested that, although "this overstraining of the point of honour was common to the clime and the period, . . . it is now considered ludicrous, and is therefore an unfit subject for a modern tragedy." 1 2 The Athenaeum asserted that the dénouement "taxed the feelings of the audience beyond the possibility of sympathy," because it was "so repugnant to common sense to see a man

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

49

giving away his life . . . in pursuance of a silly promise . . . " 1 3 Later on, the suicides of Hugo's characters, though quite acceptable in France, were to offend not only English common sense, but the English moral code. This indifference to the point d'honneur was fundamentally the reason why the English were willing to forego the pleasure of seeing The Pledge after its short run.* The virtues of English rationalism do not, however, justify the narrow, moralistic criticism of Leigh Hunt, who attempted to represent Hernani as a thesis play intended to show the evils of pride and jealousy. Nowhere, unless perhaps in Hugo's own dramatic prefaces, could one find a more ingenious twisting of wholly foreign subject matter to the requirements of a sermon, than in the passage of The Tatler where Hunt set forth the "excellent moral" of The Pledge: Castilian pride and jealousy are absurdities, it is true, which no longer exhibit themselves in their former flourishing state of venom; but the false principles which judge of everything by the tests of selfreference and a pampered egotism, which are . . . so ready to scatter dismay and destruction all around them, in revenge for sheer opposition to their will, can never be too strongly opposed, or shewn of what diabolical mistakes they consist. 14

Professor Moraud judges that the English public, because it allowed The Pledge a run of eight nights, showed more intelligence than the critics. "Le public anglais, en se laissant aller à ses emotions, et en applaudissant la pièce, là où elle lui plaisait, sans chercher au-delà, se montrait meilleur juge que ses critiques." 1 5 Certainly the public showed more intelligence by applauding than Hunt by sermonizing; yet it seems to me that the critics indicated well enough the reasons why The Pledge succeeded no better than it did. The Foreign * A n o t h e r translation of Hernant,

executed by L o r d Francis Leveson G o w e r , was

p e r f o r m e d at B r i d g e w a t e r House b e f o r e the royal f a m i l y , on J u n e 22,

1 8 3 1 , and

published a y e a r later. I have not taken account of this version, because, t h o u g h superior

to K e n n e y ' s

in

siderable E n g l i s h public.

fidelity

and literary

value, it never reached any

con-

jo

Hugo's Romantic Dramas

Quarterly, the Athenaeum, and the Examiner had not learned to admire everything, comme une brute, and their estimate of Hernani came nearer to being the opinion of posterity. Nine months later, reviewing Marion Delorme, the Foreign Quarterly placed Hernani in truer historical perspective, and pointed out to what extent its success had depended on its novelty: "Carried away by its strange and altogether original character, criticism was in a great degree either silenced or reduced into applause. But such experiments are not to be tried twice. . . . " 16 The melodramas which followed Hernani thoroughly confirmed English critics in their opinion that Hugo's revolutionary methods would not lead to any improvement in the drama. The English had rebuked the author of Hernani only for choosing a remote and unseemly subject; but they found in his next play, Marion Delorme, far more serious and alarming faults. With this drama of the courtesan reclaimed, Hugo immediately began, as the Foreign Quarterly reviewer justly observed, "to tread upon the debatable land of morals, [where] the most delicate tact, the most consummate skill in the management of emotion, are required. . . . And these," he concluded, "we certainly should never think of seeking in Victor Hugo." 17 This reviewer reflected the true feeling of the English majority, it seems to me, when he confessed, W e can neither conceive how the attachment of Didier for Marion Delorme could have been formed in such utter ignorance of her previous life, . . . nor . . . by what strange revulsion of feelings his conduct is so suddenly presented to him in a new light, and the being who in the third act had been denounced as " a demon," becomes in the fifth " a n angel of heaven." 18

Considération pratique: that young men should take care whom they fall in love with; and considération morale: that she who has fallen may not rise again: here once more

Hugo's Romantic Dramas we find the seeds of discontent, and how truly English they are! Marion Delorme had no such success as Hernani in Paris, and consequently the English heard very little about it. No translation appeared until 1872, when it was adapted by Mr. B. Fairclough, under the title The King's Edict, and even then it was not brought on the stage. In the year of its first production (1832), only one English periodical took any notice of the play: the Foreign Quarterly attempted to explain its failure in Paris, and drew an interesting comparison between it and Vigny's Maréchale d'Ancre. "Had the present drama been at least equal to Hernani," judged the reviewer, "we suspect its reception would have been pretty much the same. But, to say the truth, it is in all respects inferior: its beauties are far less numerous, its absurdities far more striking." 1 9 He deplored the new French vogue of ransacking history for examples of "unchecked vice" and "unmingled atrocity," but found more justification for Vigny's methods than for Hugo's. Whereas Vigny had given his play an adequate historical basis, Hugo had offended historical propriety with a "gross caricature" of King Louis. Vigny had treated of manners; Hugo treated of "character, according to his own very peculiar notions of it." While Vigny "is always cautious, and generally natural," Hugo "often startles us by the most illogical deductions, the most unaccountable changes of sentiment, the most singular and even vulgar expressions." 20 As in the earlier criticism, we find here a plea for a more measured pace of French Romanticism. English critics considered the year 1832 the "turning point" in French Romantic drama. It was in that year, as the Foreign Quarterly observed some time later, that the playwrights stopped restricting themselves to "the correction of those vices which called for reform in the old drama," and began to wander too far in the opposite direction.21 English versions

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

of Her nani ( 1 8 3 2 ) and Dumas's Henri III ( 1 8 3 2 ) had been somewhat admired, but suddenly the public began to receive alarming reports of a different sort of drama: Teresa, La Tour de Nesle, and Angele. "Marion Deforme certainly is not a heroine after our taste," remarked the Foreign Quarterly reviewer. "But what are we to say to Le Roi s'amuse?" 22 The scandal attending the première of this play, on November 22, 1832, was reported only by the Athenaeum, but it made a very bad impression indeed. For the Athenaeum correspondent wrote that the play was "too raw"—mirabile dictu:—for even a Parisian audience: The denouement of the piece took place, I am happy to say, for the credit of the French, amidst a volley of hisses. . . . M. Hugo excites emotions to a high degree, but they are those of disgust and shame. Female spectators are driven, as of old, to use their handkerchieves —but 'tis to hide crimson blushes, rather than to dry up tears.

"The acme of enormity" revealed itself to this English witness when "the fourth act . . . opened—where? In a brothel." - 3 The Edinburgh also objected strenuously to the "mass of licentiousness" and murder to be found in the play.* Political feeling was running high in England in the year of the Reform Bill, and politico-literary reviewing was still a familiar article of the public diet. Hence it is not surprising to find the English searching out an imaginary "political significance" in Le Roi s'amuse, by much the same method that William Hazlitt the younger used on Notre Dame a year later.t It is disappointing to notice that the Foreign Quarterly, which usually managed to keep politics out of its literary discussions, was chiefly responsible for this error. The thesis of Le Roi s'amuse, according to the legend, was that "the support of . . . royal gaiety, magnificence, valour, generosity, * Supra, p. 4 1 .

t Supra, pp. 32-33.

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

53

patronage and noble bearing . . . is dreadfully expensive to a people, and very much interferes with good government." It seemed to the Foreign Quarterly that this thesis must have been there, for the play had been prohibited by command of the "Constitutional Monarchy" after the first night. As for the charge of "immorality," given as the reason for prohibiting it, surely that must have been only a flimsy pretext, for: The effect of the play is moral in the extreme: it disgusts the auditor with brilliant seduction; it shows the wretchedness of buffoonery, the misery of sinful revenge. 2 4

How a London or Paris audience might benefit by considering the baneful effects of brilliant seduction and wretched buffoonery, was not revealed; like Leigh Hunt, the reviewer neglected to give any practical application of his sermon. In his occasional passages devoted to literary criticism, the Foreign Quarterly reviewer showed himself equally inept. Although he correctly surmised that Le Roi s'amuse exhibited "much of the melodramatic," he judged that "its dramatic points are not striking," and that "as a scenic affair, it is very poor." 2 5 Yet the dramatic points and scenic effects of Le Roi s'amuse were soon incorporated into an English version which held its ground at the Royal Victoria Theatre for thirty-six nights."' 16 Although it brought Hugo far less renown than The Pledge, Dr. John Gideon Millingen's version of Le Roi s'amuse, entitled The King's Fool; or, the old Man's Curse enthralled its English audience much longer than the earlier play. In order to account for this, we must remember that Le Roi s'amuse is more frankly a melodrama than Hernani, * Professor M o r a u d mentions " u n e traduction, mais singulièrement écourtée, du Roi s'amuse . . . jouée au R o y a l Pavillon . . . en 1 8 3 3 . " 2 7 There was, indeed, a play entitled The Court Fool running at the Royal Pavilion at the time, and also a Lord Mayor's Fool at the Surrey, but I suspect that it is The King's Fool at the Royal Victoria, that M. M o r a u d had in mind.

54

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

and that the characters in it find more tangible things than points d'honneur to quarrel about. The play offered by Dr. Millingen made no pretense to literary excellence; it had none of the romantic glamor and beauty of Hernani, but it was a gripping and fast-moving play. Any fidelity to the original was of course out of the question. "The scenes of vice exhibited [in the original] were considered too potent even for the present state of the French stage," observed the Athenaeum; and "under the circumstances, it is almost needless to say, that Dr. Millingen . . . has made most material alterations . . . The force of the original has, in part, melted in his hands." 28 In obedience to the theatrical taste of the time, a good deal of dancing and ballad singing was introduced. There remained, however, enough action to strike terror to the heart, and we may be sure that the English audience knew little, and cared less, about its source. The Athenaeum was the only periodical which mentioned Hugo's authorship of the play: for other critics, and for readers of the announcements, it was only "a new Historical play . . . from the pen of Dr. Millingen." 29 As such, it had a notable success; the Times, the Literary Gazette, and the Athenaeum all testified to its enthusiastic reception, and only the New Monthly refused to give approval. 30 The English reception of Le Roi s'amuse would seem to indicate a certain disparity of taste between the critics and the public. Yet it would be wrong to conclude that the critics were not representing public opinion: for, in truth, the critics were condemning Le Roi s'amuse, while the public was enjoying The King's Fool, a patchwork composition purged of all that the critics had considered objectionable in the original. It will be found that all the French Romantic dramas adapted to the English stage had to be "toned down" in a similar way. Lucrèce Borgia, Hugo's next play, met with the same fortune as Le Roi s'amuse: it was first damned by the

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

JJ

critics, then truncated and stuffed into an English version, and finally enjoyed by the public. Although Lucrèce Borgia enjoyed a considerable success at the Porte Saint Martin in February and March, 1833, the Athenaeum correspondent seems to have considered it unworthy even of a short notice. All he told the English public was that Hugo had "composed a tragedy . . . in seven days, in order to fill up the vacuum left in his purse and fame by the prohibition of his 'Roi s'amuse,' " and that a week after its first performance, "Victor Hugo and his tragedy were both forgotten." 3 1 For "Maga," the mere title of the piece was sufficient evidence of depravity: The hero and heroine who divide public interest on the Parisian stage

at this moment, are Faublas and Lucrezia Borgia. . . . Under the

Bourbons, . . . a slight tincture of profaneness . . . was spice enough to season a theatrical piece. . . . N o w , the dose must be quintupled. . . . The most monstrous and refined imaginations of sensuality . . . characterise the most popular writings which have issued f r o m the Parisian press since 1 8 3 0 . 3 2

Except for these superficial comments, the English heard nothing of Hugo's Lucrèce Borgia until 1834, when Henry Bulwer gave the first detailed account of it in his book France, Social, Literary, Political. This account, which contained a translation of most of the last scene, and an accurate résumé of the whole play, also gave the first explanation of the philosophical doctrine underlying Hugo's dramas—that one ennobling emotion may sublimate or transform the most deformed character. Though he took great pains to show its application to all Hugo's dramas, Bulwer had no sympathy for the doctrine; he called it "an inverted philosophy," "a kind of unphilosophic madness," and "a set of rules which almost render it impossible that he should be . . . a great dramatist." In Marion Deforme, he pointed out, its only function was that of "affecting to breathe interest over the infamy of the prostitute." 3 3

í6

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

The English version of Lucrèce Borgia was destined for a different audience from that which had applauded The Pledge and The King's Fool. Spectators at the Sadlers Wells Theatre shared to a degree the moral fastidiousness of the Drury Lane and Royal Victoria audiences, but they required somewhat less in the way of Dramatic Art. At this popular suburban theatre, which, like its great rival the New City Theatre, specialized in the more harrowing types of melodrama, Lucrèce Borgia was advertised as "one of the most frightful" plays imaginable, and as such it drew enthusiastic crowds during the whole month of May, 1833. 3 4 Marie Tudor, Hugo's next play, did not receive so much attention in England as its predecessors. Like Marion Delorme, this was a failure on the French stage, and consequently it did not arouse enough Parisian rumor and controversy to carry its fame across the Channel. No English adaptor or producer found occasion to use the play until i840.3,> As to the reasons for its failure, only one explanation was offered—the Athenaeum correspondent wrote: H u g o is really out of his senses; he lives in an atmosphere of conceit and folly, impossible to be described. He will listen to no advice. . . . He has, f o r the last two years, been . . . ruining himself and the theatre; and if he does not abandon it, and return to lyric poetry and novel writing, he will soon be entirely lost to literature. 36

There were, however, certain features of Marie Tudor which the English found particularly repugnant—the portrait of Mary Tudor and the faulty English background of the piece. It will become apparent in the course of this study that as often as Hugo ventured to portray an English scene or character, he was reproached for misrepresentation by his English commentators. Cromwell, his first attempt, had escaped such a rebuke only because the English were totally ignorant of it. But Marie Tudor was described in some detail by Henry Bulwer, who immediately found in it "a pompous display of

Hugo's Romantic Dramas

57

ignorance as to all the laws and customs of Great Britain," and an insult to the Queen: Mary of England, whose chastity, poor woman, was her only virtue, is brought on the stage with an Italian musician f o r her lover, in the character of Mary Queen of Scots, with whom it is impossible to believe that M. H u g o really confounded her. [In a footnote, however, he implied that it was not quite impossible. ] 3 7

That Hugo's unsavory reputation as a dramatist could have been created and fostered by such indefinite, fragmentary reports as these, may well seem incredible. But we must consider that it was by the notices and reviews, and only by them, that Hugo's dramas were made known to the public. Of the English versions, only The Pledge was adequately designated as belonging to Hugo; and the Master himself would have been reluctant to own the others. For the English audiences which enjoyed The King's Fool, Lucrece Borgia, and Angelo (played at the Royal Victoria in 1835) could never have guessed that the luthor had aimed higher than their own melodramatist Mr. Fitzball. In summing up the factors which made Hugo's reputation, therefore, we must regard only reviews and comments on the French originals, leaving the English versions after The Pledge out of the account.* The evidence presented in these reports of Marion Delorme, Le Koi s'amuse, Lucrece Borgia, and Marie Tudor, however superficial, was considered sufficient to warrant a wholesale attack on Hugo's dramas after 1833. The situation had become so fraught with dangers to public morality and to the future of literature that the Quarterly Review found it necessary to issue a magisterial pronouncement on "The State of the French Draina," and after this awful edict had gone forth in March, 183^, no one ventured to defend Hugo again.f * The Pledge and Gower's Hernani were the only English versions which found their way into print; the others reached the public only while they were being perfoimed. f There was, indeed, one dissenting voice: the Paris correspondent of Tail's Edinburgh Magazine wrote in June, 1854, that he would "defend Hugo against

í8

Hugo's Romantic Dramas

From such a weighty critical authority as the Quarterly, one might have expected a thorough examination, or at least a reasoned survey of Hugo's dramas. Yet, even here, hasty judgment, based upon rumor, was allowed to take the place of thoughtful criticism. Lucrèce Borgia and Marion Delorme were condemned only for "grossness" and "improbability," with no consideration of their structure, characterization, or dramatic effects. Of M arie Tudor, it seemed sufficient to say that "Mary—the severe and scrupulous Mary—is represented . . . as living in open criminal commerce with an Italian adventurer;" this gave evidence enough that the play was "grossly offensive to morals." 3 9 In one respect, however, the Quarterly was more instructive than other critical arbiters: it was the first periodical to examine Hugo's dramatic prefaces, and to point out the difference between his intention and his achievement. As has been suggested, no one seeing the plays either in the original or in English, could have guessed at the moralité austère et profonde which they were supposed to contain, without reading the prefaces; consequently the English had no idea that Hugo meant to be a teacher, or that he meant to rival Shakespeare. The Quarterly told what Hugo had been trying to do, but gave him no credit for success in either of these worthy endeavors. Of his pretensions to Shakespeare's "grandeur and truth," set forth in the preface to Marie Tudor, the Quarterly held a very low opinion indeed. H u g o thought Shakespeare " g r a n d " because he could create heroic characters far above or below the human norm, and " t r u e " because his scenes and plots could be related to everyday life. But, in his own dramas, Hugo seems to think that crime is grand—and the more revolting, the grander; and that he combines this grandeur with truth when he mixes it up with trivial events. . . . When he exhibits, in all their t h e libels he has s u f f e r e d , in his next letter to M r . T a i t . " T h i s p r o m i s e appeared in t h e m a g a z i n e in an article i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h a p o r t r a i t o f H u g o and s o m e d e s c r i p t i o n of his f a m i l y , b u t it was never f u l f i l l e d . 3 8

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

J9

odious details, adultery, rape, incest, and murder, he fancies that he has discovered the exact point where truth and grandeur intersect one another.*0

After the Quarterly had pointed out this discrepancy between Hugo's pretensions and his actual results, it became a favorite axiom in the demonstration of his failure: Henry Bulwer and Mrs. Trollope made it the nucleus of their more detailed criticisms. Almost every critical authority in England enlisted in the crusade against Hugo's dramas, and it even gained some notable deserters from among his former champions. The Edinburgh, which had at first given the French Romantic drama a kindly welcome to England, turned against its "evil influence" in 1833, and strongly objected to the "mass of licentiousness, incest, and murder" in Le Roi s'amuse and Lucrèce Borgia.*1 In 1835 the Foreign Quarterly Review, still the highest authority in the special field of foreign literature, finally admitted that the French drama was showing "symptoms of decay." This review, unlike the others, never passed judgment without serious study and reflection, and it had defended Le Roi s'amuse in 1833. By 1835, however, it was convinced that Hugo and Dumas were writing "dramas . . . than which nothing can be imagined more depraved in conception, or more objectionable in execution." 42 Most English critics followed the shorter, more brutal method of the Quarterly. To the Athenaeum correspondent and to "Maga" the mere hint of immorality seemed sufficient cause for expressing disapproval, and provided an excuse for not examining Hugo's dramas more closely."' Eraser's Magazine was convinced that "Lucrèce Borgia and Marie Tudor border on the ravings of insanity." 4:! Similar hasty judgments, based on rumor, appeared in the Spectator and the Monthly Review.44 The adverse judgment of the Quarterly, the Foreign Quar* Supra, p. 5 j.

6o

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

terly, the Athenaeum, and Blackwood's might have seemed adequate to put Hugo's dramas quite beyond the pale. But Mrs. Trollope, the most censorious of Hugo's English critics, thought it advisable to support this opinion by French authority. In her book on Paris and the Parisians she went to a great deal of trouble to prove that "Victor Hugo is NOT a popular French writer," and that on the whole France seems to be ashamed of him . . . [Even though] the startling, bold, stirring incidents of his disgusting dramas must and will excite a certain degree of attention when seen f o r the first time, . . . it is a f a c t , which the play-bills . . . attest, that . . . they are never brought forward again: not one of them has yet become . . . a stockplay. 4 5

Further evidence of the unanimity of French and English opinion was furnished by her statement that when one of the French reviews * found occasion to introduce an article upon the modern drama, the editors acquitted themselves of the task by translating the whole of the able article . . . in the Quarterly, acknowledging to what source they were indebted for it. 46

Mrs. Trollope's claims to the support of high French critical authority must have been substantiated, in the eyes of her readers, by the articles written for the Athenaeum and the Westminster by Jules Janin and Désiré Nisard. Janin gave a very low estimate of Hugo's powers as a dramatist, placing him " f a r , very far, below M. Victor Ducange and M. Guilbert de Pixérécourt." 47 Nisard's article, published in the Westminster in January, 1836, dealt chiefly with Hugo's poetry, but contained a few words of warning to the dramatist. Each of the plays was conceded to have "one scene worthy of the poet" except Angelo: nevertheless, he predicted that if Hugo should go on producing plays inferior to Angelo, he will dwindle into something less than a fertile writer of vatidei'illes. . . . [ A n d is * La Revue

britannique.

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

61

M. H u g o sure of being able to stop?] Will not the public . . . urge him farther in his downward career? N o longer satisfied with the doses which he has already given them of assassinations and poisonings, will they not demand still stronger emotions? 48

From these remarks, and the comment of "Maga" on the "quintupled dose of profaneness" in Lucrèce, we may gather that the critics enjoyed visualizing the French public as an inveterate drunkard, who required stronger and stronger stimulants from bartender Hugo. A writer in the British and Foreign Review applied the metaphor with more gusto than accuracy a year later, when he pictured the exhausted inebriate as "revelling amidst the ultra-horrors, atrocities and profligacy" of that tame monster, that out-moded tale of terror Han d'Islande.49 Reports of Hugo's dramatic productions subsequent to Marie Tudor only confirmed the English in their adverse opinion. Angelo, Tyran de Padoue had a successful première at the Théâtre Français on April 28, 1835, and within six weeks an English version of it began a successful run at the Royal Victoria. The Literary Gazette attested to the "dismal horrors" of the Anglicized melodrama, and to the success it had in "enchaining the faculties of lovers of that order of amusement," 50 but actually this version, like The King's Fool and Lucrèce, brought Hugo no renown whatever."' The only English commentator on its original was Mrs. Trollope, who vowed she had "never beheld anything on the stage so utterly disgusting," and explained its Parisian success as owing to the rivalry of Mlle. Mars and Mme. Dorval, to Hugo's exclusion of his enemies from the theatre, to low public taste— to anything, in short, but its intrinsic merit. 51 A year and a half later appeared La Esmeralda, an operatic version of Notre Dame in which Hugo had collaborated with * Angelo; or, The Tyrant of Padua was performed at the Royal Victoria Theatre eighteen times between June i j and J u l y 4, 1835.

6z

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

the musician Mile. Bertin. The English had liked Notre Dame so well, and Hugo's dramas so little, that any attempt to combine them must have been displeasing. It is hardly surprising, therefore, to find a severe pronouncement on it in the Athenaeum, with the report " 'La Esmeralda' may be speedily dismissed: it is dead already"—an accurate enough description of its failure in Paris. 52 An adaptation of the same novel, under the title Quasimodo; or, the Gipsy Girl of Notre Dame an Operatic Romance, prepared by the diligent melodramatist Mr. Fitzball, was brought out at Covent Garden on February z, 1836, but Mr. Fitzball failed even more signally than M. Hugo to interest his audience."' ' ,3 The English critics were to some extent justified in their condemnation of the French Romantic drama after 1832, and much that was charged against Hugo's more gruesome tragedies was undoubtedly true. Yet it is unfortunate, and little to their credit, that the critics passed judgment so easily, and extended their disapproval to productions of which they knew nothing except that they were French. What would any of our readers think [asked the Spectator in 1 8 3 9 ] of the inmates of a house in which he found the novels of PAUL DE K O C K , or G E O R G E S A N D , or D E B A L Z A C , lying on the drawing-room table? They are not even to be found in the shop of a respectable English bookseller; but are provided by foreign circulating librarykeepers to g r a t i f y the irregular appetites of young people. 54

This was by no means unrepresentative of the English moral attitude during the 1830's; such opinions were expressed not only by the Spectator but by the Quarterly and the Edinburgh, England's highest critical authorities. We cannot but deplore the tone of this criticism, for it is discouraging to find rumor and hearsay taking the place of thoughtful examination, and doubly discouraging to realize that rumor and * U n d a u n t e d by the f a i l u r e of this version, M r . F i t z b a l l wrote another w i t h the title e x a c t l y reversed: Esmeralda; combe's Edition

of the British

or, Theatre

The

Deformed

of Notre

and L a c y ' s Acting

Dame.

Edition

of

See J . D u n Plays.

Hugo's Romantic

Dramas

63

hearsay were considered sufficient cause for moral sermonizing. By 1838, then, the English were ready to discard French dramas without even reading them, and were convinced that Hugo could not write a good play. It is only by remembering this wholesale condemnation that we can explain the utter lack of attention given to Ruy Bias at the time of its first performance. Next to Hernani, this has proved Hugo's most durable play in France, and in England it eventually gained preference over all Hugo's other plays.* Yet all the English public heard of it in 1838 was that "the Parisian feuilletons are full of Ruy-Blas, in which Lemaître's powers of acting,— rather than M. Hugo's achievements as a romantic dramatist, —nightly fill the Theatre de la Renaissance." 5 5 The reader will have no difficulty in recognizing this as another gem from that treasure chest of hasty judgments, the Athenaeum's "Weekly Gossip on Literature and Art." It is rather surprising that the English should have totally disregarded Ruy Bias, for only a few weeks before its première they had begun to take great interest in a play similar to it in plot and characterization, Edward Bulwer's The Lady of Lyons. Professor Moraud has written some interesting pages on the subject of Bulwer's indebtedness to Hugo and Dumas,56 and there may be found in the Athenaeum's Paris correspondence and in M. Biré's biography some unjustifiable hints at Hugo's indebtedness to Bulwer. 57 The author of The Lady of Lyons, and Richelieu, one of the very few English admirers of Hugo's dramatic genius,t made use of the coups de théâtre and scenic effects of Hugo, Scribe, and Dumas in 4 Although not translated until 1 8 6 1 , Ruy Bias rose higher and higher in the esteem of English critics through the rest of the century; and in John Davidson's excellent translation, produced in 1904 by the O x f o r d University Dramatic Society, it received more justice, and a truer representation, than even Hernant in G o v e r ' s version. f i n the Monthly Chronicle ( 1 8 3 8 ) , Bulwer gave his opinion that " i n France, at this day, Victor Hugo . . . with all his faults, is immeasurably the first writer in the school he has sought to found, . . . the best novelist and the most powerf u l dramatist." 5 8

64

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

several of his plays—carefully avoiding, however, any of their violent or "immoral" scenes which might be offensive to his public. It is worth noticing, incidentally, that Bulwer, Sheridan Knowles, and other writers who borrowed dramatic effects from France found Dumas somewhat more useful, if less interesting for his theories, than Hugo; and the critics who compared the two French dramatists showed more common understanding and sympathy for Dumas.* By 1839 the storm of protest against Hugo's dramas had calmed down—not because the English changed their opinion of the dramas, but because they had become indifferent to them and because Hugo offered no further provocation after Ruy Bias. Also, there appeared from time to time indications that French literature might be judged by more advanced principles, and before a more liberal court. In the summer of 1839 George W. M. Reynolds, the translator of Hugo's Chants du crépuscule and later famous for his Chartist organ, " R e y nolds's Paper," brought out a volume on The Modern Literature of France which gave evidence of a more sympathetic attitude toward Hugo. Reynolds felt that the Quarterly had been unfair to the French Romantic drama, and he attacked its brutal moralizing methods with scarcely less vigor than Sainte-Beuve had exhibited in his reply to the Jugements sur notre littérature contemporaine à l'étranger in the Revue des Deux Mondes (June 15, 1836). Reynolds's book can hardly be called a defense of Hugo's dramas, for it repeated much of the unfavorable opinion of his time and place, but it emphasized certain features of the plays with which the English were hardly familiar. The author was attracted to such plays as Le Roi s'amuse and Marie Tudor because they seemed to * T h e Athenaeum 5 9 and the Literary Gazette both thought Dumas the greatest contemporary French dramatist, 0 0 and the Quarterly pointed out that Hugo had depended on Dumas f o r many of his dramatic effects, particularly in Marion Delorme and Marie Tudor.*''1 Henry Bulwer showed some appreciation of Hugo as a poet writing f o r the stage, but recognized that Dumas had the surer dramatic instinct. 6 2

Hugo's

Romantic

Dramas

65

champion the cause of the people against royal tyranny; and, as the Foreign Quarterly had done in 1833, he made the prohibition of Le Roi s'amuse the occasion for a strong protest for popular rights and freedom of the press.63 As we have seen, Hugo's plays can be easily made to yield up materials for democratic propaganda; hardly one of them fails to exhibit (though accidentally enough) a tyrant King, a bloodthirsty Minister, a rapacious Cardinal, or an oppressed people. Later on we shall find Hugo's works more directly influential in English agitation and propaganda. Still more revolutionary was the article, published in the Westminster in September, 1840, in which George Henry Lewes defended Marion Delorme. As a spiritual younger brother of the "philosophic radicals," Lewes might have been expected to uncover and approve the Liberalism of Hugo's plays, as had Reynolds; he defended Marion Delorme, however, as "a triumph of Dramatic Art." Though he considered this "by far the greatest of Victor Hugo's dramas," Lewes ventured the opinion that in all the plays where Hugo had successfully demonstrated his favorite thesis that the combination of deformity with nobility of soul engenders sublimity, he had "produced true dramatic art." 64 This unique English defense of Hugo's dramatic principle was not so startling, however, as Lewes's defense of Marion herself. English criticism had been especially severe with the courtesan; she had been reviled by the Foreign Quarterly, by the Quarterly, by Mr. Bulwer, and by Mrs. Trollope. Probably few readers would have been even indulgent enough to agree with the kindlier judgment of the Monthly Review: "That a woman who has been seduced from virtue, and forfeited her honour, should excite our commiseration, our sympathy, and even, under some aspects, our admiration, is not impossible. . . . " 65 Lewes, however, declared first that "with those who will persist in thinking [the play] immoral, because the heroine is a courtezan, we decline arguing"; and he then pointed out that

66

Hugo's Romantic Dramas

in the instance before us Marion is forced . . . she does not consent —no gold—no temptation could induce her to consent—but to save her lover's life she will not be so selfish as to stand upon her "chastity." . . . To suppose a woman less chaste because she has been violated, is as unreasonable as to suppose a man murdered on the highway for his gold is a particeps crhninis.™ Finally, leaving Marion, Lewes brought the argument out into the open with the accusation: "People have very confused notions about female virtue, as it is the error of all moralists to trim their boat with an eye to the rocks of convention, against which alone they dread to split." 67 O f his own freedom f r o m this error Lewes was to give ample proof twelve years later, when he and Mary A n n Evans eloped to G e r m a n y without going through the formalities of marriage. In 1 8 4 0 , however, this assertion that Marion Delorme was "chaste" seems almost anachronistic; English morality was f a r f r o m ready f o r it. Lewes, of course, was only t w e n t y - t w o years old, and his philosophical experience could not embrace the objection which his more mature countrymen felt almost instinctively. Those with whom he "declined a r g u i n g " knew, indeed, that there was some justification f o r Marion's conduct if one accepted that f a e r y web of unreal situations and intrigues which H u g o had thrown around her, but they also knew that the dramatist had no business creating such factitious and illusory circumstances, to give a semblance of justification to an evil that still menaced the civilization of his own day.

CHAPTER

FOUR

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England (1832-1840) I N S E A R C H I N G O U T the English attitude toward the poetry of Hugo, or indeed of any French writer, the student must encounter new and special difficulties. Public opinion on French poetry may hardly be said to have existed at all; and the commentaries on the subject which have come down to us must be regarded as attempts to instruct the uninitiated reader rather than as true expressions of public opinion. Hugo's poetry never reached that large, representative body of Englishmen which read and commented on Notre Dame, or even that smaller group which came in contact with his plays; it reached only the highly educated élite of England. A n d when we have found in this select company the men and women who read in the poems what was really there, and all that was there, we shall have reduced his audience to a mere handful.

We are not studying Hugo's "official" or academic reputation, but his English prestige: therefore we must attempt to estimate the universality of his genius, the extent to which his thoughts and visions were communicated to a foreign people. Hugo's prestige, in this larger sense, was increased scarcely at all by his poetry; it depended wholly upon his novels. This is to be lamented, since the poetry has long been esteemed by competent judges, even in England, the most valuable part of Hugo's work. To particularize a little further but without intending a vivisection of the concept "poetry," we may add that discriminating readers of Hugo's poetry must always appreciate his way of saying things more than the things he

68

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

found to say. In this respect Hugo met with special misfortune in England, because of the difficulties of French versification, which we have already discussed.* When English comprehension penetrated the barrier and reached Hugo's poetry at all, it struck only its less brilliant facets; the music, the magic of it remained in obscurity, and only its mediocre intellectual content came into view. The comments on Hugo's poetry offered to the English public in the 1830's will be found to have little value as indices of his prestige. The best of them were not written by Englishmen, but by Désiré Nisard and Giuseppe Mazzini: these of course tell us nothing of the English attitude. Others were echoes of French opinion and rumor, or perfunctory tributes f r o m critics who understood vaguely that their readers ought to like Hugo's verse, whether they could or not. But however worthless they may seem when regarded as criticism, these comments are interesting for the light they throw on the struggle between nationalism and cosmopolitanism. We have already noted that the idea of English superiority in poetry was firmly embedded in the English mind. The Romantic critics, and most reviewers of foreign poetry in the 1820's, had given evidence not only of pardonable pride in their national poetry, but of narrow provincialism and a complacent indifference to the cosmopolitan ideal. Jeffrey had attempted to deflate English vanity on this score, and Bowring in the Westminster and Southern in the Foreign Quarterly had made spasmodic efforts to secure a fair hearing for the French Romantic poets. They spoke reasonably, and with some authority, yet they enlisted no followers. This is hardly surprising, for f e w could read the works which they were praising, and it is not easy to sustain sympathy or esteem for an unknown quantity. In January, 1 8 3 2 , a writer in Fraser's Magazine confessed himself shocked "at the ignorance so often manifested, even * Supra, pp. 10—11.

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

69

by men of cultivated minds, of the modern poetry of France. H o w few know anything except the name of the works of Louis Lemercier, of Lamartine, or Casimir Delavigne, or even Victor H u g o ! " 1 For this ignorance—which, moreover, was hardly exaggerated in this estimate—he blamed the reviewers, because they had not given enough English versions of the poems. But the force of his protest was quite lost, since he prefaced his remarks by the statement: " W e do not hesitate to confess that we think rather lightly of French poetry generally:—the mind and the language of the people are perfectly incapable of appreciating the pure and noble epos." 2 This, I believe, indicates how paradoxical was the English attitude toward French poetry. It was held in respect: witness the acknowledgement that polite, cultured persons should not be totally ignorant of it. Y e t the average Englishman could easily excuse himself for ignoring it, because it hardly invited closer acquaintance, and was immeasurably inferior to English poetry. T o confirm the universality of this attitude, we need only consider the manner in which French Romantic poetry was circulated in England. N o publisher ventured to offer a complete volume of any poet until 1836, when Reynolds's translation of Hugo's Chants du crépuscule was brought out. Before this time, the reviewers offered occasional excerpts, usually in translation. But the main storehouse of original French poetry was the annual, or "Keepsake." Le Keepsake français (published by Whittaker in 1 8 3 1 ) and Fleurs de Poésie Moderne (published in 1833 by Chapman and Hall) were the most widely-sold annuals in which poems of Lamartine, Béranger, Delavigne, Vigny, and Hugo appeared. These volumes were published at Christmas time, and were designed as correct gifts, suitable ornaments for the drawing-room table. The Keepsakes held an honorable place among the Victorian objets d'art, and it is said that they furnished steady reading for many solid, middle-class people. But probably the most cultivated English minds—the minds which might con-

jo

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in

England

ceivably be susceptible to French poetry—never came in contact with the Keepsakes. The Athenaeum in 1830 quoted this from the Globe: M. de Lamartine is, next to M. de Chateaubriand, both as to fame and age, at the head of that revolution in the art of poetry which commenced with the present century. M. Victor Hugo follows close on them; but, with regard to him, the struggle is not yet over, and the smoke of battle still obscures the view of victory. 3

This nice evaluation of the French poets of revolt may have interested the literary historians, but it probably meant little to the majority of Athenaeum readers, who had never had the opportunity of examining the works of these poets. And, as we know, the "revolution" itself did not impress many readers. Lady Morgan, an influential English spectator, had looked upon it with indifference and come away unmoved.4 Her book trance in 1829—1830 contained some amusing anecdotes of the conflict, but nothing in the nature of a recommendation of the new poetry.* The Foreign Quarterly had, indeed, given much encouragement to the poetic rebels in 1829, and had tried to describe for the public the exciting literary turmoil across the Channel. After 1830, however, its attitude changed; the later stages of the combat inspired displeasure rather than enthusiasm: The literature of the day [ 1 8 3 2 ] bears traces sufficiently evident of the chaos of opinion which prevails. . . . No commanding tone is heard above the rest, but only a babylonish gibbering. . . . In poetry, generally, what monstrous exaggeration of colouring! what diseased pictures of feeling! what audacity of speculation! what extravagance of diction! 5

The first useful and instructive commentary on Hugo's poetry appeared, not in any of the learned or specialized re* Henry Pelham sent a letter, expressing the same views, to the New Magazine in October, 1 8 ) 2 .

Monthly

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

71

views, but in The Printing Machine, a Review for the Many, in June and July, 1834. This bimonthly fourpenny periodical had been founded in February of that year by James Knight, for the avowed purpose of combating the " p u f f s " of the Athenaeum and the Literary Gazette with the weapon of honest criticism.* The two articles which it devoted to SainteBeuve and Hugo gave evidence not only of intellectual honesty, but of considerable courage, for they treated of subjects hardly germane to English popular interests. Hugo was called, "in justice to his merits, the poet of the nineteenth century," while Sainte-Beuve was accurately described as "the critic of the school of which the other was the head." 6 Many features of the French aesthetic reform were described for the first time in this commentary: the critic discussed Hugo's mutations of the vocabulary of poetry, and his defiance of the prohibitions against misplaced caesuras and enjambements. He also quoted Hugo's axiom, "le néologisme n'est qu'une triste ressource pour l'impuissance," and explained that the fundamental characteristics of French poetry—rhyme, measure, elision, use of masculine and feminine rhymes—were to be respected.7 This sort of instructive reviewing was greatly needed in England; and if it had been kept up, French poetry might have been brought within reach of readers who knew the language well. The Printing Machine was enthusiastic about the technical reform of French versification, but could not admire the matière, the source of inspiration of the new school. Like George Moir, this critic insisted that the French Romanticists were still imitating; only their models had changed. He would allow the modern poets to awaken interest in the Middle Ages, but when they lost themselves in admiration of those times he would demand: "Give us back our antique and innocent mythology; . . . if to be poets it be absolutely necessary to * T h e Athenaeum

was itself

a crusader f o r honest c r i t i c i s m , and it bore

b r u n t of this attack w i t h great composure.

the

72

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

imbibe the spirit of an age which is not our age, let us rather be citizens of Athens or of Rome than serfs of the n t h cent u r y . " On examining Hugo's poetry, the critic found that the return to the Middle Ages had been accomplished at the expense of modern ideals and interests, and had offended the nineteenth century sense of human progress. T h e poetry of our century, . . . fostered by a social community rich in ideas and moral feelings, cannot wear the same form as that of the primitive ages when the entire vocabulary of man was borrowed f r o m the spectacle of the external world. Proportionably to its development, the moral nature of man has created a sphere of language, in which the poet ought to move; and i f , by some strange pretension to superiority, he employ all his art to avoid it, he will f a l l into the most disgusting of affectations.

Hugo's particular form of pseudo-primitivism was discovered in the Orientales, where "not a trace is to be found of the moral world—not a vestige of anything beyond the physical appearances of n a t u r e . " 8 This fault—the critic called it "poetical materialisme"—was the very one against which later English critics brought their most serious objections: it caused only mild dissatisfaction with Les Orientales, but in the more ambitious Légende des siècles it came to be regarded as dangerous, and offensive to English morals. The progress and development of Hugo's poetic talent was reflected scarcely at all by the increase of his English prestige. During the early 1830's he became somewhat better known as a poet, not because Les Feuilles d'automne were superior to his first efforts, but because the English became better acquainted with the Odes, Ballades, and Orientales. This is to be explained partially by the fact that certain eminent critics became enamored of the royalist Odes, and found it useful to consider Hugo's earliest works his best. But the chief reason for this misconception may be found in the slowness with which French poetry penetrated into England: when the Parisians

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

73

were reading Les Chants du crépuscule ( 1 8 3 5 ) , the English were just getting acquainted with the Ballades and Orientales. Les Chants du crépuscule were translated, and appeared in an English edition: hence the public proceeded directly from the three first collections to the new work in 1836, allowing the intervening collection Les Feuilles d'automne to pass almost unnoticed. Les Chants du crépuscule of course circulated far more widely in their English translation than any of Hugo's other lyrics; yet one is tempted to leave them out of the account, for Reynolds's Songs of Twilight were not, after all, Hugo's poems. The translating of poetry seems to have been favorably regarded in England during the nineteenth century. The practice had behind it a long tradition, enlivened by the success of Chapman, Pope, and other poets, even though its intrinsic value remained a controversial subject. It was not—perhaps it has never been—clearly understood that these men were successful, not because they translated faithfully, but because their translations could stand upon their merits as English poetry. And their success gave rise to a lamentable misunderstanding: for many versifiers were tempted to emulate them, thinking that it was only a problem of translation, after all. The men who have Englished Hugo's poetry, from Lord Gower to John Davidson, have left us perhaps as useless a collection of published matter as it would be possible to find. Among their number were such notable poets as Swinburne, Edwin Arnold, Dowden, Andrew Lang, and Francis Thompson: it is somewhat curious that these men should have failed whereas Chapman and Pope succeeded. The answer may be that Hugo's poetry depends so much on form and so little on meaning that its charm can never be caught except in French. From 1827 on, the literary reviews offered—usually with apologies—feeble and halting English verses wrenched from Hugo's originals, and conveying none of his magic. The reviewers felt justified in grinding out these versions, for they

74

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

were answering a public demand: many readers could make nothing of Hugo in French, but could at least think they were reading him in translation. A writer in Fraser's may have expressed the general attitude on this point when he protested, "Notices, indeed, we have read both of Lamartine and Delavigne, accompanied by extracts, but without any English version—a praiseworthy mode, certainly, of making a reader ignorant of any language save his own, acquainted with an author!" 9 The public demand for Reynolds's Sowgs of Twilight gives some evidence of the English confidence in translations. This demand, if not immediately great, was at least permanent: another edition of the work was called for in 1862. For some f i f t y years this was the only complete volume of Hugo's lyrics in English print, but it can hardly be called the best example of English translation of Hugo. Scattered through the files of the Dublin University Magazine, Fraser's, the Foreign Quarterly, Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, Bentley's Miscellany, and the Eton Observer ( 1 8 3 0 - 1 8 4 0 ) may be found about thirty versions of the lyrics, many of which surpassed Reynolds's for general excellence. Father Prout's versions in Fraser's were decidedly better, and those in the Dublin University Magazine were the best of all. However, none of these rose to the level of genuine poetry. Of Hugo's early poems, the ones most often translated, quoted and discussed in England were: From the Odes et Ballades—"La Mort du Duc de Berri," "La Naissance du Duc de Bordeaux," " L a Fiancée du Timbalier," "La Grand-mère." From Les Orientales—"Le Feu du ciel," "Les Djinns." From Les Feuilles d'automne—"Dans l'alcove sombre," "Lorsque l'enfant parait," "La Prière pour tous." From Les Chants du crépuscule—"Ode à la colonne," "Dicté après juillet 1830." From Les Voix intérieures—"A des oiseaux envolés," "Puisqu'icibàs tout âme," "Le Tombe dit à la rose."

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in England

From Les Rayons et les ombres—"Guitare," "Regard jeté dans une mansarde."

75

"Autre Guitare,"

Reviewing this list, we see at once that the poems most admired in England were not Hugo's "career pieces" or political milestones, but the light, tender fancies having to do with children and domestic bliss, the appeals to sympathy, and the striking, gay or exotic ballads and songs. The royalist Odes, and the poems from Les Chants du crépuscule were brought forward by literary historians and critics to illustrate phases of Hugo's career, but the others were chosen for their popular appeal. English readers did not appreciate Hugo's preoccupation with "the poet's duty," or his views on contemporary political affairs; they preferred his less portentous songs, and his tender or pathetic pieces. Later opinion was to confirm this choice: when Hugo entered the second stage of his poetical career, in the 1850's, the English indicated clearly that their sympathy lay with the poet's Contemplations of domestic sorrow, rather than with his infliction of direful Châtiments. After 1834 the work of instructing the public in Hugo's poetry went forward with more dispatch. A series of articles on "The Songs of France," which contained four of Hugo's lyrics, * soon began to appear in Fraser's, inaugurating the long Francophil campaign which was to enliven the pages of that magazine during the ensuing decade. They were written by "Father Prout" (F. S. Mahoney), a cultivated Irishman and one of Maginn's chief collaborators. Mahoney's main preoccupation in French literature was with Béranger, whose songs he never tired of praising and translating—attracted by their liberal ideas and courageous address. Hugo ranked a close second in his estimation, and he gave the younger poet considerable encouragement: 4

"La

Fiancee du T i m b a l i e r , "

l i b r e . " Fraser's

"La

Grand-mère,"

" L e Voile,"

and " L e

Repas

published t w e l v e more of H u g o ' s lyrics b e f o r e 1 8 4 0 , and showed

more enthusiasm f o r his poetic abilities than a n y other E n g l i s h periodical.

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England His versification is vigorous; and great originality is displayed in the selection of his topics, . . . but he has neither the finished grace nor the forcible simplicity of the inimitable Béranger. . . . [However], before these two lofty minds the minor poets, Lamartine and Chateaubriand, will sink into comparative insignificance. 10

This evaluation, reversing the judgment of the Globe in 1830, indicates that French critical authority no longer held absolute sway, but it cannot be considered a majority opinion in England. In Mrs. Trollope's esteem, Lamartine and Chateaubriand stood "higher, beyond all comparison" than Hugo, 1 1 while the influential Edinburgh Review and even G. W. M. Reynolds expressed the same preference. 12 Les Chants du crépuscule were published in 1835 and translated in 1836—years which marked the low ebb of Hugo's general reputation in England. More widely circulated in translation than any previously published, these lyrics naturally gave a considerable impetus to further discussion of Hugo's poetry, but they were hardly given a fair hearing. We have already seen how the ill fame of Hugo's dramas reacted against even his best-liked novels and how Lucrèce Borgia and Marie Tudor engendered a sort of nostalgia for the productions of Hugo's youth and innocence. A similar reaction to the later poems took place, and several writers undertook to praise Odes et Ballades at the expense of Les Chants du crépuscule. The idea was not new. In 1832 the Foreign Quarterly had praised Les Feuilles d'automne at the expense of the "depraved" literature of the time, as "a volume worthy of the better days of poetry: tender, domestic, chastened both in its mournfulness and its mirth; filled with the unstudied expression of youthful hopes, recollections, sorrows, friendships and loves." Hugo and Lamartine held themselves aloof from the mire then; they "poured forth their inspirations from a loftier and more sequestered seat." 1 3 By 1835, however, Hugo had become one of the chief exponents of the "depraved" drama,

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in England

77

and the critics were quite expecting him to fall from his poetic perch. Evidence of the fall was immediately found in Les Chants du crépuscule, for which the poet, by his own avowal, "added a brazen string to his lyre." Here, they concluded, Hugo had plainly forsaken the poet's true sphere, and shown a deplorable tendency to meddle in contemporary politics. In 1836, Mrs. Trollope could find nothing to recommend in Hugo's latest compositions, but she dimly recalled that in the early 1820's "he produced some light pieces in verse, which are said to be written with good moral feeling, and in a perfectly pure and correct literary taste." This rather trifling compliment only helped her to demonstrate more clearly that "M. Hugo turned his talents against his fellow-creatures, not from ignorance . . . but upon calculation." 14 The early poems received a higher recommendation from Jules Janin, the critic of the Journal des Débats. Janin was at this time bending every effort to ingratiate himself with the royal family ; wherefore it is not surprising to find that in his analysis of Hugo's poetry, which occupied almost eight columns of the Athenaeum in 1837, the royalist Odes loomed very large, indeed, and the later poems were passed by as unworthy of the author's early promise. "Never did M. Victor Hugo show himself more royalist and more Christian—that is to say never has he shown himself a greater poet—than in . . . his two earliest volumes," declared Janin. With the Chants du crépuscule, poems inspired by more vulgar enthusiasms, he had no sympathy: it was to be regretted that the poet had "busied himself . . . about contemporary politics." Hugo, alas! had "lost the star of Saint Louis, which guided him, of old, to heaven"; no wonder, then, that his vision was growing dimmer. "Twilight" was, indeed, closing in upon him. 15 Another eminent Frenchman who saw in Les Chants du crépuscule the twilight of Hugo's poetical career was Désiré Nisard, that stern critic of Romanticism. In his brilliant com-

78

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in

England

mentary on Hugo, contributed to the Westminster in 1836, Nisard charged the poet with "repeating himself," and asserted that his political views did him little credit. With regard to this last judgment, however, the two Frenchmen differed widely: Janin had only regretted Hugo's loss of Royalist faith, but Nisard gave a detailed account of the poet's political waverings from 1820 to 1835. Hugo, he declared, "took his cue from all opinions in succession," and "used them . . . to make the temporary fortune of a volume." He had begun with "the worst of all apprenticeships—that of academic prizes"; then following the lead of Chateaubriand and Sir Walter Scott, he had become an ardent Royalist and Catholic; finally, when the Bourbons had to flee the country, he "veered round his royalist vessel with dexterity . . . and adjusted it to the gale of liberalism." 16 Since he had no ideas of his own, Hugo had to take those that were momentarily on the surface of public opinion, and use them as "a ground to embroider verse . . . upon." Hence, in Nisard's estimation, his poetic talent consisted only of "a facility in dressing up commonplaces, and a rich, fervid, luxuriant Fancy." Like the Printing Machine reviewer, he objected that Hugo's poems contained "no thoughts susceptible of being applied to conduct, . . . no philosophy—no ethics, . . . no purpose." Nisard concurred with the other critics in giving decided preference to Hugo's odes over his later poems—he admitted, in fact, that "there are no more beautiful odes in the French language than the two or three finest of M. Victor Hugo." It was not for their Royalist enthusiasm that he liked them, however, for Nisard displayed his utter indifference to Royalism by praising Beranger far above either Hugo or Chateaubriand. In his estimation, Beranger and Byron were poets "in advance of their age, . . . who cultivated the whole, and not a part only of their minds." Hugo, on the other hand, was numbered among the "writers who have cultivated but half their mind, and who, when there is an excellence which they

Hugo's Lyric Poetry in England

79

cannot reach, invent a theory . . . that they are to be most especially admired for not having it." 1 7 These expressions of dissatisfaction with Les Chants du crépuscule had come from Frenchmen who had long been hostile to Hugo on principle. They announced the end, or "twilight" of his poetical career too joyfully, and with undue alacrity. The poems did, however, leave a real sense of disappointment in the minds of some readers, and another contemporary writer, Giuseppe Mazzini, gave a more accurate and sincere explanation of it in an article published in the British and Foreign Review in 1838. Mazzini, one of the boldest spokesmen of democracy in Europe, and an admirer of the Romantic revolt, had found inspiration in Les Feuilles d'automne; he saw in Hugo a leader who would "spiritualise" literature, re-knit "the alliance between poesy and faith," and realize the humanitarian ideal. The liberal versifier G. W. M. Reynolds had gone to Hugo's poetry for the same inspiration, and it was this enthusiasm which led him to translate Les Chants du crépuscule. In Les Feuilles d'automne, Mazzini had found melancholy, graceful ease, spontaneity, sweet and heart-felt thoughts; inspirations sublime in their simplicity and genuinely Christian, of sympathy with childhood, of charity towards the poor; there were likewise . . . glimpses, however feeble, of that wondrous unity which reveals God through creation. . . .

But "ever since," he concluded, "the poet has regularly declined." In Les Chants du crépuscule, and Les Voix intérieures Hugo failed to spiritualize the material world for his readers, because he remained the poet of individuality—a poet of fractions, of analysis, who individualises and isolates whatever he touches. . . . He selects a general idea, to express. For this purpose he seeks a symbol, a visible image; so f a r the process is natural. But this image once found, he forgets the idea: He falls at the feet of the image; he studies it,

8o

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in

England

he minutely analyses all its beauties. . . . Gradually he becomes enamoured of it; then, as if influenced by the jealous feeling of exclusive possession, he isolates it. A n d now he entirely forgets how he came by this image, he forgets what it was designed to represent. . . . He has robbed his idea of one world, the world of mind; he offers in lieu thereof another, that of matter.

To illustrate this "poetical matérialisme," Mazzini used the very poem referred to in the Printing Machine—"Le Feu du ciel"; he also discussed in the same connection the poem " N a varrino," and the play Angelo, where Tisbe, who was supposed to represent "the actress" in her relations with society, became wholly unrepresentative because Hugo, so to speak, fell in love with her and emphasized her individuality until she was "completely severed from her class." 18 This survey has made it plain to us that Hugo's poetry evoked better, more penetrating criticism in the English press than either his plays or his novels had done. True, the best commentaries had come from non-English critics. Hugo's poetry remained the property of the select few, and only experts could make even a pretense of judging it. Mazzini's article, for instance, is significant not only for its critical acumen, but for its enormous superiority to the English commentaries. The Italian exile, coming to England from Switzerland and France, took for granted that his new audience would know Hugo as well as readers on the Continent knew him; he started off his discussion from a point which very few Englishmen had reached, or indeed ever would reach. Looking into the authentic English criticism of Hugo's poetry during the 1830's, we enter another world. Few authorities even ventured an opinion on the poems: the Foreign Quarterly, for instance, offered no comments on Les Chants du crépuscule, Les Voix intérieures, or Les Rayons et les ombres, and the last two collections received no notice from the learned Athenaeum. Incredible as it may seem, the Spec-

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in England

81

tator—a journal not strikingly behind the rest in knowledge of contemporary literature—confidently asserted late in 1839 that "in regard to poets, France at the present has but two— De Lamartine and De Bérattger." 1 9 Of Hugo, not a word; the Spectator knew his novels, and knew enough to avoid his dramas, but did not realize that he had written poetry. Among those who did know and comment on Hugo's poetry, the old prejudices of the Romantic critics survived to a great extent. They were brought out and re-enforced in a long Edinburgh article in 1839. A Monthly reviewer remarked in the same year, after reading Lord Gower's translation, that "some of the writing in 'Hernani' would possibly be poetry, if it were not French." 20 The most enlightened of the English periodicals in its attitude toward French poetry was the Westminster Review. Fraser's Magazine and the Dublin University Magazine rendered the new poets some service by publishing their works in translation, but they had no weapon to combat English indifference. The Westminster, however, had a way of pricking the self-esteem of the Tories, and it provided the public with frequent reminders of English provincialism. Undoubtedly its interest in French poetry was heightened by the persistent indifference shown by the Tory organs,* but whatever its motive may have been, the public was benefited by this more liberal attitude. Mill himself wrote a sympathetic article on Vigny and encouraged Lewes to pay some attention to the French Romantics. For an authoritative critique of Hugo's poems, Mill and Molesworth turned to the brilliant French writer Désiré Nisard—showing more perspicacity than the Athenaeum, which chose the servile and unimaginative Janin. Nisard's article had of course benefited Hugo's prestige not at all, but other writers in the liberal review showed a real liking for the poet. One, who signed himself "F. B.," paid tribute in * The Quarterly Review and Blackwood'i Magazine on the subject of Hugo's poetry through the I 8 J O ' S .

maintained a stony silence

82

Hugo's Lyric

Poetry in England

1 8 3 8 to "the rich, abundant, glowing harmonies of Victor H u g o , whose lyrics one listens to as if they were music f o r the lone." 2 1 But among the Westminster contributors his chief admirer as we have seen,* was George Henry Lewes. Goethe had written, " I foresee the dawn of a European literature which no single people may claim for their own, f o r all of them will have contributed to its foundation." H o w f a r the English had come f r o m realizing, or even respecting this cosmopolitan ideal, the reader may judge by considering the foregoing account. But no matter how thoroughly it was disregarded by the majority, the ideal never fell completely out of sight: for at least once a decade some courageous spirit rose up to reaffirm it. J e f f r e y had striven valiantly to break down the international barrier in the early i82o's; and in 1829 the spirit of cosmopolitanism spoke again f o r a brief moment in the pages of the Foreign Quarterly. N o w in 1840 Lewes, the disciple of Goethe, came forward with another eloquent plea: Let us [he said] admit that French Romanticism is a vigorous school, and f a r from deserving the contempt usually cast on it in England. . . . [Let us, first] make ourselves masters of the spirit, . . . imaginatively identify ourselves with the people of that nation or period, . . . overleap the characteristic and distinctive differences between the nations. . . . We must not seize upon a difference, and with a loud voice and complacent mien declare it to be false, because it is a difference." 2

Lewes then proceeded to name the "causes of an Englishman's dislike to French poetry." Some of these have to do with the French language as " a wretched medium for poetry." T h e French have not a poetical language, as distinct f r o m that of everyday, and thus the same words which have convulsed us today in some exquisite witticism, we shall read tomorrow in the stately lines of Racine—how can a smile be avoided? * C f . supra,

p. 6 5 .

Hugo's

Lyric

Poetry in England

83

Other objections have to do with "the Rhyme, the use of which gives their tragedies that cold, artificial appearance." Lewes perfectly appreciated these causes of dislike, but he pointed out, "not one of [them] . . . affects a Frenchman, and it was for Frenchmen this poetry was written; it is better therefore that we should learn to look with a Frenchman's eyes." 23 He completely lost patience, however, with those Englishmen—with an Edinburgh critic, in particular—who were fond of making a distinction between "English Nature" and "French Art," and of dwelling with great satisfaction on the cleanliness and health of English poetry. By "English Nature," said Lewes, he meant a sort of Wordsworth world, very pleasant scenery, with very clean, very simple, very honest non-sensual peasants, who knew no vice, spoke remarkably pure English, and had great coxcombry in clean linen; and by A r t he meant a very crowded saloon, with ormolu, china, knickknacks, rococo, etc., filled with very insipid, heartless people, who won each other's money, seduced each other's wives, or mothers, and cut each other's throats with perfect grace and nonchalance. 24

Allowing for a certain exaggeration, Lewes's comments tell us with some accuracy what this distinction really did mean to a great many Englishmen. The same contrast between "English Nature" and "French A r t " was used, for instance, to prove Scott superior to Hugo."' * A writer in this same review f o u n d the " h e a l t h y , whole, and s o u n d " novels of Scott more to his taste than Notre atmosphere."

25

Dame,

w i t h its " s i c k l y glare and oppressive

CHAPTER

FIVE

Intermission (1840-1852) T H E TWO preceding chapters, which measured the receptivity of the English to Hugo's dramas and lyric poems, have each ended with an account of G . H . Lewes's article, " T h e French Drama: Racine and Victor H u g o , " in the Westminster Review, September, 1840. This article may be regarded, in a sense, as a milestone indicating the progress of French Romanticism in England: it marked the end of a long campaign of narrow, bigoted criticism, and the awakening of a new spirit of sympathy and understanding. Lewes, moreover, did not stand alone and unsupported in this reform. H e happened to be the representative of the new spirit who turned his attention to H u g o and French poetry, but his cosmopolitan enthusiasm was shared b y many Englishmen, who expressed their feelings of good will toward France in other ways and f o r other reasons. The cosmopolitan spirit so evident in all the European revolutions of 1848 did not come into being suddenly and miraculously; it had been growing since 1830. In England the spirit had been nourished by the "philosophic radicals," it lived among the Cambridge "Apostles," it spurred the Westminster to pour forth diatribes against "English insularity," and it made possible such enterprises as the Foreign Quarterly Review. English humanitarians and reformers, fretting under the yoke of T o r y domination, had been looking abroad for moral and intellectual support, and they had found support and inspiration. It was b y no means a coincidence that the hagiarchy of the English Chartists came to consist largely of "distinguished

1840-1852 foreigners" or "illustrious exiles"—such men as Mazzini, Kossuth, and Louis Blanc. The intellectual and political radicals of England took a particularly keen interest in France because new humanitarian and socialistic philosophies were being developed there. Carlyle had entered into correspondence with a group of Parisian SaintSimonians in 1830 and had been friendly with the young enthusiast Gustave d'Eichthal when he came to England to "spread the gospel" of the French prophet. 1 Also through the influence of d'Eichthal, J . S. Mill came in contact with an early work of Auguste Comte, which he read in 1829 and which divorced him from his Benthamite faith. 2 The ideas of Saint-Simon and Comte gained currency among Mill's friends and political allies, and were passed on to the public by such men as Roebuck, John Sterling, and J . C. Hobhouse. While in Paris in 1 8 3 1 , Mill had met Bazard, Enfantin, and other men influential in bringing about the July Revolution; and their ideas helped him to formulate the doctrines which he expounded in the Examiner.3 The July Revolution, indeed, had been a direct source of inspiration to the English radicals who made the great Reform of 1832; and their interest in French ideas endured after the Bill had been passed. The moralistic views of French literature expressed in the Quarterly and other influential periodicals had never been accepted by the Liberals or Radicals. Toward 1840, moreover, these opinions began to lose their absolute power over many of the reviewers—perhaps because they conflicted with the ancient English ideal of "fair play." Readers and critics, recognizing that French Romanticism had been condemned without due consideration and in some cases unjustly, began to demand a re-evaluation. English disapproval had never been wholly undiscriminating. The préromantiques had escaped the stigma of "immorality," and their prestige increased steadily through the 1830'$ and 1840's. Béranger found a place in England—a place, let us say,

86 somewhere between Byron and Ebenezer Elliot ; his songs were so frequently translated and acclaimed that they became almost familiar to English ears. Mme. de Staël and Chateaubriand gained more and more readers as time went on ; it is worth noticing that the severest critics of Hugo and his school treated them with a certain deference. We are told by Espinasse that Carlyle, perhaps the sternest Englishman of them all, "spoke contemptuously of modern French literature, but recognised in Chateaubriand 'a man of real sensibility.' " * 4 The French Romantic writers did not cross the Channel en masse and find a ready welcome; they gained admittance slowly, in single file. The first to enter were the men of small intellectual stature, Paul de Kock and Charles de Bernard, whose works might circulate easily among semi-educated readers. The more serious writers had to wait for intelligent introduction and support. George Sand, for instance, was admitted only after a struggle, for her works had been censured by the moralist critics. However, the feminists began to be heard in the land soon after 1830, and to them George Sand was not an indecent female novelist but a guiding star, a great Captain in the crusade. Her humanitarian philosophy gained for her the friendship and esteem of Elizabeth Barrett, Mrs. Jameson, Harriet Martineau, and George Eliot; and through these newly liberated minds she eventually gained access to a large English public (though never to the intimate joys of "family reading"). If George Sand startled the English with her cigar, and shocked * The préromantiques suffered very little at the hands of the English moralists. Their most unfortunate victims, it seems to me, were the quieter French writers of the time, Vigny, Mérimée, and A l f r e d de Musset, who, though less prominent than the "leaders," deserved individual attention. It is discouraging to realize that many of the critics who tried to shout down Hugo's "magnificent scream," or railed against the vices of Dumas and le bibliophile Jacob, or flirted with the milder indecencies of Paul de Rock, knew nothing of Vigny and Mérimée. Cinq Mars and Clara Gozul had commanded English respect and admiration when they first appeared, but as the storm of protest gathered force during the early thirties they were almost forgotten. Musset, still a very young man, had written Les Caprices de Marianne and La Confession d'un enfant du siècle, yet he "passed unnoticed," as M. Moraud tells us, "between George Sand, Balzac, Victor Hugo and Jules Janin." 5

1840-1852

87

them with her novels, she nevertheless offered an intellectual challenge not easy to disregard. Another passage from the Literary Recollections of Espinasse, on the subject of Carlyle's tastes, illustrates this: George Sand, . . . it is well known to all readers of Carlyle, he could not away with, . . . generally speaking of her books as distinguished by nothing better than a lax treatment of the sexual relation. Y e t , when . . . placing himself on the judgment-seat to deliver a deliberate verdict on her, . . . "There is something Goethian about the w o m a n , " he said to Lewes. 6

Balzac also had difficulty making himself understood, or even heard, in England; and his works were placed under the ban in the 1830's. But his particular form of realism and his narrative methods were admired by certain writers—among them Thackeray, Trollope, Charlotte Bronte, and the Brownings—and after 1840 the more intelligent critics and readers began to appreciate the scope of his achievement. Victor Hugo, however, had to wait some twenty years before he received any considerable intellectual support in England; and during the 1840'$, while Balzac and George Sand made progress, he stood still. Mazzini had said that he was disappointed in Hugo because, after promising to lead the new generation and make himself the spokesman of its humanitarian aspirations, the poet had "failed to rise above the material world," he had given himself up to art for art's sake, and lost himself in beautiful details. The new generation of English readers could not feel the same disappointment, for it had never clearly understood Hugo's promise. Yet in a sense Mazzini's verdict was corroborated by English readers during the 1840's, for they seem to have agreed that Hugo had nothing new to say to them. Had Les Miserables appeared at this time, or even in 1848 (when most of it was written), the gigantic novel would have caused a far greater sensation in England than it made in 1862.

88

1840-1852

For the English humanitarians were by no means satisfied with their own writers. And on the other hand they could not draw much inspiration from the humanitarian novelists of France: Eugène Sue and Frédéric Soulié dwelt too much on the odious details of the social evils which they exposed—they manifested, in fact, a relish for vice and depravity; while George Sand sinned in the other direction—her exposures were not horrible enough, and her characters were over-idealized. In 1848 Les Misérables would have filled a great gap, and made its author the hero of an important intellectual movement. But actually, all that the English heard of Hugo's humanitarianism during the forties was the translation of Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné, a feeble, almost trifling performance, which not only failed to inspire, but even failed to hold the attention of English readers. Of Hugo's cosmopolitanism the English thought even less: the spirit of his dissertation on Franco-German "unity" in Le Khin was branded false cosmopolitanism, dictated by nationalistic feeling. And these two works comprise Hugo's entire contribution to the intellectual life of the 1840's (exclusive of his direct influence in French politics and his activities at the "Peace Congress" of 1849). Most of the English criticism of Hugo during the 1840's, therefore, was retrospective. Since he gave them no new problems to consider, his critics devoted their attention to topics of academic or historical interest: they reviewed his early career, gathered anecdotes, or tried to decide which branch of literature should be his real métier. By 1840 Hugo had made himself known in almost every literary field: he had written four novels, eight plays, and seven volumes of poetry. All of his novels had been translated into English, five of the plays had appeared in some sort of adaptation, and of his poetry one whole collection and several fragments had been translated. Of his essays {Littérature et philosophie mêlées, 1834) the English had heard almost nothing, and

1840-1852

89

his latest poems (Les Rayons et les ombres, 1839) were equally unknown to them, but the other works afforded plenty of material upon which to found a reputation. In fact, the English writers who attempted to summarize and estimate Hugo's permanent achievement, found themselves somewhat confused by the diversity of his writings. Almost all agreed that the drama should not be Hugo's métier. Lewes had defended Marion Delortne, and a few critics had praised Hernani, but after Angelo the English were quite willing to see the end of Hugo's career as a playwright. A Foreign Quarterly reviewer stated the English opinion on this point accurately enough: What comparison will the noisy melodrames of Victor H u g o bear With the success of his " N o t r e D a m e , " or "Odes et Ballades"? By his plays he managed to create a "sensation"; this was owing to his audacity. By his novels and poems he created a reputation. 7

Hugo's reputation as a poet did not decrease during the 1840's, but it is necessary to bear in mind that it had always been, so to speak, a hothouse flower; it had been kept alive by some of the critics and nourished upon feeble English translations. The enthusiastic comments of English writers on Hugo's lyrics should not tempt us to believe that the public was really coming closer to the secret of his poetic abilities. Fraser's Magazine continued to praise Hugo and publish translations of his verse: two articles appeared during the forties carrying on the work of Father Prout, but the quality of the translation did not improve. 8 Another friendly but awkward supporter of Hugo's poetry was Mary Russell Mitford, who never tired of telling her friends the latest news of French literature, and directing their reading. Miss Mitford was considered an authority on the subject, and in truth she gave valuable aid to the French writers, for her judgments were by no means so narrow as those of her contemporaries: she could recommend Fanchette as "one of George Sand's proper books," and admire Dumas because he

90

1840-1852

was "so good-humored." Yet her pronouncements often betray misunderstanding or ignorance; in one of her letters, the novel Gerfaut, by Thackeray's favorite Charles de Bernard, was proclaimed "the very finest work of fiction in the French language," and it is difficult to reconcile her excessive praise of Eugène Sue's Mystères de Paris with her disapproval of the "coarseness" of Jane Eyre. Miss Mitford liked Victor Hugo, but paid him a rather dubious compliment by linking him with that Victorian darling, Felicia Hemans: writing to Mrs. Partridge in 1846 she expressed approval of lyrical pieces on such subjects as suggest themselves n a t u r a l l y ; — such poems as made the reputation of Mrs. Hemans, and as will be the real claim on posterity of Victor H u g o — " L e s Chants du Crépuscule," "Les Orientales," and those other most cheering volumes will long be remembered, after the plays and the " N o t r e D a m e " shall be forgotten. 9

M. Moraud states the opinion that, "à partir de 1844 . . . Victor Hugo, pour le moment, est surtout connu comme poète, en attendant que ses Misérables viennent le remettre au rang des grands romanciers du X I X e siècle." 1 0 It is my opinion that at this time, as at all other times, Hugo was best known as a novelist: despite the efforts of reviewers and translators to gain currency for his verse, it was Notre Dame that the English readers remembered. New editions of the great novel appeared in 1839 and 1844 (the first, under the title La Esmeralda, forming volume one of "the Novelist"), and Bentley's cheap editions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame had a wide circulation. Even the minor novels continued to be in demand: in 1841 Hans of Iceland reappeared in England as a "ballet of action," and this was followed by another version with the subtitle "The Demon D w a r f " in 1845, while Bug-Jar gal was once more translated as The Noble Rival, or the Prince of Congo in 184$, and another edition was offered by Smith & Elder in 1846 and given a place in Hodgson's "Parlour Library" in 1852. It is worth noting that

1840-1852

91

the fiction was the only part of Hugo's work which the English publishers found it profitable to reprint during these years. More widely read in England than his plays and poems, the novels were also more highly esteemed—even by high critical authority. Fraser's Magazine did not hesitate to proclaim in 1842 that Hugo was "unrivalled as a writer of fiction, . . . now Sir Walter Scott is dead." 1 1 Elizabeth Barrett, who later became a warm admirer of Hugo's poetry, nevertheless wrote to Miss Mitford in 1837, "His poems seem to me not very striking, more bare of genius than such of his prose writings, as I have happened to see." 1 2 In the first English textbook on contemporary French literature, prepared by a teacher named Raymond de Vericour for W. & R. Chambers, a similar opinion was given; the plays were blamed for "immorality and fatuity," the poems were said to contain "very few bright and lustrous gems," but Notre Dame was warmly appreciated and praised. 13 The feeling of disappointment with Hugo during the 1840's was enhanced by the fact that he produced no more novels: nothing came forth to carry on the success of Notre Dame. As early as 1833 he had promised the French publishers two new romances, La Quinquengrogne and Le Fils de la bossue, which were promptly announced in the reviews. 14 But they were never written, and almost ten years later we find the Athenaeum asking, at the end of an unfavorable notice of Le Rhin, "Hugo has been nodding. Where is his 'Quinquengrogne'?" 1 5 None of his new productions measured up to the standard set by Notre Dame, and consequently by 1852 a great part of the English reading public lost interest in Hugo. Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné had provoked a good deal of discussion in England in 1829; and in the years immediately following some critics even gave it preference over Notre Dame. But no translation appeared during the thirties, so the work had really very little circulation. Early in 1840 Sir P. Hesketh Fleetwood, an ardent English crusader against the

9*

1840-1852

death penalty, translated the story and added to it a long introduction containing his own arguments against capital punishment; the work was published by Smith & Elder, with a dedication to Queen Victoria. Victor Hugo's tale appealed to the reader's sympathy, while Fleetwood addressed himself to the reasoning mind; and curiously enough the blending of these two approaches was appropriate, for Hugo's pseudo-realistic sentimentalism accorded well with Fleetwood's pseudointellectual sophistry. To those of us who remember the BryanDarrow controversy on evolution it will not seem utterly incredible that Fleetwood used the Bible as his chief support in discussion, and thought that the withdrawal of Biblical sanction from capital punishment would effectively silence further argument on the subject. G. W. M. Reynolds, the translator of Les Chants du crépuscule, prepared another version of Le Dernier Jour, which was offered to the public in the same year— an indication that many readers must have been interested. English reviewers gave the work very little encouragement, however. Both Fleetwood and Hugo were discomfited by a Foreign Quarterly reviewer who uncovered several Biblical quotations contradicting Fleetwood's, and accused Hugo of "false reasoning." 1 6 The Spectator predicted that "the romance . . . will have less effect upon the conviction of the reader than the disquisition; for it is opposed to English ideas of nature and propriety" 1 7 —an objection which by now is all too familiar to us. The Literary Gazette gave Hugo little credit, but praised Fleetwood for his "strong and judicious" reasoning upon "a question . . . of vast importance." 1 8 The humanitarians—especially the female humanitarians —took a more favorable view of the work. Lady Blessington recommended it highly in her book The Idler in France, an account of her visit to Paris in 1829 to 1830, published in 1 8 4 1 . She paid tribute to Hugo's "wonderful power of genius, that can thus excite sympathy for the erring and the

I840-I852

93

wretched . . . , " and ventured the opinion that "a perusal of Victor Hugo's graphic book will do more to lead men's minds to reflect on this point than all the dull essays." 1 9 It was mentioned with respect in the correspondence of Miss Mitford, Mrs. Jameson, and others, and Elizabeth Barrett confessed her admiration for the book (although she seems not to have known its title very accurately). Curiously enough, Miss Barrett thought that Dickens had used Hugo's Dernier Jour in composing Oliver Twist; in a letter to James Martin in 1843 she stated this charge quite clearly: M y admiration f o r " B o z " fell f r o m its " s t i c k i n g place," I confess, a good f u r l o n g , when I read V i c t o r H u g o ;

. . . m y creed is, that,

not in his tenderness, w h i c h is as m u c h his o w n as his humour, but in his serious, p o w e r f u l J e w - t r i a l scenes, he has followed H u g o closely, and never scarcely looked a w a y f r o m " L e s T r o i s J o u r s d'un C o n damné" [s/r].-°

Her notion of Dickens's plagiarism I take to be a mistaken one ; * however, suggestions that Hugo had any direct influence on English literature are interesting if only for their rarity. Le Dernier Jour, it is clear, succeeded partially in moving English sympathies by its appeal to the emotions, but failed utterly to convince or even impress vigorous British intelligence. The well-established notion that the French people are more "sympathetic" than the English seems to have proved itself once more in this case. A good example of the reaction of a really hardheaded Britisher to Hugo's humanitarianism may be found in W. M. Thackeray's remarks on the verses sent by Hugo to Louis-Philippe in behalf of the condemned Armand Barbes (published in the collection Les Rayons et les ombres) : * I can see v e r y little s i m i l a r i t y between the t w o trial scenes. Dickens describes the trial o b j e c t i v e l y , as a spectator, and if he deviates at all f r o m the realistic method ic is to s a t i s f y his animosity against the J e w . In H u g o ' s trial scene, on the other hand, the reader sees the court room, j u d g e , j u r y , and other details o n l y through their effects on the m i n d of the condemned m a n ; it is an impressionistic description. T h e condemned man is not the villain but the hero.

i840-1852

94

Par votre ange envolée ainsi qu'une colombe! Par ce royal enfant, doux et frêle roseau! Grâce encore une fois! grâce au nom de la tombe! Grâce au nom du berceau! 1 2 juillet. Minuit. ( 1 8 3 9 ) These verses, which received the plaudits of most French readers and the serious consideration

(so H u g o tells us) of Louis-

Philippe, aroused Thackeray to positive f u r y , and in his Paris Sketch-Book

( 1 8 4 0 ) he made them the occasion of a violent

diatribe against the French idea of justice: In any country save this, would a poet who chose to write four crack-brained verses, comparing an angel to a dove, and a little boy to a reed, and calling upon the chief magistrate, in the name of the angel, or dove (the Princess M a r y ) , in her tomb, and the little infant in his cradle, to spare a criminal, have received a "gracious answer" to his nonsense? . . . Suppose the Count of Paris to be twenty times a reed, and the Princess Mary a host of angels, is that any reason why the law should not have its course? Justice is the God of our lower world, . . . as such it moves, or should move on majestic, awful, irresistible, . . . but, in the very midst of the path across which it is to pass, lo! M. Victor Hugo trips forward, smirking, and says, O divine Justice! I will trouble you to listen to the following trifling effusion of mine:— Par votre ange envolée, ainsi qu'une de. A w f u l Justice stops, and bowing gravely, listens to M. Hugo's verses, and with true French politeness, says, "Mon cher Monsieur, these verses are charming, ravissons [s/'c], délicieux, and, coming from such a célébrité littéraire as yourself, shall meet with every possible attention. . . . " . . . Sham liberty, sham monarchy, sham glory, sham justice,—ou diable donc la vérité va-t-elle se nicher? 21 Hugo's next production, Le Rhin

( 1 8 4 2 ) , also failed to

recommend itself to English readers. This work, a series of descriptive letters " t o a f r i e n d " with a long political dissertation appended, might seem timely and significant because of its prophecy of European unity, foreshadowing the cosmopolitan fervor of 1 8 4 8 . However Hugo's promise of " u n i t y " presup-

1840—z S 52

95

posed the assignment of the L e f t Bank of the Rhine to France, and consequently most critics decided that his cosmopolitanism was only nationalism in disguise. The work naturally aroused a storm of protest in Germany, and it was found that the appendix contained opinions prejudicial to English interests and loyalties also. The Athenaeum accused Hugo of being "national to the tips of his fingers—the pronoun 'Moi' personified," 2 2 and the Quarterly, still the most powerful organ of Conservative opinion, stated firmly that Hugo's proposal was out of the question, since "on German ground the power of France is gone, and forever." A t the Frenchman's proposal that Prussia take over Hanover in exchange f o r giving the L e f t Bank to France, the Quarterly reviewer threw up horrified hands: " T h a t the lowest prejudices of the lowest of English factions against the King of Hanover, and his afflicted but admirable son, should be taken up by French rhapsodists—all this was to be expected!" 23 fraser's Magazine, reviewing the French edition published in two volumes by Delloye ( 1 8 4 2 ) , found it packed with insults to the English nation. The reviewer pointed out that Hugo "compares Paris to ancient Rome, and London to ancient Carthage. The inhabitants of London he denounces as still conspicuous for their 'Punic faith.' . . . " T o demonstrate the scurrility and childishness of Hugo's insults, he copied out this passage: L'Angleterre est le chat, disait le grande Frédéric, la France est le chien. En droit, dit le légiste H o u a r d , les Anglais sont des Juifs, les Français des Chrétiens . . . Le Christ, disent les Indiens d ' A m é r i q u e , était un Français que les Anglais crucifièrent à Londres. Ponce Pilate 24 était un officier au service de l'Angleterre!!

Fraser's did not forget Le Rhin for some time; three years later in a very appreciative article on Hugo's poetry we find this note: W e trust that he will not avail himself of his position as a senator to press those Rhenane, and (he m u s t pardon us) insane pretensions

96

1840-1852

which produced that marvellous political paper from the tourist; otherwise we shall be compelled to part company. . .

The English publishers, noticing the very unfavorable reception given to the political "appendix" of Le Rhin, were careful to remove all traces of it in bringing out their translations. The two versions which appeared in 1843 * had both been subjected to appendectomy, and had emerged as simple guidebooks to the Rhine region. Le Rhin was quite capable of performing this function, and for a time the work found a ready market, although Colburn had eventually to reduce the price of his edition from 10s 6d to 4s to dispose of it. Naturally enough, Colburn's New Monthly Magazine praised Colburn's edition as "the most efficient 'Handbook' that has ever been put together of a country that is more beset and be-visited by Handbookbuying Englishmen than any other." This review, however, well illustrates the inadequacy of the "puffing" method, for the reviewer went to such extremes in praising Le Rhin that he disparaged all Hugo's other works. 26 The Literary Gazette also praised the guidebook, and assured the public that "M. Hugo's anti-English prejudices are of no consequence, and English readers will heed them not, but be pleased with his creating so much of novelty upon so hackneyed and worn-out a subject." 2 7 And the humble Mirror, that journal of polite amusement for the many, described Hugo as "the beau ideal of tourists," recommending his guidebook for interest, variety and importance. 28 The last literary project which Hugo completed before giving himself up definitely to politics had, like Le Rhin, an intended political significance. In Les Burgraves, a long dramatic "trilogie," performed at the Théâtre Français on March j , 1843, Hugo presented symbolically his opinions in support of nationality, at a time when German nationality, apparently threatened by Austria, was winning many French sympathizers to its * Excursions along the Banks of the Rhine, London, Colburn, 1 8 4 3 , 8vo, 10s i d , and The Rhine; from the French, by D. M. Aird, London, 1 8 4 3 , 8vo.

1840-1852

97

cause. The nationalistic solicitations of Frédéric Barberousse, the super-centenarian hero of Les Bur graves who rose from the grave in order that "there might be a Germany in the world," would seem to accord ill with the vaunted cosmopolitanism of Le Rhin. But as a matter of fact nobody objected to this inconsistency, because nobody quite understood the "political message" of Les Burgraves. Its failure on the stage has been variously ascribed to Ponsard's competing drama, Lucrèce, to Hugo's "whispering campaign," and to the rivalries of actresses: perhaps the most fundamental reason may be found in the innate frivolity of the Parisian audience, which enjoyed the unassuming gaiety of the parody Les Barbus graves far better than it understood the dark, oracular speeches of Hugo's greybeard heroes. A t any rate, the failure of this play sounded the knell of the French Romantic drama, which had been losing popularity, so the English believed, ever since Ruy Bias (1838) ; and after 1843 a Romantic plays (among them Hernatti and Ruy Bias) remained in the theatrical repertoires, but the school itself did not survive. Les Burgraves was not translated or adapted for the English stage until 1862; * indeed, the play was not heard of in England outside of the narrow circle of readers of foreign reviews. Only one critic paid it much attention, and he gave his opinion in the Foreign Quarterly, that Les Burgraves might have done well enough as "a series of ballads," but that as a play it was utterly impossible. It seemed to him deplorable that Hugo did not select subjects and methods "more worthy of that genius which we unquestionably think the first in France." 29 The pretentious name of "trilogie" for a play "which in reality only differed from other three-act drama by having a title for each act" came in for a good deal of censure from this critic, as well as from the Athenaeum correspondent. All Hugo's magnificent eloquence only proved to the latter that "a romanticist can * The Robber Lords of the Rhine, adapted from the French of M. Victor Hugo by Edwin F. Roberts (Lea's Sixpenny Library, Vol. 4 ) , London, Lea, 1862.

9

1840-1852

8

equal in long-windedness the harangue of an Agamemnon Semiramis tragedy." Bur graves

or a

in the hoop-and-toupet days of classical French 30

W h e n Ponsard's Lucrèce

finally

drove the rival

off the stage, the English reviewers supported the

winning side. T h e Athenaeum

hailed Ponsard's triumph as a

return of good taste, and offered sympathy to the Théâtre Français for the "painful infliction" of Les Burgraves, 3 1 and the British

& Foreign

Review,

which gave the most accurate and

succinct account of the Hugo-Ponsard conflict, took the same position: Les Burgraves, . . . the obvious fruit of immense care, produced with all the splendour the Parisian stage could afford, heralded by preliminary praises, protected by a name celebrated throughout Europe, and supported by bands of enthusiastic admirers,—this play could not keep possession of the stage for twenty nights. About the same time a young man from the provinces had presented a play to the Odeon: it was on the model of Racine: the dagger and poisonbowl were absent; . . . All Paris flocked over the water to the Quartier Latin to see the "Lucrèce" of M. Ponsard! What meanwhile has become of "Les Burgraves"? N o theatre performs it, no one reads it, no one criticizes it, nevertheless it is not more false, more absurd than "Hernani," "Angelo," or " R u y Bias"; and it is quite as effective in stage tricks and much better written. Why then did it fail? W h y did "Lucrèce" succeed? Because in truth the public had recovered from its intoxication, . . . and welcomed "Lucrèce" as a return to a healthy style. 32 W h e n Hugo's ally Granicr de Cassagnac praised his drama at the expense of Racine's "colourless" verse, he was answered in England: the Foreign

Quarterly

took up the cudgels in 1 8 4 6

and remarked that " i f the muse of Racine is sometimes a pale and languid beauty, the muse of Victor H u g o is also too often a highly rouged wanton."

33

Thus the first period of Hugo's literary activity came to a close—on a note of failure. While the other Romantic writers of France were gaining prestige in England, his reputation, so

1840-1852

99

to speak, remained stationary, for since Notre Dame de Paris he had written nothing capable of making a great success across the Channel. During the long period of his literary inactivity, from 1843 to 1852, the English heard almost nothing of his works; only a few articles describing visits to his house, and biographical accounts kept his name before the public. From 1832 to 1848 Hugo and his family occupied a spacious house in the Place Royale, and as the poet grew in wealth, rank, and importance, the atmosphere of his salon became more and more difficult for ordinary mortals to breathe in. Many of his old friends stopped coming to see him, so Heine tells us, because they were "hurt by his egoism"; 3 4 and in their place came new disciples and courtiers—mostly the "small f r y " of Romanticism—men who were willing to talk only of him, and pay him unceasing homage. In Fraser's review of Le Rhin appeared the first English attack on Hugo's conceit. The profuse and indiscriminate praises of his friends have forever spoiled Victor Hugo. . . . The literature of France, in his conviction, transcends, by much, the combined literature of the whole world, and he has the self-complacency to place his own works as the culminating and crowning glory of the literature of France. . . . He lives quite secluded from the world, . . . a common trick with all men puffed up with extravagant notions of their own superiority.

These remarks, supported by an anecdote concerning a letter of introduction from Lafayette, given to a friend of the reviewer, which Hugo refused to honor because "it was not given by an individual of sufficient consequence to command the poet's attention," formed the first link in a chain of evidence presented throughout the rest of the century, which eventually convinced many English readers that Hugo was a pompous and conceited windbag. 35 As time went on more stories of Hugo-worship began to emanate from the Place Royale salon. In 1846 the Foreign

IOO Quarterly

1840-1852 gave currency to another illustration of the poet's

vanity:

Victor Hugo has often been reproached for his use and abuse of antithesis—but he, with a truly French bombast, declares, that "le bon Dieu" is a greater "faiseur d'antithèses" than he is. Is not this delicious? 36 T w o years later came a report of an Englishman's visit to the Place Royale, published in Tait's Edinburgh

Magazine, which

corroborated the rumors. Tait's correspondent wrote:

The abord of Victor Hugo is graceful and pleasing but like that of all cultivated Frenchmen, and especially of all celebrated ones, it is too obviously artificial and assumed to be perfectly agreeable to a simple English taste. It partakes of that greatest of all mistakes in a great man, or one who is taught to believe himself such,—affability —a mistake that is pretty nearly exploded now except in France; and even there it is confined to the small great. 37 Clearly Hugo patronized his lesser visitors, and some of them resented it. One English visitor he did not attempt to patronize: Charles Dickens came to see him in 1848, and received a warm welcome. Writing of the visit to Lady Blessington, Dickens said:

I was much struck by Hugo himself, who looks like a genius as he is, every inch of him. Sitting among old armour and old tapestry, and old coffers, and grim old chairs and tables, and old canopies of state from old palaces, and old golden lions going to play at skittles with ponderous old golden balls, they [Hugo and his family] made a most romantic show, and looked like a chapter out of one of his own books.'" 38 Victor Hugo's activities in French politics before 1 8 5 2 did not affect his English prestige to any extent. His "apostasy" * Another English writer found Hugo's appearance disappointingly » » r o m a n t i c . Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote to her husband in 1846 complaining of his portrait of Hugo, which she said she liked "less and less—there is something ignoble in the face—and even the forehead is rather big than large. HE does not look like a poet in any case—now does he?" 3 9

1840-1852

IOI

in 1850 aroused bitter controversy in Paris but not in England; in fact, few Englishmen heard anything of the controversy until thirty years later, when the biographers and historians entered upon the subject. His name had been identified with the Liberal cause as early as 1849, for the Paris "Peace Congress," of which H u g o served as President and Cobden as VicePresident, received much attention from the Liberal press. As a result of this advocacy it was announced in Howitt's radical "People's Journal" that "the friends of peace and progress look up to him as an accredited leader," and he was congratulated for correcting the bad impression left by Le Rhin.40 It may be said that Hugo's political reputation in England dated from his apostasy: no one had heard of him as an Orleaniste, but some publicity was given by the Spectator and the Times to his leadership of the "Mountain." 41 Among the Conservatives, of course, he lost some prestige for this reason; and their periodicals still mixed politics and literature. The North British Review, for instance, investigating "the cloaca of modern French fiction" in 18 j 1, judged it entirely appropriate that "Victor Hugo, the author of 'Marion de l'Orme,' 'Lucrece Borgia,' 'BugJargal,' and 'Hans d'Islande,' [i/c] is a leader of the extreme party in the Chambers; that Eugène Sue, the author of 'AtarGulP . . . is the chosen representative of the more turbulent socialists; and that George Sand (whom we grieve to class with these even for a moment) was the reputed friend and right hand of the desperate democratic tyrant, Ledru-Rollin." 42 A t the coup d'état, however, the majority of Englishmen were more inclined to sympathize with Hugo and his fellowvictims than with the victorious Napoleon. Liberals and Conservatives alike protested at the violent measures taken by Napoleon, and during 1852 and 1853 the new Emperor was, to say the least, very unpopular in England. But Hugo's own role in the struggle of December, 18 j 1, was not clearly or universally understood, at first. Had he received proper publicity, it is certain that the English would have sympathized warmly

I02

184O-1852

with him. However, no one "wrote him up"; the newspapers and weeklies simply announced, as a matter of course, that he had been proscribed, that he was reported to be in hiding, and finally that he had arrived safely in Belgium. 43 During the first year of his exile at Brussels, Hugo concentrated his efforts on two polemical works directed against the man who had proscribed him. The first of these projects, L'Histoire d'un crime, was not immediately published; Hugo put it aside for twenty-five years. But Napoléon le petit, which he did complete and publish in 18 $2, expressed the full force of his hatred for Napoleon III. It expressed his hatred, in fact, with such eloquent violence that he was obliged to leave Belgium. The English should have known Napoléon le petit more intimately than any of Hugo's preceding works, for it was published only in London. For obvious reasons, no French or Belgian publisher dared to handle such a book, and consequently two London houses undertook the publication. Mr. Henry Vizetelly, displaying the same courage which characterized his later publication of Zola's novels, brought out an English version which ran to three editions within the year, while the importing house of W. Jeffs published two editions in French and one in English. The work must have had a large circulation: for a Westminster reviewer judged that its sale "must be reckoned by thousands," and the large number of editions would seem to corroborate him. 44 The most vitally interested readers of Napoléon le petit were of course the French exiles and their immediate friends—a numerous band, scattered through England, Belgium, and the Channel Islands. But a great many ordinary English readers unaffected by the French political situation were in sympathy with the general purpose of the work. Napoleon's coup d'état had met with strong disapproval in England, particularly in the Radical and Chartist factions, and any effort to put the

1840-1852

103

Emperor in his place must have pleased, or at least interested, a large portion of the English public. But although Hugo's philippic had a large immediate sale— almost a succès de scandale *—it disappointed most English readers. Much as they hated Napoleon III and resented his coup d'état, they could not relish Hugo's method of scourging the tyrant. To many readers the attack seemed ineffectual and even childish—a piece of stupid, shrill vituperation; to many it seemed to strain so hard that it brought on fatigue; still others regretted its misrepresentation of facts. The Spectator, England's best-informed political journal, immediately discovered that Hugo and his confreres had indirectly caused the coup d'état: their activities had "rendered the Assembly unpopular, and enabled M. Bonaparte to succeed." 45 This fact has been demonstrated by many later historians, who have shown that Napoleon gained his support by promising law and order, while his adversaries of the "Mountain" played directly into his hands by threatening violence and waving the red flag. English observers realized that Hugo had done the cause more harm than good by his political activities, and they soon found that Napoléon le petit was open to the same objection. "However far our sympathies may be enlisted against the crusade which is waged against intellect in France," declared the Athenaeum, "they are scarcely with M. Victor Hugo. . . . We confess that M. Hugo does not come into our court with what we consider clean hands." 46 Tait's Edinburgh Magazine judged that stern, naked, simple, impassive truth, uttered with calm dignity by men who had submitted, after a vain though m a n f u l resistance, to the brutal outrages of a scoundrel in power, would have been f a r more effectual in reply than whole volumes of invective and personal abuse. . . . It is thus that great interests are debased to petty and personal squabbles. 47 * Rumors of the dangerous nature of this work, and stories of its being smuggled into France page by page, undoubtedly enhanced English interest in Napoleon le petit and increased the sales.

1840-1852 It is interesting to note that these are not Conservative opinions; they reflect sympathy with the Republican cause and regret that Hugo should have served it so ineffectively. Even the Westminster, a strong Liberal organ, expressed disappointment with Hugo's work: "Napoléon le petit . . . becomes rather fatiguing at last; the more so as the indignation is too exclusively directed against Napoleon. . . . The poet revels in images; the orator in apostrophes and epigrams; the philosopher is nowhere to be found. Page after page of splendid writing; not a page of careful thinking." 48 Even more damaging to the prospects of Napoléon le petit were hints, from the Spectator and from Tait's correspondent, that it contained many inaccuracies, some of them deliberate. Robert and Elizabeth Browning, writing to John Kenyon from Paris, reported that, "as to Victor Hugo's book, the very enemies of the present state of affairs object to it that he lies simply. There is not enough truth in it for an invective to rest on, still less for an argument." 49 For Hugo's other polemics against Napoleon III, the poetic Châtiments and the pseudo-historical Histoire d'un crime, a similar destiny lay in wait. Napoléon le petit had a better chance of success than the two later works, for English indignation against Napoleon III was at its height in 1852, but in fact none of them succeeded.

CHAPTER

SIX

Hugo Reappears—in the Channel Islands (1852-1859) the next eighteen years Hugo came into direct contact with the English people, with the result that they became acquainted with the man himself, as well as with the writer. Between August, 1 8 5 2 , and August, 1870, Hugo lived in exile on the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, both of which belong to, and are inhabited by, the English. DURING

W h y Hugo elected to spend this period of his life in the relative obscurity of the Channel Islands, when he might have chosen London or England as his place of residence, we have no exact means of determining. The problem is a tantalizing one, but hardly pertinent to this discussion; our immediate concern must be with the far-reaching consequences of Hugo's exile upon his English prestige. " L a vraie gloire de H u g o , " Léo Claretie has written, "est née à Guernesey après son départ, et même après sa mort. . . . A le mieux connaître, les Guernesiens se défièrent encore plus de lui, car il était démocrate, républicain, révolutionnaire, et à leurs yeux, impie." 1 While he lived among them, the Channel Islanders found him a troublesome guest and held him at a distance, but when he had gone they began to reflect upon the greatness of their recent neighbor. What Claretie has said of Hugo's prestige in Guernsey may be said with equal propriety of his prestige with the larger E n g lish public. In 1855 the controversy over the expulsion of the Jersey exiles brought his name into prominence, and he was hailed by the Radicals as a champion of Liberty, but most English commentators regarded him rather as a meddlesome

io6

Hugo in the Channel Islands

troublemaker. In the 186o's also, he gained more notoriety than prestige in England, for the ideas contained in La Légende des Siècles and Les Misérables were considered very decidedly révolutionnaires and impies. It was not until the events of 1 8 7 0 seemed to justify his exile, and enabled him to return to Paris avec la Liberté, that the full significance of Hugo's " m a r t y r dom" became apparent to the English. Then it was that the poet put on the "halo of exile" which he later wore with such effect in the land which had sheltered him. Hugo's first residence on English soil was the house known as "Marine Terrace," situated on the coast of Jersey near St. Helier. Jersey had been kind to the victims of Napoleon's coup d'etat; at the time H u g o arrived (August 5, 1 8 5 2 ) the tiny island was already harboring over seventy exiles, most of them French. These men lived f a r more comfortably than their fellow-exiles in London; some of them even prospered in Jersey, and they had their own political societies and their own newspaper, l'Homme. H u g o was of course the most prominent member of the Jersey group, but there were other men of renown; Charles Ribeyrolles, author of Les Bagnes d'Afrique, and J . Cahaigne, veteran conspirator and author of La Couronne impériale. " J ' a i quitté la France sur le quai d'Anvers," said Hugo to the exiles who came to the boat to welcome him: "je la retrouve sur la jetée de Saint-Helier." 2 The remark is significant in more ways than one. Hugo did, indeed, find himself among friendly compatriots. He found himself, moreover, among a Frenchspeaking people: the population of Jersey is predominantly English, yet French is its official language; consequently the poet never learned English. It may well be questioned, in fact, whether Hugo ever found anything but " F r a n c e " in the Channel Islands, f o r his social relations with the English inhabitants never proceeded beyond the rudimentary stage. A letter from Mme. Hugo to Victor Pavie gives evidence that Hugo commanded a certain respect among the natives:

Hugo in the Channel Islands

107

Les habitants sont illettrés, sans entrain, mais sont d'un commerce sûr. Ils savent estimer ce qui est estimable et ont une grande déférence pour les intelligences supérieures aux leurs. . . . L'Eglise anglicane exerce ici une grande influence; les Jerseyais sont très réligieux et, quoique leur réligion soit un peu aride et étroite, le résultat est au demeurant excellent. 3

So long as the natives of Jersey paid their respects to Hugo's superior intelligence, we may be sure the poet found them satisfactory. But on the other hand, we can hardly imagine him making social advances to an unimaginative and illiterate people. As a matter of fact, H u g o associated very little with either the French or the English residents of Jersey. During the first f e w months he was rather active in the political societies of his fellow-exiles, but in May, 1 8 5 3 , he retired from them, and had very little share in their daily activities until 1 8 5 5 . Marine Terrace was a quiet and secluded place; the poet had chosen it because he wanted to write, and because—so his son tells u s — he wanted to be near the sea.4 One rainy morning in November François-Victor Hugo asked his father, " H o w do you propose to employ your exile?" " I shall look at the sea," replied the poet, "and y o u ? " " I shall translate Shakespeare." 5 Contemplation of the sea, and the composition of Les Châtiments and Les Contemplations occupied most of the poet's time between 1852 and 1 8 5 5 . There are many indications, however, that Hugo had no wish to bury himself completely in Jersey, for he kept in touch with the outside world, and made his voice heard on many occasions. His first pronouncements were modest funeral orations and commemoration addresses before his fellow-exiles, but these were soon followed by more ambitious letters of protest, and it was not long before Hugo began sending Avertissements and Déclarations to the English press. The funeral orations of 1 8 5 3 , and the speeches to commemorate the Polish revolution in 1 8 5 2 and 1 8 5 3 (some

io8

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

of which were published) stirred up no controversy in the Channel Islands or in England. They were full of bitter allusions to Napoleon III, and exploded occasionally in salutes to the forthcoming Etats-Unis d'Europe. But his immediate audiences were composed of Napoleon's enemies and victims, and even the wider English public which read the speeches had no special fondness for the French Emperor during these years. The English Liberals and Radicals had, in fact, disapproved of the coup d'état almost as violently as Hugo himself. In March, 1854, however, France and England united in declaring war on Tsar Nicholas of Russia, and after this alliance had been effected Hugo's abuse of the French emperor necessarily conflicted with England's foreign policy. Also, by that time Hugo's forensic tone had become so violent as to attract the unfavorable notice of prominent Englishmen. The first skirmish between Hugo and English authority took place early in 1854, and was caused by the poet's agitation against capital punishment. John Charles Tapner, a murderer, thief and incendiary, had been condemned to death by the bailiff of Guernsey, and Hugo determined to save him from the penalty. His first move was to send, on January 10, 1854, a letter "Aux Habitants de Guernsey," protesting against this barbarous decision. His letter, published in Guernsey and in England, seems to have aroused some six hundred residents of Guernsey to send a petition for Tapner's life to Queen Victoria. The execution was delayed for two weeks upon receipt of this petition, but Tapner was finally hanged nevertheless. Hugo could find but one explanation for the final decision; he concluded that Queen Victoria had turned the matter over to the Home Secretary, Palmerston, and that Palmerston had yielded to pressure from France: Le gouvernement anglais avait successivement accordé trois sursis. On pensait que l'exécution n'aurait pas lieu. Tout à coup le bruit

Hugo in the Channel Islands

109

se r é p a n d q u e l'ambassadeur de F r a n c e , M . W a l e w s k i , est allé v o i r lord P a l m e r s t o n . D e u x jours après, T a p n e r est e x é c u t é .

..."''

6

That Tapner's execution followed upon Walewski's visit with Palmerston might seem wholly a coincidence to the unenlightened, but to Hugo these two events had all the vital connection of cause and effect. It is difficult to imagine what interest he supposed Napoleon or Walewski to have had in hanging a Guernsey convict, but probably his blind hatred of Napoleon was sufficient in itself to give birth to this childish supposition. It was enough for him that Napoleon was his enemy, and that the Tapner decision had turned against him. Hugo at least supposed himself to be a dangerous man in Napoleon's estimation, and from this time forth he interpreted all actions of the English government in relation to the exiles as subtle machinations of the French Emperor. Tapner was hanged on February 10, 18 54 ; on the 1 1 th H u g o wrote Palmerston a letter insinuating that French intervention had determined his final verdict. The idea of French intervention was, he said, extremely unpleasant to him; he hated to believe it: Quoi!

. . . E n présence de la g r a n d e et généreuse nation

anglaise,

v o t r e reine aurait le droit de g r â c e et M . B o n a p a r t e aurait le d r o i t de v é t o !

. . .

Non!

Seulement il n ' a pas été possible a u x j o u r n a u x de F r a n c e de parler de T a p n e r .

. . .

J e constate le f a i t , mais je n'en c o n c l u s rien.

There follows a minute account of the execution, "le bulletin de la journée," which Hugo invited Palmerston to send to Napoleon: "Si, par aventure, il y a quelque chose de fondé dans les conjectures que je répousse, . . . vous pourriez . . . le transmettre aux Tuileries. Ces détails n'ont rien qui répugne à l'empire du Deux-Décembre. . . . " 7 Palmerston does not seem to have been excessively annoyed by this communication, * From Actes et paroles ( 1 8 7 5 ) . The "trois sursis" seems to be an error; I find record of only two delays.

no

Hugo in the Channel Islands

for he did not retaliate. The incident, indeed, had no consequences whatever. T w o speeches delivered by Hugo later in the year ( 1 8 5 4 ) offered more direct provocation to the English. On September 27 in the middle of a funeral oration over the tomb of Félix Bony, he wandered into a digression on the Crimean War, and warned his English hosts against the dangers of their French alliance: "Les alliances comme celles que nous voyons en ce moment, nous les croyons mauvaises pour les deux parties, pour les deux peuples que nous admirons et que nous aimons, pour les deux gouvernements dont nous prenons moins de souci." 8 He did not, fortunately, touch on the subject of England's conduct in the War, but confined himself to praising the Turks at the expense of the French. On November 29—the day on which the poet was wont to entertain the Polish exiles at their annual banquet—Hugo ventured upon more dangerous ground. His speeches at the Polish banquets of 1852 and 1853 had been harmless enough, but this time he chose as his subject La Guerre d'Oriente, and its baneful effects on England. Rivers of blood flowed freely through Hugo's discourse on the siege of Sebastopol, and the corpses fairly piled themselves up on the banquet-table. " E n Angleterre," observed the orator, "le contre-coup est terrible. Faillites sur faillites, toutes les transactions suspendues, le commerce agonisant, l'industrie morte." Of course, "c'est l'alliance de M. Bonaparte qui depuis un an fait faire fausse route à tous les intérêts anglais. . . . Tout ceci sort du Deux-Décembre." 9 The Polish exiles in London held a similar memorial banquet at St. Martin's Hall, and heard the illustrious Kossuth express his disapproval of the War and his distrust of England's foreign policy. Kossuth's speech, published in the London papers, was more widely discussed than Hugo's, and both of them were brought to the attention of the Government. Soon after the opening of Parliament Sir Robert Peel, son of the

Hugo in the Channel Islands great

statesman, denounced

Kossuth

h i

before the House

of

C o m m o n s and added a warning to V i c t o r H u g o : This individual had a sort of personal quarrel with the distinguished personage whom the people of France have chosen f o r their Sovereign, and he told the people of Jersey that our alliance with the French Emperor was a moral degradation to England. . . . If miserable trash of this kind is to be addressed to the English people by foreigners who find a safe asylum in this country, I appeal to the noble Lord the Home Secretary whether some possible step cannot be taken to put a stop to it. 1 0 Peel's speech was read to H u g o f r o m the London

Times

of

December 1 3 , 1 8 5 4 , and of course he did not allow it to go unanswered. Once more his u n c a n n y enabled him to hear the voice of

power of

divination

Napoleon in the wings

prompting that of the Englishman on the stage: in Actes

et

paroles he tells us that Souterrainement, Louis Bonaparte manoeuvrait; . . . il avait mis en mouvement dans la chambre des communes quelqu'un d'inconnu qui porte un nom connu, sir Robert Peel, lequel avait, dans le patois sérieux qu'admet la politique, particulièrement en Angleterre, dénoncé Victor Hugo, Mazzini et Kossuth. . . . Ce M. Peel, dans cette séance du 1 3 décembre 1 8 5 4 , après avoir signalé les actes et les publications de Victor Hugo, avait déclaré qu'il demanderait aux ministres de la reine s'il n'y aurait pas moyen d'y mettre un terme. La 11 persécution du proscrit était en germe dans ces paroles. . . H u g o therefore addressed his answer not to Peel, but to N a poleon, and sent it to several English newspapers: AVERTISSEMENT

Je préviens M. Bonaparte que je me rends parfaitement compte des ressorts qu'il fait mouvoir et qui sont à sa taille, et que j'ai lu avec intérêt les choses dites à mon sujet, ces jours passés, dans le parlement anglais. M. Bonaparte m'a chassé de France pour avoir pris les armes contre son crime; . . . il m'a chassé de Belgique pour Napoléon le * Besides the u t t e r l y in m o t i o n "

Sir

Robert

mistaken

assumption

Pee!, H u g o ' s

account

that Napoleon " s u b t e r r a n e o u s l y contains

t w o minor errors:

set

Peel's

speech was delivered on the 1 2 t h and it made no reference to H u g o ' s publications.

ii2

Hugo in the Channel Islands

Petit; il me chassera peut-être d'Angleterre pour les protestations que j'y ai faites, que j'y fais et que je continuerai d'y faire. Cela regarde l'Angleterre plus que moi. . . . Quant à moi, l'Amérique est bonne, et, si elle convient à M. Bonaparte, elle me convient aussi. . . . M. Bonaparte a raison, il y a en effet entre moi et lui une "querelle personelle," la vieille querelle personelle du juge sur son siège et de l'accusé sur son banc. VICTOR

HUGO.

Jersey, 22 décembre 1854. 1 2

This communication effectively made Hugo's position clear to the English public. Not only would he continue to defy Napoleon, but he would defy English authority to stop his protestations, and he would accuse the Government of serving a foreign master. There followed a short lull in the hostilities; during January, February, and March, 1855, Hugo offered no further provocation to Napoleon or to the English. But early in March the Jersey exiles learned that Napoleon and his Empress were coming to Windsor on an official visit, and they decided to greet the Emperor at Dover and London and demonstrate their disapproval of him. Hugo accordingly wrote a Lettre à Louis Bonaparte, and entrusted it to the exiles who were to demonstrate, with instructions to placard it in Dover and London, where presumably the Emperor might see it. In his Actes et paroles, the poet claims that his letter caused a good deal of commotion: Victor Hugo . . . fit passer par-dessus la tête du gouvernement anglais sa Lettre à Louis Bonaparte, [que] "l'empereur" put lire, en débarquant à Douvres, affichée sur tous les murs. La colère fut profonde. L'alliance anglo-française éclata; la police de Paris vint déchirer l'affiche du proscrit sur les murs de Londres. 13

I can find nothing to substantiate these assertions. A number of exiles did come up from Jersey to demonstrate, but it is certain that their activities did not disturb the triumphant

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

113

entry of Napoleon upon English soil."' They were prevented from meeting at Dover by the police, and a number of them were arrested in London; in reality nothing spectacular was accomplished.14 Hugo's biographers have concurred in assigning to the Pyat letter incident the cause of his expulsion from Jersey in October, 1855. The poet, however, considered the Pyat letter incident merely a pretext; he felt that by the middle of 185 j Napoleon and his "lackeys" in the English Government were so anxious to be rid of him that they were ready to seize any opportunity. In his Actes et paroles, immediately following the passage quoted above, we find this explanation: C e p e n d a n t le gouvernement anglais t r o u v a prudent d'attendre une autre occasion. Elle ne tarda pas à se présenter. U n e lettre éloquente, ironique et spirituelle, adressée à la reine et signée publié à Londres et réproduite à Jersey par le journal

Félix Pyat, f u t l'Homme. . . .

L'explosion eut lieu là-dessus. 1 5

It may be worth while to examine this éloquente, ironique, and spirituelle letter, and consider what reception it met with in England, before we conclude that it served merely as a pretext. Pyat's letter to Victoria had to do with her recent visit to Paris (from August 18 to 27) ; it described her conduct at the French court in as offensive and insulting terms as one can imagine being addressed to a queen. It was read on September 22 to an audience which consisted for the most part of French exiles who hated the Anglo-French alliance and which had met to commemorate the French Revolution. Immediately afterwards the letter was published in Reynolds's Paper and the People's Paper, two journals that circulated among the Chartists and extreme Radicals; for the time being it went no * T h e newspapers published long and detailed accounts of Napoleon's reception at D o v e r , L o n d o n , and Windsor, but they contain no mention of a Jersey d e m o n stration or of the placarding of H u g o ' s letter. H a d English

fonde,

colère

been t r u l y

pro'

it seems reasonable to suppose it w o u l d have l e f t some trace, at least in the

Opposition papers.

ii4

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

further. It was not unnatural that Pyat's views should have been applauded, or at least well received by the French exiles and the extreme English Radicals. I f , however, the letter had circulated widely through the press, or had reached more representative English audiences, I am certain that it would have aroused ill feeling toward Pyat, for certain parts of it are grossly insulting: Pour prix de l'hospitalité que nous tenons des lois de votre pays, permettez-nous de vous adresser quelques utiles réflexions sur votre voyage. . . . Vous avez été baisée au genou par trente chefs arabes, au-dessous de la jarretière, dit le Times: Honni soit! et à la main, par l'empereur: God save the Queen! Vous avez mis Canrobert au bain, bu le champagne et embrassé Jérôme. . . . Vous avez tout sacrifié, dignité de reine, scrupules de femme, orgueil d'aristocrate, sentiment d'Anglaise, le rang, la race, le sexe, tout, jusqu'à la pudeur, pour l'amour de cet allié! 1 8

The letter was reprinted eighteen days later at St. Helier, Jersey, in l'Homme, and there it met with a different reception. In a small city such incidents do not easily pass unnoticed. Two thousand residents of Jersey met at the Queen's Assembly Rooms in St. Helier to protest against Pyat's insults to the Queen; proclamations against the editor and owner of l'Homme were posted in the streets, and for a while it looked as though the editorial office and printing establishment would be demolished by force. Within five days (October 15, 1855) Major-General Love, lieutenant governor of Jersey, gave Ribeyrolles the editor, Colonel Pianciani the owner, and Thomas the distributor of l'Homme notice to quit the island. The indignation meeting and the action taken by Major General Love were reported in London by the Opposition newspapers, and the controversy which ensued thoroughly familiarized the public with Pyat's letter. The Daily News and the Morning Advertiser published letters of protest from Colonel Pianciani and Angelo Gonzalez, a fellow-exile, and expressed indignation at the arbitrary measure taken by Love.

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

IIJ

The punishment, said the Daily News, was too severe for such an "indiscretion" as the publication of Pyat's letter; and the Morning Advertiser protested that the three exiles had been expelled without trial. 1 7 The more influential newspapers, however, judged differently. The Times did not mention the expulsion of Ribeyrolles and his associates, but reported the indignation meeting * and denounced the letter which had caused it: If it served any purpose to lay before the world the vilest, most insolent, and flagitious document that has ever met our notice, it might be published in these columns. . . . No feeling of decency or of respect for the usages of the country . . . restrains for a moment the ruffianly rhapsodist. . . . It is the duty of the Government to take some heed of such proceedings, . . . and, if these men be found incorrigible, to extend no longer to them the hospitality they have profaned. 18 The Morning Post refused to publish the letter of protest which Pianciani sent it, and even attacked the Daily News f o r taking Pianciani's side: The tirade of the "Daily News" has no foundation to stand upon. . . . All the sophistries . . . of a journal professedly English, on the subject of the persons whom it somewhat affectedly calls "the Jersey proscrits," will fail to persuade the people of England that personal calumnies on our QUEEN, and incitements to the assassination of her Illustrious Ally, amount to nothing more than "indiscretion." [ A s for the exiles who had been expelled] The arm of the law has already rcached them in Jersey; let them be assured that the eye of the law is still fixed on them in England. 20 The Pyat letter subsequently appeared in many English newspapers, but it was not printed at full length, nor well * The Times seems to have completely misunderstood the nature and purpose of the indignation meeting, for it referred to the honest, indignant citizens of Jersey as "Red Republican firebrands," and the meeting as a conspiracy to assassinate Napoleon. One of the promoters of the meeting sent a letter to protest against the mistake, and the Times published it, with apologies, on October 26. The purpose of the meeting, said this correspondent, "was not . . . to select Napoleon III for the knife, but to protest solemnly against the doctrines promulgated by some of the Red refugees in London, and published by a wretched fraction of them here." 1 9

ii 6

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

translated. The Glasgow Citizen, for instance, replaced the calembour "Vous avez mis Canrobert au bain" by asterisks— a circumstance which would seem to support the opinion, advanced by Alfred Barbou, J . Pringle Nichol and others of Hugo's biographers, that the English found this pun shocking. 21 But when they make this pun the determinative cause of indignation, I believe they impute too much to English prudery: surely we cannot suppose that thirty-eight men were expelled from Jersey because of a ribald quibble. Other parts of the Pyat letter would seem to give more serious cause for offense. The expulsion of Ribeyrolles and his colleagues might have passed almost unnoticed had not Victor Hugo intervened in the affair. But Hugo was not the man to pass over such an incident in silence; he seized the opportunity for another manifesto, and on October 17 the citizens of St. Helier were confronted in the streets with placards broadcasting a Déclaration of his manufacture, signed by the poet and thirty-four other exiles. The placard dealt chiefly with the sins of Napoleon, but contained enough charges against the English to provoke extreme displeasure: Trois proscrits . . . viennent d'etre expulsés de Jersey. L'acte est sérieux. Q u ' y a-t-il à la surface? Le gouvernement anglais. Qu'y a-t-il au fond? La police française. La main de Fouché peut mettre le gant de Castlereagh; ceci le prouve. Le coup d'état vient de faire son entrée dans les libertés anglaises . . . Encore un pas, et l'Angleterre sera une annexe de l'empire français, et Jersey sera un canton de l'arrondissement de Coutances. . . . E t maintenant expulsez-nous! "

On Saturday, October 27, the Connetable of St. Clements, John Leneveu, called at Marine Terrace to give notice that by a decision of the Crown all those who signed the Déclaration would have to leave Jersey by the 2nd of November. The poet and one of his sons moved to the neighboring island of Guernsey on October 31, and the rest of his family followed

Hugo in the Channel Islands

117

two days later. Most of the other signatories of the Déclaration went to London. It is clear from his manifesto quoted above that Hugo still clung to the idea that Napoleon was directing the fate of the exiles in England. Yet reason must have told him that Napoleon had nothing to gain by moving these three troublemakers from one part of England to another. Indeed, Ribeyrolles and his associates could cause more disturbance in London than they could in Jersey. The fact that the Governor's measure against the journalists was of local significance only makes it clearly apparent that it was intended as a punitive, rather than a preventive, measure. The same may be said of Hugo's expulsion. Hugo in Guernsey could be just as troublesome to Napoleon as Hugo in Jersey: certainly the Emperor could gain nothing by having his enemy moved a few miles down the Channel. * There had been little dissent in England at the expulsion of the first three exiles, but this new act called forth serious protests and gave opportunity for widespread political agitation. The exiles' cause became almost respectable as soon as the name of Victor Hugo had been placed at the head of their list, and a good many Englishmen extended warm sympathy to them. In the newspaper controversy which ensued, the "wretched fraction" abused by the Times and harried out of Jersey now appeared as "M. Hugo and his brethren," or "the illustrious poet and his companions." Hugo's Déclaration had been sent to several English newspapers; it appeared on October 27 in the London Daily News, the Newcastle Journal and the Canterbury News, among others. Reports of the expulsion of its signatories were given four days later by almost all the papers. One of these reports, * H a d the exiles been excluded f r o m all English t e r r i t o r y , there m i g h t h a v e been some reason to suspect French intervention. E n g l a n d was, in f a c t , the last haven the exiles m i g h t expect to find in Europe, f o r the C o n t i n e n t a l nations w o u l d not harbor political exiles against the will of the government t h a t proscribed t h e m .

118

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

sent from Jersey to the Daily News, merits our special attention, for its style seems to me to resemble closely Hugo's own manner of writing: A L'EDITEUR DU DAILY N E W S :

Le c o u p d'état Bonapartiste triomphe à Jersey, malgré les éloquentes et nobles protestations du Daily News. A la suite de la déclaration par laquelle les proscrits de Jersey rappelaient à l ' A n g l e t e r r e les crimes de Louis Bonaparte, M . V i c t o r H u g o , ses fils, et les trente autres signataires ont reçu du Gouverneur de Jersey l'invitation de quitter l'île d'ici au 2 novembre. L'intention de M . V i c t o r H u g o est de s'arreter à Guernsey en attendant que Y Alien Bill soit présenté au parlement par le Ministère Palmerston. * 23

This letter was dated "vendredi soir," although Hugo's biographers agree that the expulsion did not take place until Saturday the 27th. (The truth is that news of the decision leaked out the evening before official notification was given.) The Daily News did not divulge the name of its correspondent, or comment on his attitude, but fastened directly upon the allusion to "Palmerston's Alien Bill," an excellent stone upon which to grind the Opposition axe: It is stated that M. VICTOR HUGO w i l l remain at Guernsey until LORD PALMERSTON presents a more stringent A l i e n Bill to Parliament. We feel confident that if M. VICTOR HUGO remains at Guernsey till such an event takes place, his residence there will be a lengthened one. Fallen t h o u g h LORD PALMERSTON is, he will have too m u c h prudence to risk the d a m a g i n g debates to which the introduction of such a measure w o u l d give rise. Neither he nor his Imperial masters will c o u r t the renewed p u b l i c i t y that would be given to the transactions of 18 j 1. . . . 2 4

O n the same day (October 31) the Morning Advertiser printed another protesting letter from Gonzalez, who ques* There are many reasons for supposing H u g o to have written this letter. It begins w i t h a decidedly Hugoesque personification. In the phrase 'Mes proscrits . . . rappelaient à l*Angleterre les crimes de Louis Bonaparte" we find Hugo's usual accusation against the Emperor, together w i t h his favorite name f o r him. Another writer might have used the phrase au public anglais; H u g o never addressed himself to less than a whole country. Also significant are the prominence given to the Hugo family in the letter and the evident familiarity w i t h the family plans.

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

119

tioned the legality of the expulsion. In an editorial, the paper accused Palmerston of expelling the exiles " n o t because they have subjected her MAJESTY to insult, but because they are obnoxious to the French Government, and

proscripts,

fore, offensive to ours." Hugo's

charge of

25

there-

T h e Opposition papers, then, found

French

interference

a useful

political

weapon. O n the other hand, the Times, triot,

the Morning

Post, the Pa-

and other journals favorable to the Government

ex-

pressed their opinion that the exiles had got only what they deserved. T h e strongest and most influential statement of this opinion was made by the Times,

on October 3 1 :

The editor and principal writers of the journal L'Homme were lately obliged to leave Jersey in obedience to an order of the authorities. On this occasion the other refugees published a bombastic proclamation, dilating on the merits of the three journalists, defending their principles, further attacking the French EMPEROR, and concluding their defiance by the words " A n d now banish us." It will give little surprise to our readers to learn that the British Government has felt it necessary to take these men at their word. . . . M . VICTOR H U G O and his comrades . . . have betrayed the hospitality of this country, . . . insulted its SOVEREIGN, sought to break up the alliance it has formed, and planned the death of the ally it has chosen, and they must take the consequences. . . . If poets, philosophers, and legislators utter sentiments worthy only of the lowest purlieus of Paris, they must expect that any claims which their previous career may have given them to the respect and forbearance of the world must be at once forgotten. 2 6 T h e editor of the Post was positively jaunty in commenting on the expulsion. A f t e r congratulating the Government on its " c o u r t e s y " and the "commendable promptitude" with which it complied with the request expulsez-nous, Declaration

itself, and

concluded

he looked into the

that " M .

VICTOR HUGO

shows symptoms of having laboured under an indigestion when he wrote it. . . . "

27

T h r o u g h o u t the month of N o v e m b e r the newspapers kept

120

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

the controversy alive. The Times and the Morning Post were charged with "advocating measures worthy of BOMBA or C L I Q U O T , " and it was asserted that the Times had denounced Napoleon "so long as it was profitable" (i. e., in 18 j 1), and then had become his obsequious lackey "when that line would pay better." 28 Hugo and his "brethren" were given most publicity by the journals opposed to Palmerston's Government: to raise horrified hands at the idea of English servility toward Napoleon was an easy way to rally around the Flag and appeal to the patriotic Englishman, and there were many editors who seized this opportunity. In London the Daily News took the lead in offering sympathy to the exiles for Palmerston's "Lynch-law" proceedings (for which it coined the Hugoesque term "the Jersey coup d'etat"). An attempt was made to force public consideration of a new Alien Bill; the Opposition press chose to assume that Palmerston would require more rigid legislation to aid in his "persecution" of the unfortunate exiles. In the provinces, the Newcastle Guardian, the Glasgow Sentinel, the Bristol Mercury, the Manchester Examiner, the Birmingham Journal, the Gateshead Observer, the Devon port and Plymouth Telegraph, the Leeds Freeman, and others protested in favor of the exiles. Some of their comments were motivated by genuine sympathy for them, but most were simple challenges to Palmerston's Government. The incident caused so much controversy that several papers predicted that the Government must immediately fall. The exiles remaining in the Channel Islands made some attempts to nourish the English protests. Gonzalez continued his studies on the legality of the expulsion, and wrote to the Morning Advertiser demanding the recall of Major General Love. Having first satisfied himself that the law was a "ridiculous" one, "promulgated 220 years ago, [and] never put in force," Gonzalez now revealed that Love's "three years of governorship have expired since March or April last, and,

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

IZI

therefore, he had no business there for these last seven months." 29 The Morning Post prepared a rather feeble answer to these charges, but inasmuch as the order for expulsion had come, not from Love but from the Crown, it seems as though it might have spared its pains.30 The Hugo family, from their new home in Guernsey, did what they could to increase the din of agitation. On November 5 there appeared in the Daily News a falsified account of the interview at Marine Terrace at which the Connetable of St. Clements gave Hugo official notice of his expulsion, and for certain reasons we may be sure that this "Account" came directly from the Hugo household. The document comes down to us from a variety of sources: translations of it were published in the Morning Advertiser and the Daily News; it was later incorporated into Charles Hugo's book Les Hommes de I'exil, and repeated in Actes et paroles and Alfred Barbou's Life of Hugo. The Connetable, Mr. John Leneveu, and his two officers are given rather disagreeable roles in this little drama; they appear, in fact, as timid subalterns, extremely diffident about their task. Hugo, on the other hand, is the noble antagonist, full of righteous indignation: HUGO— . . . It is not you whom I hold responsible for this act; . . . I am convinced that in your heart you are sorrowfully indignant at the task imposed upon you. . . . The three magistrates made no reply, but remained seated, with downcast looks. HUGO— . . . Suppose . . . that the governor had caused the honest citizens of your island . . . to be mowed down with grape shot by the garrison of yonder fort; . . . what would you say? The Connetable . . . having listened to these words in profound silence and with visible embarrassment, made no answer. . . . HUGO—What would you say, sir? Reply. LENEVEU—I would say . . . that the governor was wrong. HUGO (after reading the Declaration to them) . . . Is there anything in this which is not the absolute truth? LENEVEU—It is not always expedient to proclaim the truth.

122

Hugo in the Channel Islands

HUGO— . . . And now, M. le Connetable, you may withdraw. Y o u will render to your superior, the Lieutenant-Governor, an account of the execution of your mission, who will render his account to his superior the British government, which in its turn will render its account to its superior, Monsieur Bonaparte! 3 1

The Daily News published this as "a statement . . . transmitted to us from an authentic source." Its readers did not have to wait long before discovering what this source was. Mr. John Leneveu complained vigorously against this caricature of himself, in a letter which the Daily News published on November 12. It is not true that M. Hugo addressed me in the set speeches which you have published, and which have evidently been got up f o r publication and effect; nor is it true that in answer to any summons f r o m him I acknowledged anything that was derogatory to the E m peror or the Lieutenant-Governor. . . . I positively deny having seated myself " w i t h downcast eyes" to enter into any controversy with him, or listened to his words " w i t h visible embarrassment," or submitted to be catechised as your imaginative correspondent states. . . . 3 2

This was answered four days later, in the same newspaper, by a letter from Charles and François-Victor Hugo, who insisted that the original version from the "authentic source" was correct, and that its writer had "omis plutôt qu'amplifié." They added, specifically, "Outre M. Victor Hugo, notre père, et M. Le Neveu, connetable, quatre personnes étaient présentes: deux officiers du connetable et nous deux. . . . Entre l'affirmation de M. Le Neveu et notre affirmation à nous la conscience publique jugera. . . ." 3 3 With what seriousness readers of the Daily News took their responsibilities as representatives of la conscience publique, I shall not inquire. But they could hardly have continued in doubt as to the "authentic source" after this: for unless they were to assume that one of Leneveu's officers wanted to hurt his chief's reputation and generally lower the dignity of the Law, they were forced to

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

123

conclude that Hugo or his sons must have written it.* As Charles Hugo's letter pointed out, the only people present were Hugo and his sons, and Leneveu and his officers. The Daily News introduced the "Account" with this statement: The only remark we have to make upon it is this: On the 27th of October intimation was given to M. Victor Hugo that he must quit Jersey; on the 26th the correspondent of the Moniteur had already written that this notice had been given. 34

This insinuation, in its first form, must have somewhat mystified its readers, for the Daily News neglected to show its significance. But inasmuch as it first appeared with the Hugo Account, it seems somewhat probable that Hugo sent it. We may be sure at least that the story had its source in Guernsey, for it next appeared in a letter sent from Guernsey by Mr. George Julian Harney to Mr. Cowen of Newcastle. This second version was not so cryptic; Mr. Harney wrote that "it was reported in the Moniteur that such an order had been given, on the day before the exiles received it." 3 5 Mr. Cowen, moreover, made more effective use of the story than the Daily News had done: he read it to a protest meeting held at Newcastle on November 1 1 . His audience naturally inferred that it was known in Paris that the exiles were to be evicted before the exiles knew it themselves, and this inference led to the conclusion that Napoleon and Palmerston had connived in the order. A n examination of the correspondence in the Moniteur proves that these statements were utterly misleading; they were, in fact, just as false as Hugo's Account of the expulsion interview.t * A different translation of the Account (as well as a different translation of Leneveu's reply) appeared in the Morning Advertiser, which makes it evident that the document had been sent from Guernsey in French. 3 6 t The letter from the Jersey correspondent of the Moniteur did not appear in Paris until October 30. It contained the following news: "Jersey, le 26 octobre 18 j y. Trente-six réfugies . . . ont dernièrement signé une protestation. . . . Je puis vous annoncer que le lieutenant gouverneur vient d'adresser au connetable ou

124

Hugo in the Channel Islands

We have surveyed the English reaction to the Jersey coup d'état, as it was reflected in the Press. We have also some idea of the political and humanitarian motives behind the controversy, and the kind of nourishment which kept it alive. It now remains to consider the more direct expressions of public opinion on the subject. About two weeks after the expulsion English sympathy began to manifest itself in protest meetings. " L e libre peuple anglais s'émut;" so H u g o tells us: "Des meetings se firent dans toute la Grande-Brétagne, et la nation, indignée de l'expulsion de Jersey, blama hautement le gouvernement. L ' A n gleterre, par Londres, l'Ecosse, par Glascow [s/c], protestèrent." 3 7 Hugo's expression, "des meetings se firent," is good idiomatic French, but philologically misleading. A n untutored Englishman might suppose that the meetings did "make themselves," that the wrath of the free English people burst into flame, so to speak, by spontaneous combustion. Such was not the case. Actually the protest meetings were very carefully organized, by men who had substantial motives f o r their agitation. T o understand who these men were, and what were their motives, we shall have to investigate briefly certain centers of opposition to Palmerston's Government in 1 8 5 5 . Politically, Palmerston was the strongest man in England during the Crimean War, but his indifference to reform and his strong war policy had gained him a good many enemies. In 1 8 5 3 he had brought the legislation for Lord John Russell's R e f o r m Bill to a halt by resigning the Home Secretaryship. maire de S a i n t - H e l i e r un ordre p o r t a n t expulsion des signataires de cette protestation. L e nom de M . V i c t o r H u g o figure en tête de la l i s t e . "

38

T h i s was written, it

is true, on the day before actual notice was given the refugees. B u t , as we have already seen, the news was already c u r r e n t in Jersey on that day. W e k n o w that a letter, of w h i c h I suspect H u g o t o have been the a u t h o r , was sent f r o m J e r s e y g i v i n g the same i n f o r m a t i o n to the Daily soir.

It is clear, then, that the Moniteur

News

and bearing the same date

vendredi

correspondent learned the news f r o m a

local source rather than f r o m a F r e n c h official source.

Hugo in the Channel Islands

125

The Government could not stand without his support; and when after a few weeks he came back, he was greeted as a returned prodigal, while, says Philip Guedalla, " J o h n Russell played the ungrateful part of the elder son, and they assigned to his Reform Bill the role of the fatted c a l f . " 3 9 Then in 18 J 4 , while Cobden and Bright were trying to promote peace — w i t h "that conviction of being completely in the right which men derive from an almost total absence of support" (to borrow another phrase from Mr. Guedalla), Palmerston was busy promoting war, and brushing aside with his customary bravura the diminutive Peace Party. 4 0 These activities gained him the enmity and the persistent opposition of the "Manchester School" of English political thinkers, headed by Cobden and Bright. "Palmerston Prime Minister!" wrote Bright in this very year 1 8 5 5 , " W h a t a hoax! The aged charlatan has at length attained the great object of his long and unscrupulous ambition." 4 1 The Manchester School politicians—in particular, Washington Wilks and Edward Miall—were drawn into the controversy over the Jersey exiles in the hope of discrediting Palmerston's French alliance and war policy. These men, however, were not so active, nor so successful in stirring up public opposition to Palmerston on the Jersey expulsion issue as another group of Palmerston's enemies—the Chartists. Chartism is generally supposed to have died in 1848. A c tually, the "National Charter Association" lived on obscurely until 18 J4, although rendered powerless by internal faction and ridiculed even by its own members. Feargus O'Connor, its last great leader, went mad in 1 8 5 2 , and control of the organization then passed to R . G. Gammage, Ernest Jones, editor of the People's Paper in London, and George Julian Harney, editor of the Newcastle Star of Freedom. Jones and Harney, though bitter enemies in 1 8 5 2 and 1 8 5 3 , united in

126

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

agitating for the Jersey exiles in 1 8 5 5 ; Jones became the central organizer of the protest meetings, while Harney directed publicity from Jersey and Guernsey. It may well be asked how the cause of the Jersey exiles could help agitation for the Charter. The truth is that some of the Chartists continued to support themselves by professional agitation long after the Charter was dead. Harney's Star of Freedom, which had formerly belonged to O'Connor, gave up Chartism in 1 8 5 2 ; for according to the historian J . West, "his readers would not hear of Chartism. . . . A t the moment the working classes were feverishly excited over Australian gold diggings. So Harney wrote up Australian gold. . . . " 4 2 Jones's paper in London was supported by the funds of the Charter Association, hence his interests were slightly more restricted: yet even so he was constantly in trouble because of accusations that he appropriated the funds for personal expenses. 43 These men were interested not only in Chartism, but in any cause hostile to Palmerston's Government. We may go further and say that they did not hate Palmerston so much as they loved Opposition in general. In 1855 Harney went to the Channel Islands to take over the editorship of the Jersey Independent, and thus became a sort of link between the Jersey refugees and the London and provincial English agitators. There is further evidence that he moved from Jersey to Guernsey at some time prior to December 1 , 1855, established himself at 7 Victoria Terrace, St. Peter Port—the same town in which Hugo settled on October 3 1 —and later moved back to Jersey again. It is by no means improbable that Harney made this move in order to be near Hugo. 4 4 In any case, he realized that the Jersey expulsion could be used to stir up political discontent in England, and he made the most of it. The mere fact that this veteran agitator, a man with a prison record and an intimate knowledge of the political situation, was in the Channel Islands with the

Hugo in the Channel Islands

127

exiles should go far toward explaining why they were brought into the public eye. Jones was also an important link between the Jersey exiles and the English agitators. It is known that Hugo had been in communication with Jones since February, 18 j j , at least, for he promised to address a meeting organized by Jones and his lieutenant James Finlen at that time.* Jones was perhaps even better able than Harney to realize the political value of the Jersey exiles, for he seems to have had the imagination of a true publicity man. We are told that, while in solitary confinement from 1848 to 18 jo, Jones wrote a poem, The Revolt of Hindostán, with his own blood: the man who could do this must have had a peculiarly keen sense of dramatic values; indeed, he would be the very man to bring the storm-toss'd Hugo and his brethren to the English public. 45 The first protest meeting organized by Jones took place at St. Martin's Hall, London, on the evening of November 12. Its attendance was fairly numerous, because the Morning Advertiser and other journals had promised that there would be trouble. The Peace Party, a small group in which the Manchester School influence was clearly predominant, had announced its intention to turn the meeting into an anti-war demonstration, while Jones and the Chartists wanted to make the constitutionality of the Jersey expulsion the main issue. The Morning Advertiser accused the Peace Party of Russian sympathy, and urged all good Britons to attend and silence the pacifists. "The little Muscovite junto must be taught tonight that Englishmen are not so debased," demanded the editor.47 When the meeting was called, Jones had his way: the proposals of the Peace Party were immediately silenced, and from then on the discussion was quiet and orderly. Washing* H u g o ' s speech, w h i c h M r . West called " a deluge of exclamation m a r k s , " was read to the meeting, since the poet was unable to a t t e n d . 4 6 It m a y be f o u n d in et paroles,

Vol. 2 (24 fevrier, 1 8 5 5 ) .

Actet

128

Hugo in the Channel Islands

ton Wilks, Edward Miall and Jones were the speakers; Cobden also had been invited, but he sent regrets and expressed his agreement with the aims of the promoters in a letter which was read aloud. The speakers offered sympathy to the refugees, condemned the arbitrary and unconstitutional proceedings of Palmerston's Government, and warned their hearers that a new Alien Bill, putting an end to liberty in England, would be passed if Palmerston's violent measures were not strongly protested. On the whole, the meeting was successful, although the interference of the Peace Party somewhat confused the issue at stake, and decreased its significance as a real expression of public opinion. This confusion was immediately noticed by the Times, and it gave an excellent opportunity for satirical comment: The gentlemen who projected this curious demonstration . . . very justly felt that the cession of Jersey to a gang of political desperadoes for the purpose of invading the peace of France was not very compatible with an existing war in which England and France were allies and Russia the foe. So they very properly were for putting it to the meeting in St. Martin's Hall that peace should be made with Russia upon some terms or other, or no terms in particular, and that, instead of that war, England should enter on another with France, to be conducted by meetings, and newspapers, under the discreet and temperate generalship of M . VICTOR HUGO and some o t h e r g e n t l e m e n o f his

class.*

48

It will readily be noted that the Times used the weapon of exaggeration as freely as Pianciani, Harney, and the Hugos. At the very outset of the controversy the Times had assumed, without giving any reason, that the exiles "planned the death" * In this same editorial there is a wrathful comment on Victor Hugo, apparently in answer to some communication which the poet had addressed to the Times: "We are bound to say that M . VICTOR H U G O surpasses even the ordinary limits of licentiousness in the rancour of his political execration. Obloquy, contumely, and ribaldry are light compared with the torrent of loathing he is accustomed to pour over the heads of those whom he does not agree with." 4 9 Whether this referred to Napoleon le petit or to some direct communication from Hugo, I am unable to discover.

Hugo in the Channel Islands

129

off Napoleon; now it manufactured out of thin air a menace off "the cession of Jersey to a gang of political desperadoes." Another protest meeting, which showed more singleness of purpose, was held on the evening of November 1 1 at the Lecture Room, in Nelson Street, Newcastle. It was organized by a group known as the "Newcastle Foreign Affairs Committee"—a temporary title which the Newcastle agitators, formerly Chartists, bestowed upon themselves. Newcastle, the home of Linton's Northern Tribune (to which Hugo had contributed a manifesto in 1854 5 0 ) had been the headquarters of Harney when he was in England; hence it is not surprising to discover that most of the evidence which inspired the Newcastle protest was furnished by him. Harney's story of the Moniteur report, which we have already noticed, together with a touching description of Hugo's departure from Jersey, provoked cries from the audience—a small one, consisting of mechanics and workingmen—that "England required no foreign master or dictator." When the speaker, Mr. Cowen, divulged that "such men as the illustrious Victor Hugo had been sent to sink or swim upon society," there were cries of "Shame! Shame!" 5 1 After a few denunciations of the Times, Palmerston, and authority in general, a series of resolutions protesting the Jersey expulsion was drawn up and voted upon, and it was decided to send copies to Palmerston, Clarendon, Grey, Mazzini, Louis Blanc, Kossuth, Hugo, and others. Hugo's copy was presented to him by Harney on November 23, and the poet sent an eloquent reply Aux Anglais, chers compatriotes de la grande patrie européene: J ' a i reçu, des mains de notre courageux coreligionnaire H a r n e y , la communication que vous a v e z bien v o u l u me faire. . . . remercie. . . .

J e vous en

Il était impossible que l'expulsion de Jersey, que cette

proscription des proscrits ne soulevât pas l'indignation publique en Angleterre. . . . D e s démonstrations c o m m e la votre, comme celles qui viennent d'avoir lieu à Londres, c o m m e celles qui se préparent à Glascow

[ sic ] ,

consacrent, resserrent et cimentent . . . l'alliance

éternelle du peuple libre d ' A n g l e t e r r e et du peuple libre de F r a n c e . 5 2

130

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

Hugo's familiarity with the London demonstrations and celles qui se préparent à Glascow makes it clearly evident that he was in communication with Ernest Jones, either directly or through Harney. For all these meetings were promoted by the Jones organization. The next two meetings took place in the suburbs of London. On November 19 Jones, Washington Wilks, and James Bligh, another Chartist agitator, addressed a small audience at Finsbury Square.53 On the 26th James Bligh and J . B. Standen organized a similar meeting at the Literary Institution, Friar Street, Doctor's Commons. At both of these meetings the subject of the Jersey expulsion was discussed in quiet and orderly fashion, and resolutions of protest were adopted.34 Late in November Jones sent James Finlen, his lieutenant and fellow-delegate to the Manchester Chartist conference of 1852, to Glasgow, to see what could be done by way of stirring up political discontent there. Finlen organized two meetings, one at Paisley on the 26th of November, and a larger one at the Glasgow City Hall the next evening. The Paisley meeting heard him with patience, and drew up resolutions similar to the London and Newcastle protests, but in Glasgow Finlen was given a stormy reception. " A great meeting of the citizens of Glasgow," to protest solemnly against "the Jersey outrage" had been announced by placards in the streets, but when the audience gathered that night it was found to consist " f o r the most part of young men and boys, . . . with a small sprinkling of foreign-looking faces, with beards appended." 55 Finlen's first move was to present evidence of French intervention in the Jersey expulsion: at this meeting, as at all the others, such evidence gave the greatest impetus to the protest. Once more the evidence was furnished by Harney; a letter from Guernsey, signed by Harney but owing at least part of its inspiration to Hugo, was read aloud. Two "facts" relating to French foreign and domestic policy were given in this letter. The first was that Alexandre Dumas had written to a friend,

Hugo in the Channel Islands

131

" M y body is at Paris, but my soul is in Jersey." "For these simple words," wrote Harney, "Dumas is under prosecution, and will be tried in the Imperial court!" The second " f a c t " was this: A near relation to Victor H u g o and a distinguished literary man waited upon Count Walewsky, Bonaparte's Minister f o r Foreign Affairs . . . [and asked], was it intended to drive [ H u g o and the exiles] altogether f r o m British territory? Mark well the answer. Walewsky replied " I know it is the intention of Lord Palmerston's Government to submit an Alien Bill to Parliament in the ensuing session; and I may tell you I have no doubt the bill will pass. On this question Lord Clarendon and myself are quite agreed—are of one mind and one intention!" 56

This communication had quite an effect on the Glasgow audience, but the later speeches were not so well received. The audience, in fact, was not entirely sympathetic to the agitators' cause and it began to manifest a certain restlessness. Editor Masson of the Scottish Daily News had difficulty in making himself heard, and Finlen's speech created a veritable uproar. Treating the Jersey expulsion merely as an introductory topic, Finlen went on to inveigh against Napoleon, the aristocracy, the Government and the status quo, and many of his hearers felt that he went too far. Hisses, and cries of "He's a stranger!" finally drowned out Finlen's speech, and the meeting ended in confusion. 58 The significance of these protest meetings, as expressions of English public opinion, was very slight. A few hundreds of English workingmen heard the cause of the Jersey exiles recommended as a worthy one, by professional agitators: this is as much as can be said. The agitators themselves were less interested in the Jersey exiles than they were in discrediting Palmerston's foreign policy and exposing his threat to Eng* Harney sent these two " f a c t s " also to the London Morning Advertiser, and his story about Dumas' soul was printed in that paper on the 26th. The other, however, the Advertiser did not see fit to publish; indeed, it is of all the Harney stories the one having the least semblance of f a c t . 5 7

132

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

lish liberty. After December 1, 1855, all life went out of the controversy; for it became apparent that the rumors concerning a new Alien Bill were groundless, and Palmerston's foreign policy was justified in the public mind by English success in the Crimean War. The Jersey exiles offered no further provocation in England. L'Homme reappeared in London in November, 18 j j , and was greeted by an editorial in the Morning Advertiser ex.pressing the hope that "the resuscitated journal will not again be betrayed into the same violence as before"; 59 and this desire was fulfilled. In Guernsey, Hugo settled down to a peaceful career of literary activity, and the voice of his political ego—La Voix de Guernsey, as it now came to be called—was addressed " T o America," " T o Cuba," and to other distant places, but not for some time to England. When Hugo landed at St. Peter Port, Guernsey, on the last day of October, 1855, he found himself in a kindly atmosphere, although the inhabitants of Guernsey showed more respect than genuine liking for him. According to Gustave Rivet, "il existe une vieille inimitié entre les Jersiais et les Guernsiais, de sorte que l'expulsion des proscrits de Jersey devait être un titre à la sympathie de Guernsey." 60 Whatever may have been the reason, it is at least certain from Hugo's correspondence at the time, that L a réception a été bonne, foule sur le quai; silence, mais sympathie, apparente du moins; toutes les têtes se sont découvertes quand j'ai passé. . . .

L e consul . . . assistait à mon débarquement. Q u e l q u ' u n

m'a dit qu'il avait salué c o m m e les autres à mon passage.—Il parait que les autorités locales auraient dit qu'on nous laisserait tranquilles ici, tant que nous ne donnerions pas de secousses. 01

Feeling that he had at last found a secure refuge, Hugo bought a house in Guernsey, and established himself in it as though he planned to spend the rest of his life there. It is apparent, from his Actes et paroles, that the Master thought he owed his security to the protest meetings, and that Palmer-

Hugo in the Channel Islands

133

ston abandoned his purely hypothetical " n e w Alien B i l l " because of the eloquent appeals of Jones and H a r n e y : Victoria offrait les proscrits à Napoléon. . . . Le cadeau n'eut pas lieu. La presse royaliste anglaise applaudissait; mais le peuple de Londres le prenait mal. Il se mit à gronder. Ce peuple est ainsi fait; son gouvernement peut être caniche, lui il est dogue. Le dogue, c'est un lion dans un chien; la majesté dans la probité, c'est le peuple anglais. C e bon et fier peuple montra les dents; Palmerston et Bonaparte durent se contenter de l'expulsion. 62

In view of the facts that the organizers of English protest exhibited neither majesté nor probité, that they failed to evoke any significant response f r o m the English people, and that Palmerston's "new Alien Bill" had only been imputed to him, we must conclude that Hugo's opinion needs to be very considerably modified. Y e t it has been accepted at face value as recently as 1934, by Mr. J . H . Thomas. 0 3 Considering Hugo's fifteen years of residence at Guernsey, one might expect him to have left behind some sort of tradition, some evidence of contact with the inhabitants of the island. A great many anecdotes, have, in fact, come down to us: but almost all of them illustrate points of difference between H u g o and the natives, and explain w h y he did not come in contact with them. The poet attracted to himself many French literary satellites—Paul Stapfer, A l f r e d Asseline, H e n nett de Kesler, to name a f e w — b u t made no English friends or even acquaintances. A t the outset, observed Léo Claretie, " H u g o se t r o u v [ a ] étonné et un peu vexé de la froideur et de l'indifférence des habitants. . . . La société et lui ne fusionnèrent pas et se tinrent à distance; . . . il ne f u t pas invité aux diner dans la gentry. . . . Il subsista autour de lui, une atmosphère de fraîcheur et de suspicion contre ses idées voltairiennes." * 64 * Considering the requirements f o r social success at G u e r n s e y , one can

hardly

blame H u g o f o r his f a i l u r e to c a p t u r e it. A c c o r d i n g to Asseline, it was necessary to " f a i r e et rendre des visites, aller a u x patronages, entendre trois f o i s p a r semaine

134

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

The poet made considerable efforts to win popular favor in the island. By gifts of unpublished letters and by other means he won over the Gazette de Guernsey, the island's most ancient and esteemed newspaper, which finally decided, five months after his arrival, to salute "l'illustre écrivain que Guernsey a l'insigne honneur de posséder aujourd'hui grâce à la folie de nos frères de Jersey." 65 His friend Kesler, says M. Claretie, took upon himself "le rôle d'organiseur de la publicité et des sympathies populaires," and explained to the natives the significance of Hugo's refusal of the Amnesty of August 16, 1859, and of Les Travailleurs de la mer in 1866. 88 Hugo gained the esteem of the lowest classes by charitable projects. In 1858 he organized a subscription for the families of shipwrecked mariners,68 and from 1861 on he gave a weekly dinner for the poor children of the island, with special festivities and distributions at Christmas time.69 These worthy activities did not, however, increase Hugo's prestige among the gentry. "Si la meilleure société de l'île asistait quelquefois aux fêtes des enfants pauvres," observed Paul Stapfer, " . . . c'était grâce, uniquement, à l'initiative de Miss Carey, fille du bailli, . . . laquelle admirait passionnément Victor Hugo." 70 Stapfer also noted "quelle activité lui et quelques autres admirateurs durent déployer pour épargner au poète le chagrin, quand une troupe d'acteurs français . . . vinrent lui offrir une représentation d'Hernani en 1868, de voir sa pièce jouée devant des loges vides." 7 1 The reasons for this fraîcheur are not difficult to find. The natives were very indignant at Hugo's liaison with Juliette Drouet, the French actress who had been his mistress since 1833, and whom he now installed ( 1 8 6 1 ) in a house only a few doors from his own in the rue Hauteville. 72 M. Stapfer was surprised that the natives should have been indignant at this, "malgré l'age respectable de Juliette et l'extrême réserve le God save dans les Queen's pelle. . .

assembly

rooms, se montrer régulièrement à la cha-

Hugo in the Channel

Islands

135

73

he did not realize, apparde son existence toute rétirée": ently, that these could never be considered extenuating circumstances in England. Hugo's refusal to observe the Sabbath also occasioned hostility.74 In 1 8 J 7 occurred an incident which, according to Henri de Monteyremar, "dut laisser un certain froid dans les relations de la société . . . avec le propriétaire d'Hauteville House." This had to do with un concert, donné par . . . une demoiselle Augustine Allix, pianiste . . . dans la salle des Assemblées au Marché, sous le patronage de Victor Hugo. . . . Il est d'usage, en Angleterre, après les réunions publiques, de jouer le God save the queen. Cet air national est entendu debout et découvert par les occupants des premières places. C'est ce que ne voulut pas faire, le soir en question, Victor Hugo, prétendant qu'il ne s'était jamais découvert devant une tête couronnée.75

M. Claretie declares that Hugo's refusal to rise for God save the queen was, even in 1 9 1 3 , "encore aujourd'hui le plus grand incident, le plus grave grief." 76 Hugo realized that he could never establish friendly relations with the pious gentry of Guernsey, and after a few overtures he gave up the attempt and went into seclusion. Paul Stapfer assures us that "Victor Hugo . . . se souciât médiocrement des insulaires." 77 When two Englishwomen, visiting Hauteville House, expressed astonishment that Hugo had not learned English, the poet admonished them, "Mesdames, . . . quand l'Angleterre voudra causer avec moi, elle apprendra ma langue." 78 He remained in seclusion until the end of his term of exile, even though members of the aristocracy—Lady Diana Beauclerk and the Duchess of Saint Albans—tried to draw him out. 79 The younger Peel and his lady were refused audience with the poet; 80 so was that homely philosopher, that harmless windbag Martin Tupper. The latter tells us in his Autobiography that Hugo, when resident in Guernsey, had greatly offended my cousin [N.B.—Ferdinand Tupper of Guernsey] . . . by stealing for his

136

Hugo in the Channel Islands

hired abode the title of our ancestral mansion, Hauteville H o u s e : and so, when I called on him, the equally offended F r e n c h m a n w o u l d not see me. . . . H u g o w a s not popular among the sixties

[N.B.—

the g e n t r y 8 1 ] at that time. 8 -

Some visitors were admitted,83 but most of them had to be content with dogging the Master's footsteps on the beach, and picking up stones upon which he had trod. Sir Edmund Gosse tells of an American pilgrim to Hauteville House who was rewarded by only one remark from the great poet. "Tell America," cried Hugo from the top of the stairs, "that I love her!" 84 Hugo's expulsion from Jersey may be said to have heightened, to a certain extent, his English prestige. The wide publicity given him in 1855 achieved something that none of his writings had ever been able to do: it made the public thoroughly familiar with his name and with the principles which he stood for. By the end of 1855 everyone knew that Hugo was in exile, and for what reasons. Les Châtiments had passed almost unnoticed in England in 1853, perhaps because they were overshadowed by Napoléon le petit, which was in prose and easier to read. Insofar as Les Châtiments were mentioned, they shared with Napoléon le petit the stigma of violence and fraud. 83 By 1855, however, some Englishmen at least were disposed to re-evaluate Hugo's satirical poems.86 The Westminster warmly defended his conduct at the coup d'état, praising the "seriousness," the "wellmeant energies" that had motivated it. In support of Les Châtiments the Liberal organ argued: T h e i r sameness has been objected to; but is not this the necessary c o n comitant of i n v e c t i v e . . .

? A r e not the tremendous tirades of

Burke against W a r r e n Hastings somewhat monotonous . . . cry—every

complaint to those untouched b y the grief or

must seem tiresome. . . . Les

Châtiments

have splendid

? Every wrong passages

of polished satire and poetry, w h i c h will be read w i t h pleasure as long as the French language exists. 8 7

Hugo in the Channel Islands

137

The publicity given Hugo in 1855 was still fresh in the public mind when Les Contemplations issued from the press in 1856, and undoubtedly it gave a real impetus to the reading and discussion of the new poems in England. When we consider that only the subject matter of poetry can easily be transmitted from French to English, it seems hardly surprising that the English found more to say of Les Contemplations than of Les Rayons et les ombres. Here at last was a collection of poems to which contemporary interest and gossip could attach; readers knew what Hugo could be expected to say, and consequently they understood him better. Les Contemplations did not gain any sudden or immediate popularity in England, as they did in France, but they were read with more and more esteem throughout the rest of the century. 8 8 The 'Westminster directly pointed out what was to prove the greatest attraction for English readers in the new poems, by advising "anyone who . . . distrusts his own power of persevering through two rather stout volumes of French poetry, to turn at once to the . . . poems in memory of a loved and lovely daughter. . . . Every heart that has known a great loss will feel itself in sympathy with the poet." 89 The Saturday Review, with the same unerring instinct, joined with Hugo in lamenting the death of Leopoldine. 00 Perhaps the most eloquent appreciation of these verses was that which Mrs. Browning confided to her friend Mrs. Jameson: " M y eyes and my heart melted over them—some of the personal poems are overcoming in their pathos; and nothing more exquisite in poetry can express deeper pain." 9 1 I n deed, Mrs. Browning was so touched by Hugo's sorrow that she sent an impassioned letter to Napoleon asking him to f o r give the man who

has sinned

deeply

against

y o u . . . and

who

phrases and unjustifiable statements in exile. . . .

expiates

rash

I have no per-

sonal knowledge of this man, I never saw his f a c e ; and certainly I

138

Hugo in the Channel Islands

do not come now to make his apology. It is indeed, precisely because he cannot be excused that, I think, he might worthily be forgiven. For this man, whatever else he is not, is a great poet of France. . . . Ah, sire, what was written on "Napoléon le Petit" does not touch your Majesty; but what touches you is, that no historian of the age should have to write hereafter, "while Napoleon III reigned, Victor Hugo lived in exile." 92

The apocalyptic utterances in Les Contemplations, such as Ce que dit la bouche d'ombre, elicited no such hearty response in England. 03 Inasmuch as Hugo's most learned commentators have failed to make out any clear significance in these poems, we may perhaps forgive the English critics for dismissing them as "incomprehensible." 94 The Saturday reviewer, after a struggle, interpreted the poem which I have mentioned to mean that "before the fall man was unponderable," which inspired him to remark, "Newton little thought that the law of gravity was so nearly allied to original sin." 95 A writer in the New Monthly Magazine literally floundered about in the sea of Hugo's verbiage, and finally gave up in despair, concluding that Les Contemplations were only parades of gloomy adjectives and nouns: Noir and sinistre are perpetually in request. . . . Sombre rhymes with ombre times without number. So do funèbres with ténèbres. . . . It were a mystery to enumerate the uses of mystère, and too enigmatical to guess the full measure of énigme. . . . Cadavre is a familiar presence; squelette grins at us from every corner. . . . 90

This criticism must not be regarded as simply a jest, for it represents to some extent the true reaction of many semieducated Englishmen to Hugo's poetry. When the meaning was not clear, many readers would seize upon the familiar words, and these alone would linger in their minds, coloring their impressions of whole poems or whole volumes of poems. This, however, was only a temporary counsel of despair. Les Contemplations left a permanent impression on many

Hugo

in the Channel

Islands

139

English readers, and it was one of sympathy for the poet's loss of his country and for his personal bereavements. These were matters upon which the English could sincerely appreciate Hugo's sentiments. Three years after the Contemplations, Hugo brought forth a series of even more provocative poems, which has since gained recognition as his chef d'oeuvre. Having written a number of petites épopées, narrative and descriptive pieces on historical subjects, he determined to combine and work them into a poetical history of the world, which should go under the ambitious title of La Légende des siècles. The first two volumes of this gigantic survey were published both in Paris and London in 1 8 9 7 La Légende offered, in its own way, almost as much of a challenge to the English as Les Misérables was to do three years later. The new poems could not be judged as Hugo's lyrics had been judged by Father Prout, as idle webs of fancy "woven for a day's delight," nor could they be read as the elegiac Contemplations had been read. The philosophy of La Légende was difficult to comprehend, and even when it was elucidated it was found to conflict sharply with English religious thought. For this very reason, it required serious and vigorous criticism. As Notre Dame had immediately forced comparison with Scott, the Légende now brought Hugo to a level where English critics had to compare his poetry with Tennyson's. The most vehement English protests against La Légende were inspired by outraged piety and Anglican zeal. J . M. Ludlow, an anti-Papist of the Kingsley school, led the attack on it in Macmillan's Magazine, which was at that time controlled by the Broad-Church advocates David Masson, F. D. Maurice, and Kingsley himself. Ludlow repudiated Hugo's vision almost exactly as Mazzini and the Printing Machine critic had repudiated Hugo's poetry in the 1830's—because it was " m a terialistic" and vain. Ludlow observed:

140

Hugo in the Channel Islands

Christ's Gospel, according to M. Victor Hugo, is worn out. In its place he presents us with a gospel of—balloons, . . . [with] the overcoming of gravity as the crowning triumph of human progress. . . . He has believed in himself, and not in God . . . [and] because the true spiritual heaven always fled his grasp, he has made for himself a gross material heaven. 98

Yet this was no more than Mr. Ludlow expected, for he knew that Hugo had "repeatedly semi-deified himself in his poetry under the superbly arrogant name of 'Olympio,' " and he knew, above all, that Hugo was a Frenchman—"the product of his age and country, where freedom, reverence, the Bible, are wanting alike." 9 0 Like all "writers sprung from the bosom of Romanism," Hugo was a Pagan, who only "happened to have a Christian mythology instead of a Greek or Sanskrit one." 100 An even more vigorous attack than Ludlow's, but inspired by the same feeling and couched in almost identical terms, appeared in the British Quarterly Review in July of the following year. 1 0 1 A curious feature of the English criticism of La Légende was the objection to "indecencies" in the poems. This later became a favorite cavil against Hugo's novels, but it is rather astonishing to observe that both Ludlow and the Saturday Review warned English readers that these poems "contain many a passage which the husband will not read to his wife, nor the son to his mother." 102 The English protested not only against the religious philosophy of the new work, but against its general intention and plan. As might be expected, the Westminster immediately examined its philosophical structure, and pointed out that the title should have been "Legends of the Ages." Plainly Hugo had endeavored to give an appearance of suggested by the poems lection of ballads, lyrical which . . . have but the

unity to his book which would never be themselves. . . . They are simply a colpieces, narratives in verse, and reflections, slenderest connexion, and neither in form

Hugo in the Channel Islands

141

nor contents deserve the high sounding name of the Legend of the Ages. The audacity of its pretensions throws into the shade the audacity of the poetical images . . . in the poems. 103

The Saturday reviewer struggled in vain to elicit a coherent message from the book, just as he had struggled with Ce que dit la bouche d'ombre. He finally came to the conclusion that "the author may persuade himself that he has a profound philosophical meaning, but in the moment of production he is thinking as little as his fortunate reader of contributing to the early suppression of Satan." Hours of patient study could not convince him that Le Petit Roi de Galicia had any clearer "moral purpose" than that of proving "that when 120 people are engaged in a murder, it is desirable that a benevolent person who wishes to interfere should be more than a match for them all." 104 Even those who took the historical plan seriously found themselves unable to agree with Hugo's Weltperspektiv. The picture was too one-sided, too uniformly and unnecessarily gloomy; Hugo was accused of "wading backwards and forwards up and down the centuries" to find suitable examples of bloodthirsty tyrants, bandits, profligate emperors and harrowing crimes. 105 La Légende provoked comparison with Tennyson's poems, but in no instance did it gain preference over them. Ludlow pictured the poets as two mighty men who had started from the same point in the panorama of history: but Tennyson had gone uphill, and Hugo downhill. 100 The British Quarterly reviewer, a strong believer in Tennyson's "beauty, and good, and truth, which together form the unity of the perfect," discovered, alas! that Hugo—and, in general, "the French" —forgot to include "good, and truth." As a result, he concluded, "in Mr. Tennyson's hand a blade of grass yields beauty that M. Hugo's titanic power cannot obtain from a universe in his crucible." 1 0 7 As a rule, criticism of Hugo's poetry had little or no effect on his English prestige. The early lyrics had remained inac-

142

Hugo in the Channel Islands

cessible to the great mass of readers, and even those who were supposed to know had discussed them perfunctorily and with timidity. But the unfavorable publicity given to La Légende in 1 8 J 9 and i 8 6 0 had, I believe, an unfortunate effect on his general reputation. The religious "blasphemies" of La Légende were still remembered in England in 1862, when the even more pernicious social "blasphemies" of Les Misérables began to cause alarm. A writer in the genteel St. James's Magazine f o r instance, recoiling at the terrible onslaught of Les Misérables, recalled that Hugo had, in his Légende, "aroused equal horror and ridicule by the subversive theories he advocated." 1 0 8

CHAPTER

SEVEN

"Les Misérables" in

England

(1862-1863) in 1862 appeared what was to be Hugo's most widelyread novel, the story of Valjean the criminal reclaimed by kindness, Les Miserables. In England this work became so well known that it almost effaced the memories—already dim — o f Notre Dame; during the rest of the century it was regarded as Hugo's chief claim to renown, the work by which his reputation must stand or fall.* We must therefore follow its fortunes with some care and minuteness. EARLY

French editions of the monumental romance were published in April, 1862, by Verboeckhoven and Lacroix of Brussels and by W. Jeffs of London. Hugo is said to have delayed the publication until it could be brought out simultaneously in nine languages; however, we may assume this to be legend as the English translation appeared several months after the original. The publication of the ten-volume French editions began in April and took most of the summer; the translation appeared on October 3 1 . Yet it is entirely possible that a delay, with the purpose of whetting the public appetite, may have been intended. For the Edinburgh Review recorded many extra-literary appeals and publisher's devices which were used to heighten public interest and eagerness: "whisperings" about official disapproval, significant references to its publication in Brussels rather than Paris, rumors and advertisements in news* " T o the present generation of English readers," observed a w r i t e r in Blackwood's in 1 8 6 6 , " V i c t o r H u g o has come out of the general w o r l d of f a m e into individual acquaintance rather by 'Les Misérables' than by any of his previous productions; and La Esmeralda and her wild protector are k n o w n to the great mass rather as traditions than as actual realities." 1

144

"Les

Misérables"

papers. " T h e u n k n o w n Misérables,"

observed the

Edinburgh,

"acquired b y anticipation the charm of forbidden f r u i t . "

2

H o w e v e r the reputation of the novel was acquired, it is at least certain that its fame, by the autumn of 1 8 6 2 , was v e r y great. It was said that the English publishers H u r s t & Blackett had such confidence in it that they paid Lacroix £ 1 6 , 0 0 0 f o r the right to publish the English translation.*

3

Another Lon-

don firm ventured into the market with an entire volume of illustrations f o r it. 4 Late in 1 8 6 3 , a writer in Temple gave his opinion that "Les

Misérables

Bar

has been read b y p r o b -

ably a wider circle of readers than any other [ n o v e l ] of the century."s H o w e v e r , it seems to me that the price of the early editions must have been an obstacle to any really wide circulation in England. 6 It was not until the era of the sixpenny novel that H u g o ' s romances, or indeed anyone's romances, reached a v e r y large reading public. F r o m 1 8 6 2 to 1 8 7 4 , when no edition cheaper than five shillings was available, its circulation must have been largely through libraries or among the wealthy. In 1 8 8 7 , however, the novel was offered at a shilling b y George * The truth of this rumor, which appeared in St. James's Magazine, May, 1862, must be doubted. According to the Bookseller and the Publishers Circular (1862— 1 8 6 4 ) only four editions of the English translation were issued before 1874. Hurst & Blackett's publication, translated by Lascelles Wraxall with the assistance of M. Alphonse Esquiros, was offered first in October, 1862, in three octavo volumes— "volumes of f a r more than average novel-volume length, comprising, in fact, the whole ten volumes of the original"—priced at 3 1 s 6d. The second edition, similar to the first, appeared in November, 1862, at the same price. A third edition, revised but still in three volumes and costing 31$ 6d, appeared in January, 1 8 6 3 . In March, 1 8 6 3 , Dulau advertised a " n e w and cheap edition" of the original French version, which had cost jos in 1862, at 35s in ten duodecimo volumes; but the price of the English translation was maintained at the high level until May, 1864. The fourth Hurst & Blackett edition, illustrated by Millais, and revised so as to contain only 486 pages, was offered in one octavo volume at 5s in May, 1864, and f r o m then on I find no record of an edition until 1874. Even at the high prices maintained during 1862 and 1 8 6 3 , Hurst & Blackett would have had to sell a phenomenal number of copies to justify a purchase price of £ 1 6 , 0 0 0 ; and the strong disapproval which the novel encountered in the English press must have been an insuperable obstacle to any such sale. 7

"Les

Misérables"

145

Routledge and by Ward & Lock; between 1887 and 1897 seven editions were brought out by four publishers, 8 and Routledge alone printed j 1,000 copies, 42,000 of which were offered at a shilling. 9 Les Misérables, because of its length, could not become a "sixpenny novel," but it did reach its widest circulation at low prices, and long after its first appearance. The translator, Lascelles Wraxall, had a difficult and a thankless task. His work was done carefully and moderately well, yet it failed to reproduce Hugo's prose style, and failed to conform to the rigid English standards of taste. The Athenaeum, for instance, accorded it "a faithfulness to the original which is sometimes rather offensive." 10 A Cornhill Magazine reviewer accused Wraxall of "a breach of literary delicacy in the omissions he has made" if he had not secured Hugo's permission, and then impaled the unfortunate translator on the horns of a dilemma by stating that " i f such permission has been given, there has been great indiscretion in not using it more thoroughly." 1 1 Wraxall, apparently, could not be right under any circumstances.* Yet in certain respects his work had the advantage over the French editions. For Jeffs and Lacroix were charged with "tricks of book-making"; and many purchasers of their ten volumes must have agreed with the Athenaeum's complaint, "It is not pleasant to pay so high a price for so many pages of blank paper." 1 3 The long digressions seemed even longer in the ponderous French editions, where one of them might occupy almost an entire volume. In English, three volumes were found sufficient to contain the novel, and as the years went on the number of volumes continued to decrease. Indeed, it is probable that the most popular editions of Les * A n o t h e r of Hugo's translators, James K e n n e y , gave a plaintive and t o u c h i n g description of his experience in p u t t i n g Hernani

in English: " [ w i t h ] Excited p r e j u -

dice staring me in f r o n t , and impatient zeal f o r a worthier poet t r a m p l i n g hard upon me in the rear, w i t h the laurel prepared f o r him, and the condemned n i g h t cap f o r me, I was at length jostled into the presence o f m y judges. . .

12

146

"Les

Misérables"

Misérables have been the one-volume abridgements, and their popularity is not to be explained merely by the difference in price. 14 If Les Misérables had a great success in England, as Hurst & Blackett expected and as some writers have claimed, it succeeded against very heavy odds. For the novel was greeted by a veritable chorus of disapprobation from the English press—a great and sustained clamor of dispraise which lasted four years. A t the very outset of the publication, warnings were sent out from the Athenaeum office; very unfavorable notices from other periodicals soon followed, and by the summer of 1863 the novel had been effectually damned by every English literary authority except Swinburne and the Quarterly Review. There was a curious unanimity about this criticism, which leaves us with the impression that one had only to be English to find in Les Misérables sensationalism, prosiness, indecency, hollowness, and untruth. In order to appreciate the vehemence of English disapproval, we must form some idea of the scope of Hugo's endeavor, and consider what the English expected of him. "It is his influence as a social and political teacher," pronounced the Edinburgh, "it is the world-wide circulation of his pernicious book . . . that have imposed on us the duty of judging him." In Les Misérables Hugo turned from the minor humanitarian problem of capital punishment with which he had formerly been preoccupied, and attacked the very foundations of European judicial practice. In the case of Valjean, les galères font le galérien: guilt lies not with the sinner but with the law. In the case of Fantine, prostitution is caused not by individual corruptness but by exigencies created by the social order. According to Hugo's teaching, social evils are created and fostered by society itself, and they must be remedied by changing the institutions of society, not by punishing the individual. There was then a very real, a very considerable challenge to the status

"Les

Misérables"

147

quo in Les Misérables, and no English humanitarian—which is to say, no good Victorian—could disregard it. Of the Englishmen who gave serious attention to Hugo's challenge, the majority were predisposed to doubt or disbelieve, but we know that certain of the more progressive thinkers approached the work with eagerness and enthusiasm. John Morley, for instance, tells us in his Recollections that he was mastered by the literary Titan of that age, . . . stirred to the depths f r o m first to last by the noble, tender, elevated, and pitying moral pulse that beat in his verse or prose. Voices of the most energetic and most imaginative genius since Byron and Shelley, Mazzini and Victor H u g o imparted activity, elevation, and generous breadth of cosmopolitan outlook to the most ardent spirits of the new time in our own island. 16

George Meredith, another "ardent spirit," wrote his friend Maxse in June, 1862, to urge him, "Read 'Les Misérables,' if you can get it. Six volumes are out. It is conceived in pure black and white. It is, nevertheless, the master work of fiction of this century—as yet. There are things in it quite wonderful." 1 7 Perhaps Meredith had been introduced to Les Misérables by his fellow-lodger at 16 Cheyne Walk, Algernon Charles Swinburne. Swinburne had been an admirer of the French poet since his public-school days, when a broad-minded Eton tutor, Henry Tarver, had given him Le Roi s'amuse and Lucrèce Borgia to read. The latter play, says his biographer Lafourcade, "excited Swinburne considerably." 1 8 Les Châtiments seem to have excited him even more: Swinburne tells us that he used to repeat to himself whole pages of Hugo's invective as he walked the beach between Bonchurch and Shanklin. 19 In 1862 the young poet read Les Misérables with keen interest, and reviewed the volumes as they appeared for the Spectator, a weekly which, according to Gosse, had "begun to take the foremost place in England as an organ of intellectual activity." 20 This commentary (which is, incidentally, the first

148

"Les

Misérables"

specimen of Swinburne's mature prose) is unique among his writings on Hugo for its critical prudence. He objected at once to the social philosophy: Surely it is false to infer that laws and manners do in any eminent degree create a social damnation. Allowing that Jean Valjean was punished beyond his due, and so brutalised by punishment, we may yet fairly say that the era of Draconian legislation is past. . . . The true preventive for all crimes that arise from necessity is the simple expedient of an efficient poor law, which M. Victor Hugo, like most Frenchmen not men of science, would probably regard with horror. 21

As he read further in the work, Swinburne came to think better of it, and in his third review we find him apologizing for "snarling and nibbling at the heels of a great theory." Yet the argument never convinced him, and his last article, on Victor Hugo's Philosophy, was not only a refutation of the thesis, but a denial of Hugo's qualification to deal with criminals at all. 22 In matters relating to literary method, however, Swinburne did not show the same critical acumen. Hugo seemed to him "the one supremely great modern dramatist"; and the style of Les Misérables—"that old miraculous style of his, that perfection of touch"—so intoxicated him that he found in the book —what no one else has found, and what is certainly not there, —"realism": The loftiest form of life and the noblest kind of excellence a book can attain is to recall . . . the place and likeness of a man. . . . Such a place, it seems to us, we must assign to this book. It has . . . the breath of human life and the form of human work; it is of a high and rare kind, not to be had for the asking. 23

Toward the end of his series of reviews, Swinburne occasionally came close to the dithyrambic style of his later eulogies of Hugo, and it is worth noticing that in these passages he left Les Misérables, and turned to Les Contemplations and La Légende des siècles.

"Les

Misérables"

149

These articles gained for Swinburne the approbation of the Master himself : Hugo wrote to Richard H u t t o n , editor of the Spectator, and having ascertained who the reviewer was, wrote to Swinburne to congratulate him upon his "interest in philanthropic questions." The English poet replied by asking H u g o to accept the dedication of his new poem, Chastelard.* Thus began the literary friendship of Hugo and Swinburne—a friendship nourished for the most part only by correspondence, and which did not greatly influence the work of either poet. 24 Swinburne never ventured to attack any feature of Hugo's work again; indeed, he seems to have felt ashamed of his early strictures on Les Misérables. Gosse, who discovered the authorship of the Spectator reviews, observed: " H e was careful to make not the slightest reference to [them] in later years, doubtless because the tone . . . seemed cool and even carping to him when once he had resigned himself to the attitude of regarding Victor Hugo as a deity, immune from censure." f 25 If the Spectator held the "foremost place" among the critical arbiters, it is rather surprising that Swinburne's recommendations should have had so little influence on the English press. Very unfavorable notices of Les Misérables appeared in at least a dozen prominent reviews, while only one authority agreed with Swinburne's judgment, and this one was, oddly enough, the Quarterly Review. That such radicals as Meredith, Morley, and Swinburne should exhibit a sympathetic "interest in philanthropic questions" was hardly surprising, but it must have considerably shocked the public when the Quarterly, that Gibraltar of Toryism, the ancient defender of English morality * Swinburne was somewhat taken aback by H u g o ' s reply: he told his f r i e n d Milnes t h a t he had not expected his articles to come to H u g o ' s a t t e n t i o n : "Si j'eusse su qu'il devait lire [ces articles] j'aurais craint de lui avoir d é p l u en m ' a t t a q u a n t aux philosophes; j'ai aussi u n peu n a r g u é en passant la v e r t u publique, la d é m o c r a t i e vertueuse." 2 6 t A n o t h e r member of Swinburne's circle t u r n e d his a t t e n t i o n t o Les Misérables. J o h n E v e r e t t Millais executed some notable drawings w h i c h were incorporated in 2 H u r s t & Blackett's later e d i t i o n s . '

1

5°

"Les

Misérables"

and still the refuge of popular belief, reversed its old opinion of Hugo and came forward to defend his iconoclastic novel Les Misérables. The Quarterly's review, published in October, 1862, reflects Swinburne's opinion to a considerable degree: it brought the same objections against Hugo's social doctrine, but showed a similar respect for his good intentions and for his style. Les Misérables was represented as "the work of two writers—the one a poet, the other a system-monger," and the reviewer protested, "So great . . . is the injury which the social and political quack has done to his colleague, the poet, that many critics have been thrown . . . off the scent." He for one would avoid these pitfalls; he would "find out what was beautiful in the book before criticising its defects." And he found much honest toil, and many noble aspirations. . . . By no writer since the time of Rabelais have the capabilities of the French language been set forth to such advantage—never before have so much bone and muscle been laid bare. . . . Qualities such as these are not of such common occurrence that we should treat their possessor with sarcasm and contempt because he indulges at times in extravagances which test the patience of the reader. 28

What sudden access of charity led the Quarterly to qualify Hugo's sociological nonsense as "extravagance"? Swinburne's reluctance to "nibble at the heels of a great theory" is certainly reflected in this criticism. Y e t in the 1830's the Quarterly had not merely nibbled, it had growled like a true English bulldog, and had taken a substantial bite out of Hugo's reputation. To readers whose memory reached back twenty-five years, the Quarterly's new attitude seemed rather incongruous. Mr. Cyrus Redding, writing in the New Monthly Magazine, came forward in 1866 with certain insidious conjectures to explain the change of front: Les Misérables has been praised to the utmost tether of those diurnal critics and trading artists that deal their laudation in proportion to

"Les Misérables" the balances of the advertising accounts of publishers. The Whig "Edinburgh Review" has dealt with it in just terms, and the Tory "Quarterly," as of old, has taken a view just the reverse of its political antagonist, as might be expected, dealing out laudation on the writer and his school. . . . The new editor, whoever he may be . . . in his eagerness to combat the opinions of the "Edinburgh," as of old, upon all and every topic, must needs laud "Les Miserables" and its school. . . . The masters of French tragedy, Dumas and Hugo . . . were most "particularly damned" . . . in the old time. The "Quarterly" enumerated twelve of their works, and then consigned them . . . to a different fate from that lofty elevation now apportioned to them, and those of Hugo more particularly. Editors should possess medium memories; . . . should remember that a conviction of themselves in their own pages is awkward. 29

Mr. Redding's explanation, unfortunately, is not very helpful. It is impossible to believe that the Quarterly reversed its opinion because of advertising accounts, for it carried no advertising; it is equally impossible to believe the reversal a consequence of the Edinburgh's review, for the Quarterly reviewed the novel three months before the Edinburgh. To counterbalance these two early recommendations of Les Misérables there were unfavorable comments, varying only in the degree of their violence, from the Edinburgh, the Athenaeum, the Cornhill, the Westminster, Blackwood's, Eraser's, Temple Bar, St. James's Magazine, the Eclectic Review, the Home and Foreign Review, and the British Quarterly Review. This is indeed a parade of authorities: and we may conclude that Les Misérables took, so to speak, the census of English opinion. In the course of the discussion, certain uniform English objections against Hugo were crystallized and established, and they had a permanent effect on his prestige. Most universally condemned of all the features of Hugo's novel was the philosophical doctrine which it promulgated: the argument against existing social institutions and laws. This was attacked in several ways. Many critics simply refused to

ij2

"Les Misérables"

believe the argument because they could not believe the characters lifelike or representative of the criminal class. A Cornhill reviewer, for instance, judged that "such a convict as Valjean, such a 'social evil' as Fantine, such a policeman as Javert, are obviously types created by the caprice of imagination." 30 Others scoffed at the "hollowness" of the argument, emphasizing its appeal to the emotions.31 Blackwood's hit upon the device of letting Hugo refute himself, judging that a mere paraphrase of the doctrine would be sufficient to damn it: "Society is to blame for tolerating prisons where innocent but unfortunate men enter, to quit them hardened ruffians. Society is to blame for not acknowledging that wretched women take to the streets to prove their virtue. We can make out no other teaching." 32 The most effective criticisms, however, regarded the moral effect of Hugo's "lesson," and warned against its dangerous influence. A Westminster reviewer pointed out the dangers with admirable clarity: T h e scope of V i c t o r Hugo's teaching . . . appears to be that vaguest, easiest, oldest lesson of second-class morality, that " s o c i e t y " is responsible for the errors and wrong-doings of each individual member. . . . Nothing can be more . . . dangerous than the professedly moral and philosophical doctrine, which would shift the entire burden of each man's and woman's responsibility to the shoulders of society and circumstances in general, . . . exaggerate grievously the power of condition and circumstance, and put out of sight altogether the responsibility and the free will of the individual. 13

This criticism has a curious modernity: is it not substantially the same charge made by the twentieth-century Humanists? The Edinburgh likewise opposed the dangerous teachings of Les Misérables with great vigor: T h e author . . . has planted the wilderness of sin and crime with trees which produce the growth of Heaven. In our penal cells, and in the shame of our streets, is to be found the stuff of which angels are made. If the transformation sometimes fails to take place, it is that we are too sparing of our indulgence. . . . "Les galères font le

"Les

Misérables"

galérien." B u t what matters it, since out o f galériens saints are so easily manufactured? W h y should youth struggle to avoid the first taint o f sin, if you teach that one may wallow knee-deep in the mire and keep the inner self unspotted before G o d ? . . . T h e c o n v i c t may have been better fed, better housed, and b e t t e r clothed, than many o f the struggling thousands who would starve rather than steal even a loaf; and . . . for some of these t h a t secondary punishment o f the world's contempt and mistrust, which a specious philanthropy would abolish, has had, maybe, more preventive virtue in it than the menace o f a comparatively c o m f o r t a b l e prison. 3 4

The Edinburgh

immediately noticed that H u g o had a double

purpose in Les Misérables:

he had tried to combine an exciting

story with a lesson in social philosophy, and make each help to support the other. By doing this, the reviewer observed, he made himself amenable to two tribunals. N e i t h e r can absolve him. As a social philosopher, he stands convicted o f having pressed into the service of his cause incidents and characters which could only be tolerated in the wildest work o f fiction. As a novelist, every literary judge must condemn him f o r having degraded his pen into a mere instrument of party warfare, for having defiled his pages with indecent pleasantries, and burdened them with ponderous pedantry. 3 5

Hugo's work did, in truth, become entangled in a very real dilemma. The critics went to great pains to refute his argument. But the larger tribunal of the reading public paid little attention, I believe, to these graver matters of social doctrine: it judged the story, and the story alone. The Westminster,

after

refuting Hugo's argument, had predicted that " t h e world . . . will prefer to estimate the book in a manner which will allow a warmer recognition of its merits as a work of art and a romance."

3(i

It was right. The public read Les Misérables for the

story; the main objections to the social "lesson" were that it got in the way of the story, that it made Hugo's prose aphoristic rather than narrative, and, chiefly, that it coagulated in tedious disquisitions. The style of Les Misérables was called "tremendously prosy"

"Les

Misérables"

and "mystically oracular" by the Athenaeum,37 "vague and indefinite" by the Home and Foreign Review;38 it was said by the Cornbill to have "a perpetual strut and swagger," 39 and the Edinburgh wound up its long tirade by remarking that "the style in which these things are written is of a piece with the disordered violence of the intellect which gives them birth." 40 Hugo's liking for such words as ombre, infini, gouffre, immensité, and his enormous extension of their meanings, always baffled his translators and tended to make his works incomprehensible to the English. In Les Misérables, with its social "lesson," it seemed especially unpardonable of Hugo not to have let his reader know exactly what he meant. A British Quarterly reviewer uttered what seems to me a truly universal reproach when he called Hugo's prose "that cloudy language of the gods which to a simple mortal conveys little else than an unpleasant suspicion that the writer is making a fool of you." 4 1 It was indeed a "language of the gods," and the English could not but regard it with a certain awe. Even the severest critics of the sociological "nonsense" of Les Misérables admitted, though with reluctance, that the author had a " T i tanic" power of writing. "One cannot laugh comfortably at the gambols of a giant," observed a Blackwood's reviewer: "What if he should come too near where we ourselves are standing?" 42 As in Notre Dame, the English appreciated the "bone and muscle laid bare," the "gigantic" power and force in Les Misérables more than they did the beauties or felicities of Hugo's style. The average Englishman, as I have remarked, read Les Misérables for the story. The greatest obstacle to his enjoyment of the story was not the social "lesson," nor the oracular style, but the inordinate amount of digression. Les Misérables originally appeared in ten volumes: a good abridgement of it can give the whole story, passing over none of the determinative incidents, in one octavo volume. The subtrahend consists of passages on the sewers of Paris, French slang, convents, Waterloo, and

"Les

Misérables"

other topics—digressions "not uninteresting" in themselves, as the Westminster justly observed: " T h e fault lies in their being wmplaced." 4 3 " A s likely as not," complained a writer in Temple Bar, "at the most interesting moment, a whole 'book' will be interposed upon some collateral topic; or, at the very best, two or three chapters upon all things in the heaven above or in the • • earth »» ^^ beneath which have any analogy to the impending crisis. The digression on the battle of Waterloo particularly o f fended the English. In our opinion [ H u g o had written] a chain of accidents governed both captains at Waterloo; and when destiny, that mysterious accused, enters upon the scene, we judge like the people, that artless judge. . . . Buonaparte, victor at Waterloo, did not harmonize with the law of the 19th century. . . . It was time f o r this vast man to fall; his excessive weight in human destiny disturbed the balance. . . . He got in God's way. 4 5

The poet thought he was merely expressing his admiration for Napoleon, but the remark was regarded as an insult to English military prowess, and a blasphemous slur on orthodox religion. Blackwood's reviewer judged that the writer who could account f o r the fall of Napoleon by saying "il gênait D i e u " must be one so intrepid in silly bombast, so willing to sacrifice every consideration to paltry " e f f e c t , " that he could never be fondly cherished in this country. The habitual irreverence with which modern French writers handle the most sacred themes, can alone explain the audacity of such a phrase . . . but what can explain its transcendent foolishness? 48

The Westminster and Fraser's Magazine paraphrased Hugo's explanation of Waterloo with elaborate satire, and the Quarterly openly accused him of paltering with the facts in order "to represent Napoleon . . . as a perfect military hero in command of perfect soldiers, and . . . to prove the reverse, as far as possible, regarding the opponents." * 47 * I believe the English critics were o v e r - t r u c u l e n t on this point. H u g o , f a r f r o m underestimating British valor, had said: " A l l o u r glorification is o f f e r e d to the E n g -

"Les

I56

Misérables*'

Perhaps the most characteristic English objection to Les Misérables was the one regarding Hugo's "indecency" in referring to the Deity and to social tabus. The passages which most offended English decorum were the digression on convents and the account of Famine's early life and abandonment by Tholomyès. As usual, the critics pointed to an international difference in taste here; the English criteria of what should or should not appear in print were felt to be much stricter than the French. The St. James's reviewer decided His cause is lost beforehand in this country. M. Hugo must have learned, through his long residence under the protection of British laws, that among us allusions to sacred things are sedulously avoided by writers of fiction; but, as if in defiance, he is more than ordinarily offensive through his wholly unnecessary blasphemy. . . . We recommend our readers to have nought to do with this book. . . . Its teaching would have the most pcrnicious effect on the minds of young people.48

The Athenaeum considered the account of Fantine's early life "a passage the gratuitous coarseness of which (to use the palest possible epithet) is, happily, alike remote from the conception or the sympathy of any decent English writer." 50 These two severe judgments referred to the French edition, and it is worth noting that the English translation did not arouse any such hostility. True, it contained "many passages and scenes" which the Eclectic reviewer, for instance, "would not willingly see before the eyes of the family"; 5 1 but actually almost all the "indecency" had been removed by Wraxall. 52 When in 1877 Alfred Tennyson addressed Hugo, in a sonnet, as "French

of the French,

and lord of human tears . . ."

lish soldier, the English army, the English nation; and if there must be a trophy, it is to England that this trophy is owing." 4 9 He praised the English army at the expense of Wellington, and Napoleon at the expense of Wellington; consequently his remarks should have given offense only to Wellington's hero-worshipers. The English critics attacked Tolstoi's War and Peace in a similar way.

"Les Misérables"

IJ7

he was using terms which all Englishmen thought they understood. It would have been impossible for anyone—for Tennyson himself—to explain exactly what he meant by "the French," yet this vague category passed current in England and took unto itself a shadowy meaning. We have already noted some of the associations which attached to the category, such as "French immorality," political instability, chauvinism, and the notion of "English Nature and French A r t . " The criticisms of Les Misérables were full of references to "the French." Specific features of the novel, such as its "immorality" or its "nationalistic" description of Waterloo, were regarded almost unanimously as typical of French writings, and Hugo was considered an average Frenchman, appealing to the tastes of his countrymen. 5 3 Commenting on Hugo's idolatry of Paris, a British Quarterly reviewer observed, "In an English after-dinner speaker, or spouter at elections, we should call this . . . fustian: the French think differently." 54 Blackwood's pretended to be amazed at Fantine's ostracism when it was discovered that she had an illegitimate child ; "Who would have supposed that female chastity was held in such esteem in Trance, that the fault of a poor artisan would be thus severely treated?" 55 A writer in St. James's proceeded, with absolute confidence that Englishmen would know what he meant, to draw an analogy between Les Misérables and a piece of French candy: The "Mysteries of Paris" were terrible enough, but diluted "Mysteries" like these, . . . which possess all the vice w i t h o u t the added interest of incident, are intolerable. The writer w h o fosters such a taste ranks no higher than the workmen w h o invent the loathsome chocolate condiments that disgust every honest-minded Englishman who pays a visit to the Palais-Royal. 5 6

It was only after reading Les Misérables, I believe, that the English began to think of Victor Hugo as the "representative Frenchman." The idea had not crystallized before, because Hugo had never before gained such prominence. Readers of

"Les

I58

Misérables"

Notre Dame had thought of Hugo as a great story-teller, or an exaggerator of Romanticism. Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné and Le Rhin had given them a glimpse of Hugo the Frenchman, but they had not become well known.* In the 18 jo's, Hugo's political partisanship rather obscured his role of French of the French. But in Les Misérables the English found all their old French associations: the "immorality," the unhealthy preoccupation with "forbidden" subjects, the "artificiality," the "exaggeration," the excited gestures of the author when on political subjects, the "impracticality" of his new theories and the chauvinism—all, all were French. A n d we shall find that his next two novels, Les Travailleurs de la mer and L'Homme qui rit further established Hugo's position, and identified him yet more closely as "the representative Frenchman." * "Speaking g e n e r a l l y " on the subject of Hugo's Rbin, that " c l a p t r a p . . . and empty display

[have]

I'raser's observed in 1843

been, f r o m time immemorial, in

our opinion and in the opinion of most sober Englishmen, . . . part and parcel of the French c h a r a c t e r . "

57

CHAPTER

EIGHT

"Les Travailleurs de la mer" in England (1864-1866) THE IS6O'S and 1870's were years of great literary activity for Hugo ; he produced new works almost at the rate of one a year. Yet few of these had any effect on his reputation abroad. His first informal venture into autobiography, Victor Hugo raconté par un témoin de sa vie, came out in 1863. It was immediately translated, and offered at 21s by W . H . Allen & Co., but the English gave it a very chilly reception.'1' The very next year appeared William Shakespeare, a long and eulogistic essay which Hugo had originally intended as a preface to his son's French translation of Shakespeare: this was also offered to the public in an English version, but without avail. A few critics — F r a n k Marzials in the newly-established Reader, and also in the Athenaeum and Blackwood's Magazine—saluted it, with more respect than enthusiasm, but it never commanded any considerable attention. 1 Les Chansons des rues et des bois (1865) were reviewed only by G. H . Lewes, and they received no recommendation from him."|" These minor productions may be said to have decreased rather than increased Hugo's English prestige. "The author of Les Misérables," asserted Fraser's, "ought not to have published such ill-digested works as the 'Vie de Shakespeare' [sic], . . . They are borne up by the swell of the wave that follows the track of the greater work." 2 It is, indeed, remarkable that Victor Hugo raconté and William Shakespeare were translated at all; had it not been for the * Infra, pp. 2 4 4 - 2 4 5 . t Infra, pp. 2 4 0 - 2 4 } .

160

"Les

Travailleurs de la mer"

widespread discussion of Les Misérables, they would probably have passed unnoticed. The next work which had any effect on Hugo's English prestige was Les Travailleurs de la mer, published in March, 1866. This novel did not purport to be more than a novel (in the English phrase, a "work of fiction") ; it carried no challenge to the existing social order; it provoked much less discussion than Les Misérables, yet it seems to have pleased the English better. Les Travailleurs de la mer is peculiarly the product of Hugo's exile: it is a story of the Channel Islands, and is dedicated to "the rock of hospitality and liberty, . . . that portion of old Norman ground inhabited by the noble little nation of the sea: to the island of Guernsey, austere yet kind, my present refuge, my probable tomb." 3 Of all Hugo's representations of the English scene, this is the only one which has any real English flavor. For Cromwell and Marie Tudor, he had made a pretense of supplying local color, by citing ancient English authorities, but actually their textual background was as flimsy as the painted cardboard used in staging them.4 In Les Travailleurs, however, we find the results of Hugo's personal experience and observation during fourteen years of residence in the Channel Islands: the scene is not truly England, yet it has at least a semblance of English atmosphere.* The new novel, like Les Misérables, was first published in * T h e C h a n n e l Islanders, however, were not entirely pleased by H u g o ' s g i f t . A c cording to L é o C l a r e t i e , Les Travailleurs sont d é c h a î n é e s ; . . .

caused dissension in G u e r n s e y : " L e s haines

les uns admirent, les autres protestent. Le prologue sur les

îles de la M a n c h e [ N . B . — l a t e r published u n d e r the title L'Archipel

de la

Manche],

avec ses allusions à la piété, au piétisme des Guernesiens, soulève des tempêtes, indigne la colère des Puseyites. E t l'abondant Kesler intervient Guernsey,

[ N . B . — i n the Gazette

de

A p r i l , 1 8 6 6 ] p o u r montrer aux insulaires, tout ce q u ' a de flatteur p o u r l ' î l e

le f a i t que le r o m a n de H u g o s'y passe."

5

A l f r e d Asseline also f o u n d that " i l f a l l u t

secouer un peu les jersiais et les guernesiais [ s i r ] , que ce livre aurait du c o m b l e r d ' o r g u e i l ; " and he " i n t e r v e n e d " to explain its beauties to the Jerseyites in a similar manner. Asseline a c c o u n t s f o r the local hostility b y r e m a r k i n g , " c e n'était pas du patois n o r m a n d , c ' é t a i t de la belle langue f r a n ç a i s e ; le 'noble petit peuple de la m e r ' ne c o m p r i t pas très b i e n . "

6

"Les Travailleurs

de la mer"

161

French by Lacroix and Verboeckhoven of Brussels and by W. Jeffs of London. The French editions were followed almost immediately by an English translation, offered on April 7 by Sampson Low, Son & Marston, at 24s. Although executed by a well-known man of letters, W. Moy Thomas, and praised by G. H. Lewes at the expense of its original,7 this translation met with general disfavor among the critics; most of them thought it feeble and "wanting in imagination." 8 The public, however, seems to have been well enough satisfied, for the work had a large sale in England—a larger immediate sale, in fact, than Les Misérables. Low issued two editions, at 24s and 6s, in 1866; two more, illustrated by Doré, followed in 1867 and 1869; in 1870 three more, priced between zs and 3s, were brought out, and an eighth edition appeared in 1872. 9 Of course this record cannot compare with that of Les Travailleurs in French, which ran to five editions in three months, 10 yet it indicates a very considerable success. Later in the century The Toilers of the Sea—such was the English title—circulated even more widely; it became a sixpenny novel in 1886, and from then until 1900 George Routledge, to name only one of five publishers who handled it, printed the novel at the rate of approximately 3,250 copies a year. 1 1 In the case of The Toilers, Hugo's popularity in England seems not to have been very accurately reflected in the Press. The publisher's records indicate that the public liked the novel, yet the majority of reviewers judged against it from the start. Only one critic, John Morley, showed real enthusiasm; two others recommended the novel in a perfunctory, unconvincing manner, and four reviewers expressed strong disapproval of it. Les Misérables had furnished the English critics with a great many objections to Victor Hugo—had given them, in fact, a disposition to doubt and scoff a priori. Having once identified Hugo with the characteristic "French" faults of impractical theorizing, prosiness, exaggeration, etc., the critics naturally

162

"Les Travailleurs de la mer"

approached Les Travailleurs with the expectation of finding them once more. The new novel was strikingly different, and some of the old faults were simply not to be found in it; yet even while admitting this fact the critics concentrated attention on the old objections, if only because they knew them so well. It resulted that most of the critics admitted a preference for Les Travailleurs over Les Misérables, but without commending either novel. One thing was clear: Les Travailleurs was superior to Les Misérables because Hugo was better fitted to write of Nature than of Society. His poetic temperament found a suitable theme in the struggle of the "Toiler" Gilliatt against the elements. But this same temperament had shown itself inept and powerless in wrestling with the sociological problems of Les Misérables. The Athenaeum stated this decision clearly: "To write an attack upon the elements it needs a poet—M. Hugo is every inch a poet; but to head an onslaught on society we have need of a philosopher—would that we could call M. Hugo by that name!" 12 Most critics illustrated the difference by comparing the theories of the two novels, and finding Gilliatt more lifelike and natural than Valjean or the Bishop. John Morley, for instance, stated that Hugo's new subject was "the most suitable for his own genius that he has ever chosen," and based his assumption on the fact that Jean Valjean . . . and the good Bishop . . . were thoroughly artificial. Gilliatt, on the contrary, is v e r y c a r e f u l l y and elaborately drawn, but all his traits are simple and natural. . . . T o draw a man w i t h great muscular strength, and great ingenuity and great patience of the mechanical order, is easier . . . than the conception of a victim of a supposed social injustice which is no injustice at all. 1 3

The chief reason for the superiority of the new work over Les Misérables—and this, I believe, was felt by the reading public quite as much as by the critics—was that it aimed only to be a good story. No ill-digested theories, no social "lessons"

"Les Travailleurs de la mer"

163

were forced down the reader's throat, or impeded his pursuit of the hero's fortunes.* As Morley wrote in the Saturday Review: The story has that simplicity and that perfect finish which only the hand of a master can compass. . . . This plainest of stories is worked into genuine tragedy by an exercise of poetic power which, in some portions at least . . . has very rarely been surpassed in literature. 1 4

Blackwood's Magazine also recommended "the severe and simple action of the piece." 15 Some critics gave the new novel preference for less cogent reasons. The Eclectic reviewer liked Les Travailleurs because it was "not harrowing and heart-rending as 'Notre Dame,' . . . or 'Les Misérables' . . . We are glad, too, to find an entire freedom in the book from that French salaciousness of description, which frequently makes the pages of 'Les Misérables' simply disgusting." 16 This last was also the reason for Blackwood's preference. "In England, where all books are expected to enter the family," the "bad taste and false sentiment [of Les Misérables] . . . must always detract from its popularity." 1T On the whole, then, this simple tale of Guernsey, which made no pretense to better the condition of mankind, and offered only the appeal of a "work of fiction," pleased both the critics and the public more than Hugo's ambitious social novel had done. Hugo had more success in opposing Nature to man than in bringing man into conflict with Society. The much-appreciated simplicity of Les Travailleurs was achieved by personification— * F u r t h e r confirmation of this opinion may be f o u n d in t h e English c o m m e n t s on H u g o ' s preface, which a t t e m p t e d t o establish f o r Les Travailleurs a philosophical link w i t h Notre Dame and Les Misérables. Notre Dame, a c c o r d i n g t o H u g o , had " d e n o u n c e d " the ananke des dogmes—superstition; Les Misérables had "signalized" the ananke des lois—social p r e j u d i c e ; Les Travailleurs, he promised, would " i n dicate" t h e ananke des choses—the f a t a l i t y of N a t u r e . English critics were caref u l to extricate Notre Dame and Les Travailleurs f r o m this factitious chain of demonstrations, and they accused H u g o of inventing t h e t h e o r y a f t e r t h e novels had been w r i t t e n . 1 8

164

"Les Travailleurs

de la mer"

a very difficult literary art, in which Hugo had an almost u n canny skill. He had made of Nature a living, conscious force, and brought her on the stage as the antagonist of m a n ; exponents of classical order liked this direct and powerful opposition. This does not mean, however, that the English liked Hugo's view of Nature. Some readers were vastly impressed by the descriptions; Meredith, for instance, seems to have been quite carried off his feet: The Storm is amazing: I have never read anything like it. It is next to Nature in f o r c e and vividness. Hugo rolls the sea and sweeps the heavens; the elements are in his hands. He is the largest son of his mother earth in this time present. Magnificent in conception, unsurpassed—leagues beyond us all—in execution. N o t ( n u r Schade!) a philosopher, there's the pity. W i t h a philosophic brain, as well as his marvellous poetic energy, he would stand in the f r o n t rank of glorious men f o r e v e r . 1 9

But Nature never smiles in Les Travailleurs; she is ever malignant, and a constant persecutor of Man. This attitude inevitably failed to elicit a sympathetic response from a people steeped in the Wordsworthian tradition of Nature or in Keats's sensuous appreciation; the English were far more inclined to admire N a t u r e than to find fault with her. Even Morley, the warmest protagonist of the novel in England, objected that "the terrible side of N a t u r e . . . has most attraction for him. Watching the sea year after year in the land of his exile, Victor H u g o has seen in it nothing but sternness and c r u e l t y . " 2 0 For the Eclectic reviewer, Hugo's novel provoked comparison with Dante, yet he also protested, "Alas! in his perception of N a ture, M. H u g o never gets out of the 'Inferno!' " 2 1 It was not merely because of its uniform gloominess that the English objected to Hugo's Weltperspektiv; many considered it misty, distorted or hysterical. The London Times protested that it was "more like a disjointed succession of the visions of a distem-

"Les

Travailleurs

de la mer"

I6J

pered fancy than the connected thoughts of a true artist." G. H . Lewes, writing in the Fortnightly Review, observed:

22

"Lascivious winds," that have colossal joys composed of shadow, do not belong to Nature as conceived by rational minds; but they will be recognised by all Victor Hugo's readers. . . . [ I t is] more like an apocalypse than the vision of a healthy mind. . . . Fond as I am of the sea, . . . I never feel myself looking with his eyes.

Lewes, in fact, would not admit that the novel presented any real view of Nature; for him it was only a heaping-up of words, of "rhetoric which has more imagery than sense; . . . the Abyss, the Unknown, Night, the Shadows, and Immensity. . . . " - 3 In one respect Les Travailleurs was found almost as objectionable as Les Misérables. "Although this work contains less of digression, less of detail, less of prosiness," observed the Athenaeum, "enough of these peculiarities remain to make us sigh again for condensation." 24 Hugo had, indeed, unloaded upon his reader too many "tedious catalogues" of names, dates, and events. The Times reviewer compiled a very extensive list of extraneous matter—"a disquisition on sorcerers, . . . a notice of the ancient language . . . of the Channel, . . . Huguenot practices, . . . a chapter on fogs, . . . a dissertation on smuggling, . . . a palinode on lodging houses, . . . a passage on aristocratic pedigrees"—all of which had been "flung in crudely, to make up the requisite number of pages." 2 5 As usual, these digressions impeded the progress of the story, and it was for that reason that they were disliked. Their effect was described in very picturesque terms by a writer in Fraser's Magazine: The one object which M. Hugo keeps f a i t h f u l l y in view is the suspension of all human interest. . . . The poet's tedium is on as large a scale as his genius. His chapter on "les collaborations secrètes des éléments" can, in respect of its heaviness, never be surpassed.

166

"Les Travailleurs

de la

mer"

The reader's attention here is put upon the rack, and swoons repeatedly. . . . All that the author has ever thought about wind is heaped up . . . to burthen the narrative—troubling us, offending us, buffeting us in the face; we come out of this chapter in a dishevelled unseemly condition. 28

The novel was found guilty of other structural faults besides the digressions. Inasmuch as Hugo had not attempted to convey any "lesson" or thesis, the critics might well have overlooked the improbabilities of his plot; yet they were subjected to many unfavorable comments. 27 The motives and the characters of Gilliatt and Lethierry were not easily understood; to the Times, for instance, they seemed to present "contrasts opposed to experience." 2 8 Deruchette, the willful heroine, perplexed some English readers. She seems to have mightily displeased the Eclectic reviewer, who called her "a pretty characterless, pink-and-white thing, with a cap on, the very creature to fall in love with a Low Churchman." As a parting shot, he added "We seldom do like M. Hugo's women." 2 9 The Low Churchman himself, Ebenezer Caudray, was called by Lewes "the most ridiculous of clergymen." 3 0 But the greatest disappointment came at the end; there were certain features of the dénouement which the English simply could not stomach. Robert Louis Stevenson, describing the novel some years later in the Cornhill Magazine, absolutely refused to accept the catastrophe: When we have forgiven Gilliatt's prodigies of strength, . . . what is to be said to his suicide, and how are we to condemn in adequate terms that unprincipled avidity after effect, which tells us that the sloop disappeared over the horizon, and the head under the water, at one and the same moment? Monsieur Hugo may say what he will, but we know better; we know very well that they did not; a thing like that raises up a despairing spirit of opposition in a man's readers; they give him the lie fiercely, as they read. 31

To Fräset's the catastrophe seemed not impossible but—what was worse—ineffectual, "because Gilliatt . . . never called

"Les

Travailleurs

de la mer"

167

forth our human affections, and we only pardon him his suicide because we have no objection to his death." 3 2 The flippancy of this remark need not blind us to the fact that Gilliatt's suicide was considered in England a wretched coup de théâtre dragged in for sensational effect, and at the same time the most French fault in the novel. Les Travailleurs had been exonerated from some of the "characteristic" faults of its author "and his school," but Gilliatt's suicide added a new and altogether unpleasant French association to the concept of Hugo the representative Frenchman. In respect to suicide, there exists some difference between the French attitude and the English: overwhelming grief, heroism, or a point of honor are sometimes accepted as excusable motives for suicide in France, but the English are loath to admit any extenuating circumstances whatever for a "cowardly" evasion of responsibility. Now Hugo's heroes and heroines had been committing suicide for some thirty years before Gilliatt came on the scene—to name only a few of them, Hernani, Dona Sol, Triboulet, Javert—yet they had somehow escaped the wrath of Albion. Why Gilliatt's suicide should have been singled out for condemnation is rather difficult to determine. It is worth noting that in the plays suicide seemed more at home; it was part of the tradition, one of the trappings of melodrama, and the English almost expected it. With daggers, poisons, and counter-poisons always close at hand, with people falling to right and left sur le pavé, what wonder that an occasional life was self-taken? Javert, we may suppose, had been pardoned because he was a Frenchman, and could do as he liked. But Hugo had obviously gone out of his way to bring about Gilliatt's suicide. And the English critics blamed the act not only on Hugo's sensationalism, but on the mistaken French conception of honor. The Athenaeum wanted it clearly understood that although Gilliatt lived in Guernsey, he was no Englishman: "The hero is French, the heroine is French, the catastrophe is French." 3 3 Blackwood's affirmed that "in our

168

"Les

Travailleurs

de la

mer"

opinion, Gilliatt's way of escaping from . . . the last dilemma . . . is a cowardly and mean one; . . . but then we are English, and M. Hugo is French." 34 Clearly, there was to be no mistake about the nationality involved. Fraser's had denied that Gilliatt had ever "called forth human affections"; yet there is evidence that some Englishmen took his interests to heart, and hated to see him go. A c cording to S. P. Oliver, a neighbor of Hugo's in Guernsey, several people felt so badly about Gilliatt's suicide that they wrote reproachful letters to the Master, "pestering" him in much the same manner as English readers pestered Richardson about Clarissa Harlowe. One of them, " S . B . " of South Villa, Upper Norwood, sent Hugo an eloquent protest to the effect that Gilliatt's suicide showed "infidelity to his love." T o which, as S. P. Oliver stated in the Athenaeum (x 869), H u g o offered this in return: " T h e death of Gilliatt was simply caused by the despair and indifference to danger with which Gilliatt watched the departure of the vessel which bore away all that rendered life valuable to him." 3 5

That Hugo should have stretched his imagination so far merely to satisfy an English reader seems almost incredible, but it is even more astonishing to realize that Mr. Oliver took his explanation seriously. For he called the attention of Athenaeum readers to the fact that "critics have as yet failed to point out this final proof of Gilliatt's constancy." 3 6 Readers of romance are supposed to believe that almost anything can happen, but to believe that an excellent swimmer could allow the tide to rise over his head and drown him because he was preoccupied with other thoughts, would require a truly superhuman credulity. With the publication of The Toilers of the Sea began the collecting of Hugo's mistakes on English subjects—an exercise which gave the English no little amusement. St. Paul's devoted an entire article to Hugo's errors in L'Homme qui rit in 1869,

"Les

Travailleurs

de la mer"

169

and two larger collections were published in the 1890's by the Saturday Review, under the title Hugonica.37 In The Toilers, for example, Hugo had called the Firth of Forth the "falaise première des quatre," and confidently referred to a musical instrument used by the Scotch Highlanders, the "Bug-pipe." "Bug-pipe," cried Fraser's critic, Y e s , there it is, standing out in clear type, in this fifth edition of the book, and g i v i n g its name to a whole chapter. T h e mistake is so preposterous . . . that w e feel sure no writer of burlesque w o u l d have ventured upon such an absurdity; the fine satirist w o u l d certainly refrain f r o m caricaturing M . H u g o so grossly as he has caricatured h i m s e l f . 3 8

According to several biographers, Hugo was repeatedly informed by his Guernsey neighbors that he should have written "bag-pipe," and there is a tradition that tells us that such corrections so hurt Hugo's pride that he insisted the word was "bug-pipe." I give the anecdote here in the words of Mr. H. W. Wack, who had it from T. B. Banks, Hugo's stationer in St. Peter Port: T h o s e in G u e r n s e y w h o sprang f r o m the N o r t h C o u n t r y and w h o did not purpose s u b m i t t i n g to a burlesque upon a musical instrument w h i c h w a s so m u c h a part of their national life, protested, "Monsieur

Hugo,

bagpipe—bag—"

you "It

are w r o n g . . . . is b u g p i p e ! "

It is

retorted

bagpipe—bagpipe—

the poet, "because

I,

V i c t o r H u g o , poet, dramatist, peer of France, etc., say so. W h a t I w r i t e becomes right because I write it. . . . "

39

The authenticity of this story may be seriously doubted, but this has no importance compared with the fact that it circulated at all. It was, in fact, one of a considerable number of anecdotes illustrating Hugo's conceit which circulated in England and helped to limn the portrait of Sir Oracle. The mistakes in Les Travailleurs never hurt the popularity of the novel, however. The reviewers pounced upon them with a certain zest, because they were tired of the parade of erudition in the novel, but they were usually considered harmless

170

"Les Travailleurs

de la mer"

because Hugo had not, after all, attempted to demonstrate any thesis with them.40 Stevenson, it seems to me, spoke for the enlightened majority when he confessed that Hugo's "curious series of English blunders . . . affects us sometimes with a sickening uneasiness as to what may be our own exploits when we touch upon foreign countries and foreign tongues." 4 1

CHAPTER

"L'Homme

NINE

qui rit" in England (1867-1870)

AFTER accomplishing those two graceful tours de force Les Travailleurs and Les Chansons des rues et des bois, Hugo turned again to what he considered the serious work, the "mission" of his life. It was time for La Voix de Guernsey to make itself heard in Europe once more, for the evils of tyranny and oppression were still everywhere triumphant. In 1867 he produced another poem in the manner of Les Châtiments, on Garibaldi's defeat at Mentana, which he first entitled La Voix de Guernsey but later changed (showing infinitely better taste) to Mentana. This was translated by Sir Edwin Arnold, and published by Farrah in 1867, 1 but met with little success: Arnold's translation failed to improve a poem which had, like all Hugo's invective, no intrinsic appeal for the English anyway. T w o years later Hugo entered upon a far more ambitious program of instruction in political economy. His plan envisaged no less than three intimate "studies" of the aristocratic system; and he prefaced the first of them with this dismaying announcement: C'est en Angleterre que ce phénomène, la Seigneurie, veut être étudié, de même que c'est en France qu'il f a u t étudier ce phénomène, la Royauté. Le vrai titre de ce livre [ L ' H o m m e qui rit] serait l'Aristocratie. U n autre livre, qui suivra, pourra être intitulé la Monarchie. E t ces deux livres, s'il est donné à l'auteur d'achever ce travail, en précéderont et en amèneront un autre qui sera intitulé:

Quatrevingt—treize,2 Here were sad tidings indeed; and many Englishmen sighed with disappointment when they realized that they were in for

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

a whole course of "lessons" from the novelist. Fraser's critic confessed We took up the first of these four volumes . . . with lively anticipations of pleasure, for its predecessor, Les Travailleurs de la Mer, was a book which left echoes behind. That impossible and awful struggle with all the angry forces of nature had been set to music, as it were, in our brains by the wondrous art of Victor Hugo's rhythmic prose. . . . But our minds misgave us when we learnt . . . that of this book . . . the title properly speaking should be Aristocratie. . . . Now when we seek the relaxation of fiction and the pleasures of poetry and art, we do not love to have our teeth set on edge by a dish of French socialism at the hands of an old "Red." . . . » 3

We know how important relaxation and diversion were to the novel-reading public, and how frequently English readers had been irritated by the digressions and "lessons" which impeded their pursuit of Hugo's stories. It may be assumed at the very outset, then, that the English wished their author had written on a different subject, and in a different manner. L'Homme qui rit was intended as a "study," and Hugo emphatically insisted that it be judged as a study, yet it is impossible to understand how the extravagant romance, crammed with accident and coincidence, in which the characters typify nobody under the sun, could even pretend to study the evils of aristocracy. If a reader wished to carry away any coherent idea, he would have to re-read Gwynplaine's speech in the House of Lords, denouncing his fellow-aristocrats, and forget the rest of the book. Moreover, the details which make up the background are almost uniformly incorrect: they depict an England which existed only in Hugo's imagination.4 * It is interesting to observe the sequence of Fraser's opinions on H u g o ' s novels. Les Misérables had been very roughly handled; all Fraser's could hope was that it " m u s t soon be f o r g o t t e n . " Yet when Les Travailleurs appeared, Les Misérables seemed almost commendable by comparison, and Fraser's expressed solicitude lest the new work " d a m a g e the reputation . . . of the author of 'Les Misérables' among thinking readers." And now, faced with L'Homme qui rit, Fraier's turned about once more, and praised Les Travailleurs at the expense of the latest novel. Hugo's stock seems not to have been able to reach a definitive low in the Fraser's market.

"L'Homme

qui rit"

173

The announcement that By Order of the King (the English title) would appear as a serial story in Bradbury & Evans' magazine Once a Week in January, 1869, aroused eager expectation, which was further intensified by a four-month delay in publication. It is curious that Bradbury & Evans should have announced the novel at such an early date, for Hugo did not even finish writing it until April, and his quarrels with Lacroix the publisher delayed the publication in French until the 30th of that month. * By the time the translation was fairly under way, Bradbury & Evans had decided to retire from the publication of Once a Week. They were owners of another periodical—one with more than a century of tradition behind it, the Gentleman's Magazine, conducted by "Sylvanus Urban"—and they turned Hugo's novel over to Joseph Hatton, its editor, for publication in monthly installments.-!" E. S. Dallas, the editor of Once a Week, continued to supervise the translation, which was entrusted to Mrs. A. C. Steele, but Hatton took charge of its condensation—a very considerable task, as we shall see.5 I have described this sequence of events thus minutely because the translation of L'Homme qui rit caused a good deal of controversy in England, and the men involved in it were haled before the tribunal of public opinion. The first installment had scarcely been put in circulation, when the Athenaeum directed attention to it by predicting that much of the novel simply could not be translated into English. "The fierce sensual fancy of Josiane . . . cannot be printed in England unless toned down," declared the reviewer; " . . . N o London publisher can dream of printing the letter of the Duchess as it stands." u The work contained so many "stumbling blocks" * The first French edition appeared in London, which was noted by Hugo as a violation du traite. t Although the Gentleman's had lost much of its old-fashioned conservatism, it still stood a little apart from other English magazines; and it seems rather incongruous that Hugo's wildest fiction should have occupied a place once held by the writings of mighty Samuel Johnson.

174

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

of this sort that any translation, "to be adequate, would have to be indecent." 7 Joseph Hatton of course replied immediately, and urged Athenaeum readers not to be "alarmed." Finding "no difficulty in the way of presenting . . . a highly-finished version of 'L'Homme qui Rit' which shall in no wise be offensive to any lady or gentleman in the land," Mr. Hatton promised that "the story will not be mutilated. It will simply be condensed." 8 However, this comforting assurance did not prevent other reviewers from challenging the translation. Two weeks later Macmillan's Magazine predicted that "the picture is sure to be spoilt because the grossness which is of its very essence must necessarily be abandoned." 9 Again in October, when about half of the translation had appeared, it was attacked, and this time far more savagely, by the London Times: A translation of the work is going through the press . . . a translation . . . so imperfect that it is difficult to guess whether it is made by an Englishman who does not understand French or a Frenchman who does not understand English. . . . T h e bald outline of the strange and impossible tale, is all that any reader will obtain who does not comprehend the French original. . . . Who will fitly render many sentences which, coarse and offensive even in French, become utterly gross in plain English? 1 0

T w o days later (October 16) E. S. Dallas, who had considerable authority in the literary world, came forward to defend the translation in the same newspaper, pleading that "a critic who understands the amazing difficulty of Victor Hugo's style should be lenient to these slips," and praising Mrs. Steele.* He wrote, T h e earlier chapters came under my supervision, . . . I compared them most carefully with the original, and I was struck with the singular skill . . . and the felicity with which the difficulties of the French were now fairly met and now adroitly turned aside. . . . * T h e name of the translator was not d i v u l g e d , h o w e v e r , and it is quite comprehensible t h a t an E n g l i s h w o m a n involved in such a dispute w o u l d welcome che shelter o f a n o n y m i t y .

"L'Homme

qui rit"

175

I believe that the translation . . . will bear examination, and be accepted as uncommonly successful. 1 1

But the Times reviewer returned again to the attack on October 18, and insisted that this work, in its totality and as a correct transcript, can never be given in an English version to the reading public,—that its bold cynicism, broadening into open blasphemy, its coarseness, sinking into absolute nastiness, its ribald indecency, which, literally translated, might almost subject the publisher to prosecution, and its curiously idiomatic construction of style, altogether f o r m an insuperable bar to any such translation. 1 2

Dallas again replied, but this time in a conciliatory tone, and apparently with the intent of advertising the work: Victor Hugo's new novel is being translated into nearly every European language. In the face of all Europe your critic comes forward to declare that it is impossible to translate him. . . . It is true that some passages . . . must be omitted, that some sentences must be veiled; . . . but surely, . . . your critic . . . may allow that it has at least some merit . . . beyond that of giving the story. 1 3

The Gentleman's version, when it appeared, did not belie the assertions of either contestant; it was not indecent, but neither was it given "in its totality, . . . as a correct transcript." All that can be said with assurance of the controversy is that it gave the work a real succès de scandale. For nothing sells a novel so fast as the suspicion that one should not read it—and the suspicion need not even be well grounded. Boccaccio's Decameron, the Heptameron of Marguerite de Navarre, and other famous works have become the publishers' hardy perennials, not because of any widespread interest in the Renaissance, but because of a deep-rooted conviction that books which one is not supposed to read must be enjoyable. Besides this quarrel in London, we must notice an exchange of volleys between the publishers and Hugo himself. Before the serial publication had been completed, Hugo sent Joseph Hatton instructions for the three-volume edition that was to

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

follow it, and his letter indicates a certain dissatisfaction with the serial: Monsieur, Je ne sais pas l'anglais, et je l'ai prouvé. Une faute d'impression puisée dans un Dictionnaire, bug-pipe pour bag-pipe, a fourni, il y a quatre ans, à une certaine presse anglaise, à peu près la seule critique sérieuse qu'elle ait élevée contre les Travailleurs de la Mer. Je ne puis donc juger de votre traduction de L'Homme qui rit. Votre talent d'écrivain m'est hautement connu, et je suis convaincu que vous avez fait pour le mieux. Cependant je vous approuve de vouloir publier en librairie une traduction absolument complète. Mon livre n'est pas, à proprement parler, un roman; il veut instruire en même temps qu'intéresser, et il mêle au drame l'histoire et la philosophie. Les pages d'histoire et de philosophie sont donc très importantes, puisqu'elles expliquent le but de l'auteur, et je les recommande à votre excellent esprit. Plusieurs de vos estampes sont on ne peut mieux réussies. Croyez, Monsieur, à ma vive cordialité. VICTOR

HUGO. 1 4

Hatton offered the author a handsome apology; indeed, he acquitted himself of his task with a most extraordinary grace, and felt so justifiably proud of his answer and of Hugo's compliments that he printed them in the Gentleman's at the end of the serial. I had too much respect [he wrote to Hugo] for your great reputation to do more than accommodate your romance to the time which is thought sufficient for a serial tale in a magazine. In this revision, however, I have been occasionally influenced by a regard for the tastes of my own readers. Incidents and sayings, which look comparatively harmless in your subtle and delicate language, come out somewhat harsh and unfamiliar in the more inflexible words of our English tongue. . . . You are right in noticing the exclusion of some of your purely historical and philosophical pages. I only ventured upon these excisions where there was a profusion of riches, always leaving behind my presumptuous pen a trail of rhetorical fire, sparkling with epigrammatic meteors sufficient to illuminate the pages of a hundred books by ordinary writers. . . , 1 5

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

177

The condensation of L'Homme qui rit in the Gentleman's version was, in fact, very considerable indeed. Hatton presented less than a third of the full content—423 pages out of 1400—of Lacroix' four volumes; thirteen chapters are simply not to be found in the serial, and almost all the chapters included were condensed, sometimes beyond recognition. As for the translation itself, it is not easy to comprehend now what caused all the controversy. It contained obvious blunders—to mention a few of them, "the malicious man blooms hideously," "a swarm of black blisters struggled in obscurity," and that curious sentence which the Spectator found (as who would not?) "utterly baffling"—"You felt that the man had known the foretaste of evil which is the calculation, and the aftertaste which is the zero." Yet, after examining the Gentleman's version, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Hatton that it was both adequate and decent. The critics had predicted that Josiane's letter to Gwynplaine could not be printed; yet it was printed, and in terms which should have offended nobody: Y o u are hideous; I am beautiful.

Tu

You

belle.

are a player;

and I am a

es

duchess. I am the highest; y o u

suis

are

miere,

the

lowest.

I

I love you! C o m e .

desire

you!

horrible, Tu

es

duchesse. et

tu

et

je

histrion, Je es

suis

suis et

la

je pre-

le dernier.

Je

v e u x de toi. J e t'aime. Viens.

Again, they had declared that Hatton would have to omit the entire f i f t y pages of the "Grinning Man's temptation by the Duchess," but actually of these two chapters the first, Eve, was merely condensed from eleven pages to two pages, and the second, Satan, from seventeen pages to seven pages. The omissions, moreover, did not break the continuity of the story. Undoubtedly these chapters were condensed because of their "indecency," for the excisions always occurred where suggestive detail most abounded. Hugo devoted considerable time

I78

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

to insisting that when Gwynplaine entered, the sleeping Duchess was nude although technically she was wearing something; Mrs. Steele was content to refer to her as an "undraped woman." Other references to Josiane's wearing apparel, or lack of it, were simply omitted. Comparing the two versions at the crucial moment of the scene, we find considerable difference: "Should you like to see a mad woman? Look at me." W h i l s t she spoke, though he f e l t her words like burning coals, his blood froze within his veins.

" V e u x - t u voir une femme folle? C'est moi." Son regard entrait dans Gwynplaine. Un regard est un philtre. Sa robe avait des dérangements redoutables. L'extase aveugle et bestiale envahissait Gwynplaine. Extase où il y avait de l'agonie. Pendant que cette femme parlait, il sentait comme des éclaboussures de feu. . . .

However, surveying the work as a whole, it is evident that most of the material which disappeared in the Gentleman's version disappeared not because it was indecent, but because it was uninteresting. Bradbury & Evans knew that their readers wanted primarily to follow the story; hence they concentrated attention on the story. They knew also that their readers had very little desire to study the age of Queen Anne, especially under such a preceptor as Victor Hugo; hence they omitted almost all the history and philosophy. From this discussion and controversy L'Homme qui rit gained the reputation of a risqué novel, and took its place on the shelf of "forbidden" books. It was regarded with horror by most of the reviewers; the Saturday Review declared "It will do no man good, . . . no woman or child aught but unmitigated harm"; the Athenaeum called it "horrible, disgusting, untrue, un-Christian"; and the Spectator judged it "unfit for the reading of decent and sensible people." 16 As usual, these expressions of distaste had a decidedly nationalistic flavor:

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

179

Hugo's indecencies were only typical, after all, of French indecencies. The portrait of Josiane inspired the Times to observe, "French indecent writing is like no other; . . . it is simply and utterly bestial." 1 7 Fraser's, in condemning L'Homme qui rit, carefully differentiated French and English literary standards: W e are not now comparing French fiction with our own, because in this matter there is a great gulf between us, which we have no desire to see removed. M. Taine says our modern novel-writers are "bourgeois et moraux, et incapables des grandes divinations," and we accept the reproach along with the compliment. But . . . we would now only compare Victor Hugo with himself in his palmy days. There are pages in Notre Dame which make us shudder; yet they are parts of an artistic whole which so fulfils the ancient canon of purifying by terror and pity, that the impression left on our minds is neither immoral or disgusting. In this instance it is both. 18

English judgment of L'Homme qui rit was strongly influenced by these horrified comments on its "indecency," but it must not be thought that criticism went no further. I am almost tempted to say that the English critics gave Hugo's novel a fair hearing: certainly it was discussed from every angle, and credit was given where credit was due. The fact is that L'Homme qui rit was, in every respect, Hugo's worst novel. A Mactnillan's Magazine reviewer, in June, 1869, stated the consensus of English opinion on this point rather accurately. "Hitherto Victor Hugo has saved himself, in the eyes of the Catholic critic," he observed, " f o r he has redeemed much that is ridiculous by more that is sublime." But the new novel had all the defects without any of the merits; it was "an example of what unscrupulous and immoderate straining after effect may bring even one of the greatest of authors down to." 1 9 The English objections to L'Homme qui rit were numerous and overwhelming, but so uniform that they can be briefly summarized. They regarded, in fact, the old "characteristic" faults of the author: Hugo had once more "burdened" his

180

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

novel with a theory, and then failed to prove the theory; he had twisted the novel out of shape by wearisome digression, written in an "exaggerated" style, and had offended English taste with his "indecency." Hugo had demanded that L'Homme qui rit be judged as a "study." The absurdity of its pretensions in this respect was particularly apparent to Englishmen, because, as Fraser's critic observed, Hugo's "evil genius" had "led him to lay the scene of his extraordinary romance in England." 20 Even an untutored reader could recognize the blunders in nomenclature, history and English customs which it contained, and of course the critics seized upon them with avidity. 21 "The author touched nothing which he did not disfigure," noted St. Paul's: and in truth the background of the novel was wrong in almost every detail. 22 Naturally the English were irritated at Hugo's choice of their native land for illustrating the "evils of aristocracy"; the project was obviously intended as "an insult to the respectable conservatism of the day." 23 The same writer in St. Paul's protested that Hugo had "caricatured the England of the past, and calumniated the England of the present." The Times retorted, with the usual nationalistic zest, "Being a Frenchman's book upon England, it necessarily contains as many errors as there are subjects of discussion." 24 The faulty characterization in L'Homme qui rit also proved the absurdity of its claims as a "study." "Instead of a study we have a burlesque," declared Macmillan's critic; "for men and women the reader watches monsters." 23 The characters were, in fact, so unrepresentative—so "unnaturally good or monstrously bad"—that they could never illustrate or prove anything regarding L'Aristocratie.-a The English critics concentrated attention upon Hugo's "indecencies" and his failure to prove his theory; other faults in the novel received little attention. There were, however, complaints about faulty structure, 27 and the Aihenaeum noticed with dismay that "it begins with a great digression." As in the

"L'Homme

qui rit"

181

criticism of Les Misérables, we find many objections to Hugo's prose style—particularly when it served the purposes of oration rather than narration.* "The style exhibits all the author's characteristic fondness for incongruous metaphors and startling images," observed the Saturday Review.26 It was called "pompous rant," "stilted mannerism," and "a sort of entanglement of wild words, that go capering about over the helpless pages 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,' and leave a stunned sensation on the brain." 29 One character in L'Homme qui rit was much admired in England: the blind girl Dea gained for herself almost as much affection as La Esmeralda had done, and her death strongly moved English sympathies.30 Even Macmillan's critic confessed that "the episode of Dea . . . is not unlovely"; and Fraser's granted that the scene of her death "inclines us to forgive much: we are allowed to forget 'Aristocratie' and are brought face to face with Nature, Death, and Love, and Grief." 32 L'Homme qui rit did not stand utterly defenseless in England, for one critic, Swinburne, laid about him most vigorously in its behalf. Swinburne managed to heap all sorts of praise upon Hugo without ever seriously attacking the problems of L'Homme qui rit—although his article in the Fortnightly Review purported to be a review of that novel. It began with "a description of the likeness of Victor Hugo's genius." This was discovered to be a storm, witnessed by Swinburne during a Calais-Dover crossing, and it was presented as "a most close and exact symbol" of Hugo's genius, however baffling the analogy might seem to an ordinary reader. Next, sweeping aside all his fellow-critics, and disregarding Hugo's own intentions, Swinburne announced that L'Homme qui rit "is not, * In Le s Travailleurs, where Hugo had only tried to tell a story, the English made no objections to the style—in fact, many admired it. Distaste for aphoristic prose caused a later English critic to say of Hugo, " t h e style coupé spoiled his prose. . . . The shorter you make your sentences the more easily can they be shouted. . . . Prose . . . must never shout." 3 1

I82

"L'Homme

qui rit"

whatever it may seem, a novel or a study. . . . What touches on life or manners we see to be accidental byplay as soon as we see what the book is indeed ; the story of the battle of a human spirit . . . with Fate, . . . the World, the Flesh, and the Devil." He did admit that the novel contained a "flaw": "the World is drawn wrong. . . . Here are many social facts rightly detailed and duly laid out side by side, but no likeness of social life." But after making allowance for this, Swinburne devoted the rest of his article to appreciations of Barkilphedro, " a bastard begotten by Iago upon his sister, Madame de Merteuil"; Josiane, "the virgin harlot . . . new-blown and actual as a gathered flower, in warm bloom of blood and breath, . . . fair with significant flesh, passionately palpable"; and Dea, " a figure translucent with divine death, a form of flesh that the light of heaven shines through more and more as the bodily veil wears thinner and consumes." This sort of appreciation must have passed over the reader's head quite as easily as his "likeness of Hugo's genius," but Swinburne would not descend to a more mundane type of criticism. " I shall leave the dissection of names and the anatomy of probabilities," he wrote, "to the things of chatter and chuckle, . . . the 'anonymuncules who go scribbling about'; . . . it will not greatly hurt the master poet of an age that they should shriek and titter, cackle and hoot inaudibly behind his heel." 3 3 It is unfortunate that Swinburne should have begun his systematic idolatry of Hugo with L'Homme qui rit rather than with Les Travailleurs. For in praising the earlier novel he might have gained not a few disciples for the Master; and at least he would not have broken himself against a stone wall. In praising L'Homme qui rit he stood absolutely alone: no other reviewer agreed with or was influenced by him. In view of this fact, we must question the validity of a statement made in the Revue de la Critique ( appended to the 1907 Ollendorff edition of the novel) to this effect: "Le roman reçut du public français un acceuil réservé. A l'étranger au contraire il obtenait

"L'Homme

qui

rit"

183

34

le plus vif succès." * All that the editors offered in support of the assertion was a translation of part of Swinburne's article (reprinted in the Courier de l'Europe), which is surely very misleading. We know that the very opposite was true, at least in England. In May, 1870, the serial publication was completed, and Bradbury & Evans followed it with a three-volume edition, still under the title By Order of the King. Considering the English reception of the serial, it might seem curious that the publishers had the temerity to ask 31s 6d for this first edition; however, that was the usual first price for Hugo's novels, and the book had a reputation, even if it was a scandalous one. Bradbury & Evans brought it within closer reach of the public in 1 8 7 1 , by issuing another three-volume edition at 6s. Within six years five editions had been published: three by Bradbury & Evans, a duodecimo in 1875 by Chatto and a two-shilling edition in 1876 by Ward & Lock. The last two mentioned bore the title By the King's Command. Bradbury & Evans, in bringing out the three-volume edition, showed far more consideration to Hugo's instructions; and the books gave English readers a better acquaintance with those "pages d'histoire et de philosophie, . . . très importantes," about which the author had been so particular. This did not, however, make the work more popular or successful in England. We know that the serial had given the public what it really wanted—the story. When Mrs. Steele's complete version came out, the reviewers were even more severe with it, for it had no more fictional appeal than the serial, but more errors * A Saturday

reviewer offered an interesting comment on this question in 1 8 6 9 :

H u g o ' s novel, he said, " a t t r a c t e d , on the whole, more attention in this than in his own. . . .

In localizing his drama, . . .

bid than usual f o r the claque

country

he has made a less f o r t u n a t e

of his native critics or supporters. [ Y e t ] It is not as

an E n g l i s h m a n that M . H u g o writes, nor . . . docs he address himself in the instance to English readers. He w o u l d hardly else have been g u i l t y which a m o u n t to a v i r t u a l contempt f o r his s u b j e c t . "

35

of

first

blunders

184

"L'Homme

qui rit"

of translation and examples of Hugo's blunders in English history. 36 The later reviews need not detain us, for they only iterated and confirmed English opinion of the serial. One of them, however, has a certain special interest. In August, 1870, the novel was reviewed in The Literary World, a popular magazine of the class known today as "pulp," and from this commentary we may hope to gain some idea of Hugo's grip on the masses. What Macmillan's critic had called the poet's ability to "impose upon the groundlings" is evident in the admiration of the Literary World reviewer for Hugo's intellectual powers: V i c t o r H u g o is no ordinary novelist [declared the reviewer] he is a thinker, a great thinker. His thoughts instantly become pictures to him. H e has dived deep into the profoundest suggestions of the universe. W e question whether Spinoza or Hegel travelled farther than he has done that w a y . 3 7

It is also instructive to observe what passed for excellence of style in this lower sphere of literary susceptibilities. The reviewer presented, as "epigrams—pointed, shining needles of speech, . . . [in which Hugo] mingles a strange radiancy of imagination with a caustic and sardonic humour," the following examples: PREPARATIONS FOR THE LAST J O U R N E Y . — " P a c k up the dresses. Fasten the valise.—For valise read coffin." VICES AND CRIMES.—"The commission of crimes does not preclude the possession of vices. Tigers have their lice." TIRED.—"All weariness dwells in the depth of despair." PRINCIPLES.—"Principles terminate in a precipice." 3 8

Except for these peculiar features, the Literary World's review shows a striking similarity to the pronouncements of England's highest literary authorities. It denounced the author's indecency, and warned its readers that "Victor Hugo's animal nature is too strong for him," 39 offering also the usual objections to his characterization. In general, we may conclude that English opinion both high and low agreed in estimating

"L'Homme

qui rit"

185

L'Homme qui rit according to an established pattern. The book disappointed readers by its unjustified pretensions as a " s t u d y " ; its reputed "indecency" interested a large public but provoked indignant protests; and for other qualities—style, structure, and characterization—it was rated far below Hugo's other novels.

CHAPTER

TEN

The High Tide of Hugo's English Prestige: as Novelist (1874-1885) FROM 1870, when he returned in triumph to Paris, until his death in 1 8 8 5 , H u g o was the hero and the idol of the French. In private life he became almost a deity; he lived not in a house but in a place of worship, and was surrounded by intimates who vied with each other-in adulation of the "last great man of France." Publicly he received every possible tribute of respect: he was elected to the Senate in 1876 although scarcely five years before he had given further proof of his political incompetence; his last poems and prose works—even the feeblest of them—were received with reverence and awe; and his birthdays in 1 8 8 1 and 1883 were made occasions f o r popular demonstrations and festivities. In order to understand this idolatry, we must first notice the significance of his return to Paris. On his way from Guernsey, in August, 1870, H u g o despatched a poetic manifesto announcing his arrival, couched in these terms: Alors qu'on entendait ta f a n f a r e de f ê t e Retentir, O Paris, je t'ai f u i comme le noir prophète Fuyait T y r . Quand l'empire en Gomorrhe avait changé Morne, amer, J e me suis envolé dans la grande tristesse D e la mer. . . .

Lutèce,

Mais aujourd'hui qu'arrive avec sa sombre foule Attila,

Hugo

as

Novelist

187

A u j o u r d ' h u i que le monde a u t o u r de toi s'écroule, M e voilà! J'accours,

puisque

sur Ont

. . .

toi la

bombe

et la

mitraille

craché.

T u m e regarderas debout sur ta muraille, Ou

couché.

E t p e u t - ê t r e , en ta terre ou brille l'espérance, P u r flambeau, Pour p r i x de m o n exil, t u m ' a c c o r d e r a s , F r a n c e , Un

tombeau.1

Hugo hardly needed to say me voilà! the Parisians expected him, and knew that he had won his old querelle personnelle with Napoleon. The events of 1870 proved him right: Napoleon's Empire crumbled as if in obedience to the mandate of the noir prophète, and Hugo seated himself comfortably on its ruins. On September 2 Napoleon surrendered at Sedan; three days later Hugo re-entered Paris, and was literally carried home by the multitude. During the siege of Paris and at the Bordeaux Assembly he made himself the spokesman of French patriotism, sent out eloquent declarations " T o the French" and (by balloon) " T o the Germans," and offered to settle the war by a personal duel with Bismarck. Then in 1872 he gave the world a magnificent and ineffaceable record of the entire sequence of events, L'Année terrible. Evelyn Jerrold, the Paris correspondent of the Academy in 1874, offered a very instructive explanation of Hugo's prestige. VICTOR HUGO m a y declaration

of

repeat t o d a y in a d i f f e r e n t sense, . . .

political

steadfastness:

"Et

s'il n'en

his old

reste q u ' u n

je

serai c e l u i - l à . " * H e w a s all b u t alone in exile. F r i e n d a f t e r f r i e n d died,

deserted,

temporised. . . . H e

remained

consistent,

and obstinate. . . . H e w a s the last irreconcileable. N o w

upright he is a l -

* Referring to Hugo's determination to absent himself from France as long as Napoleon ruled, regardless of the number of his fellow-exiles who accepted amnesty. Taken from the poem "Ultima Verba," in Les Châtiments, VII, X V I .

188

Hugo as Novelist

most alone in literature—the last Romantique—the last of that generation which he impassioned and elevated, which believed in its mission and respected its genius. . . . In the sterility that writhes to appear fertile, in the sickly impotence, in the morbid fever . . . that describe the condition of literature in France during the last decade, Victor Hugo's name stands alone as the symbol of a higher and purer state—a symbol of the young hopes, the young illusions of the century. . . . We can discern no upholder of the dignity and purity of art likely to accept an infinitesimal part of the heritage of Victor Hugo. 2

The great poet did indeed "stand alone" after his return to Paris. The stream of literary fashion had flowed far beyond him during the exile; and among the new French writers he commanded respect only for his astonishing poetic technique. But the multitude was still in love with Romanticism, and it venerated Hugo as the champion of its other great constructive aspirations, Humanitarianism and Republicanism. Of the established authors of France, Balzac and Dumas were dead, George Sand had ceased writing and only Victor Hugo remained. The same period (1870 to 1885) marks the high tide of Hugo's English prestige. The man stood out boldly against the French contemporary background: he was at once the most pretentious and the most representative French author. Other novelists were regarded somewhat differently: Balzac did not find any really wide appreciation in England until the 1890*5; 3 George Sand simply did not have Hugo's power and comprehensiveness; while Dumas, his closest rival, though more prolific and more easily read than Hugo, had not the same peculiarly French characteristics. The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo sold better in England than Les Misérables,4 but their readers had no illusions of grandeur: they found no "impractical theorising," "preaching," or epic pretensions. As for the new French authors, they had yet to win any footing in England.

Hugo as Novelist

189

Hugo's triumphant return from exile was another important factor in building up his factitious English prestige in the 1870's. The idea of the lone man against the Empire appealed to the English sporting instinct; they admired H u g o almost as they had admired Palmerston, the sturdy pugilist who had b u f feted the European nations about single-handed. T h e University Magazine, for instance, paid tribute to H u g o as the man who "pitted himself against a dynasty, and, having been an exile for principle, is now wearing the crown of honour without fear in his own land." 5 " T h e sin of December has been . . . expiated," exulted Robert Buchanan; "the exile of Guernsey . . . has gone back to the bosom of his beloved France." 6 Contrasted with the writers who had bowed their heads to Napoleon, and contributed to the "depraved" literature of the Empire, Hugo seemed to merit a special reverence. "Feydeau and Flaubert," asserted Philip Castle in St. James's, "were not to make France forget she still had a Victor H u g o , though the first were the pets of a Caesar, and the last was an exile in an obscure island home." 7 T o most Englishmen, as to Evelyn Jerrold, Hugo's refusal of the amnesty of 1859 and his eventual triumph proved him a man of "unflinching principle" and "unswerving purpose." This was emphasized in all the English tributes to his political behavior—and they were many. 8 However, some writers refused to be carried away; they had the common sense to look beneath the gestures f o r evidence of practical statesmanship or constructive thought. E. C. G . Murray, a feature writer f o r the Daily News, examined Hugo's refusal of the 1859 amnesty with more soberness than his contemporaries, and came out with a very pertinent question: w h y had not H u g o , Blanc, Quinet, and Charras accepted the amnesty and gone back to France where they might have achieved some practical good? Murray felt that if Hugo had done this, "as he was morally bound to do, the fatal day of Sadowa might never have happened." 9 Another mature Englishman who refused to be car-

190

Hugo as

Novelist

ried away b y Hugo's heroics was John Stuart Mill. John M o r ley has recorded a conversation which he had with Mill on this subject: Mill distrusted emotion apart from well-directed effort. He once called it a fatal drawback to Victor Hugo's claim to the world's immense recognition that he had not brought forward a single practical proposal for the improvement of that society against which he was incessantly thundering. I offered the obvious reflection in reply, that you have no business to ask poets to draft bills. . . . 1 0 Hugo's immediate proposals to the French in 1 8 7 0 , as reported in the London

Times, must have seemed anything but

practical. Let every man be a Camille Desmoulins [he exhorted], every woman a Theroigne, every youth a Barra. . . . Let the streets of the town devour the enemy, let the windows burst open with f u r y , let the rooms send forth their furniture, let the roof cast down its tiles. . . . France owes it to all nations to save Paris; not f o r the sake of Paris itself, but for the world. 1 1 T h e Times was content to refer to Hugo's appeals and l o f t y tributes to Paris merely as "inflated" or "rhapsodical addresses," but others had less patience with the flatterer. Carlyle, mighty even in old age, said to his friend Althaus, I never knew sons of Adam so completely and hopelessly beaten as the French. . . . Their Revolution wars were another story—assuredly there was a great deal of enthusiasm among the French then, — l o f t y ideals of Freedom and Brotherhood and a new social order,— and they had leaders. But now their most intelligent man, Victor Hugo himself, is talking the quintessence of nonsense about Paris. "Queen of the Civilised World!" I think there never was a more corrupt, abominable city, nothing but a brothel and a gambling Hell. 1 2 Direct political opposition to H u g o had died down in E n g land soon after 1 8 5 5 ,

anc

^ ^

was

practically extinguished b y

the roar of acclaim at his triumph in 1 8 7 0 . But one man held out very strongly against him, and published in this very year

Hugo as Novelist

191

a volume of political abuse which may have had some influence, at least with the extreme English Conservatives. The man was Blanchard Jerrold, one of the sons of the great Douglas, and a Paris correspondent of some note."' His book, The Gavroche Party: Being Literary Estimates of Political France (London, J . C. Hotten ), was a thorough-going indictment of Henri Rochefort and his Lanterne, and "King Hugo" and his Rappel.13 Jerrold's estimate of Hugo had been written while the poet was still in exile, and it represented him as an "old apostle of peace who sits apart, and claps his hands—his gold-bags rattling as he moves— . . . and exhorts his troops . . . — with the lively Channel waves between them—to beware, lest a single projectile should be wasted." 14 Fair-minded Englishmen probably thought this sort of criticism of an exile unjust and contemptible. But Jerrold's book contained more damaging injuries than this: it gave the first hint that Hugo's conversion to Republicanism before the coup d'état had not been entirely voluntary: Is there no pane of glass in all M. Hugo's house, that he throws stones so plentifully . . . ? It is more than whispered about among people in Paris not likely to be misinformed, that M. Hugo talked with Napoleon le Petit, in days not far preceding the Coup d'Etat; and that the calm judgment of the Prince-President was, that the Empire could get no good out of Pegasus with the mon aux dents. The poet has never been in the habit of valuing his song at a small lump of sugar. 15

These insinuations did not in any wise change the course of Hugo-worship in the next ten years. Hugo's own explanation of his "conversion," which made it purely a matter of conscience, was given in 1875 in his Actes et paroles. E. C. G. Murray repeated it in 1873, asserting that Hugo "found himself in the same position as St. Paul at Damascus"; 1 6 and other biographers followed suit. 17 * Observe the curious divergence of opinion, w i t h regard to V i c t o r H u g o , between E v e l y n and Blanchard J e r r o l d , E n g l i s h kinsmen and both of them spondents in Paris.

corre-

192

Hugo as Novelist

Perhaps the strongest reason for the rise of Hugo's prestige in the seventies was that his last romance, Quatre-vingt-treize (1874), made more friends in England than any of the preceding ones except Notre Dame. In the concert of approbation which greeted it, the faults of Les Misérables and L'Homme qui rit were put quite out of mind, and Hugo's career as a novelist ended on a note of success. There was, moreover, good reason for the preference of Quatre-vingt-treize over its predecessors. The English expected another historical "study"— Hugo had promised it to them in the preface of L'Homme qui rit—with the usual cumbersome apparatus of indoctrination; but they got an exciting story, whose swift continuity of action made it difficult for the reader to put the book down. The thesis was there, but it did not protrude itself in long essays and digressions. Besides, it was a thesis to which nobody could object: the English were perfectly willing to agree that the peasants of La Vendée owed allegiance to France first and only secondarily to their particular locale. In his argument for Republicanism against Aristocracy, Hugo offended none of his readers, for his statement of the case was so admirably impartial that they could judge comfortably for themselves. To me the most significant feature of the English reception of Quatrevingt-treize is this: Hugo attempted to make the Republicans Cimourdain and Gauvain his heroes, yet Lantenac, their enemy, became the English hero of the book, and in spite of this reversal the English greatly enjoyed the performance as a whole. Here was no "dish of French socialism," no oracular preaching, no rigorous demonstration; the English were almost completely at liberty to enjoy the story. Hugo's novels had traditionally been damned by the critics but eagerly sought by the publishers. In the case of Quatrevingt-treize the attitudes were curiously reversed: the critics acclaimed it, but the publishers seem to have been reluctant to deal with the book, and it had no wide circulation in England

Hugo as Novelist

193

until 188 j . * Whereas Les Travailleurs and L'Homme qui rit had been immediately translated and distributed in England, Quatre-vingt-treize had to wait six months for a translator, and by a curious irony of fate the first English version of this most immediately popular of Hugo's novels was a parody. The reason for this delay in translation was that H u g o had to take upon himself the risk of publishing the work. Lacroix & Verboeckhoven had lost money on L'Homme qui rit and perhaps on Les Miserables; they refused to deal with the new novel, and naturally their example did not encourage other publishers to accept responsibility for it. Michel L e v y printed and distributed Quatre-vingt-treize at Hugo's expense, and the author himself dealt with the foreign publishers. 18 His terms were so high that no German firm would undertake the publication; the German version was finally brought out by a Strasbourg house. In England, the publishers held off in order to watch the reception of the French edition, published by Dulau of London in February, 1874. Sampson Low finally came to terms with the author, and in July an English translation appeared on the stalls. 19 The parody, mentioned above as preceding the translation, merits treatment at some length. It was written by Sir Francis Burnand, and appeared in the pages of Punch between April 18 and August 15, under the title One-and-three. By that Distinguished Trench Novelist, Fictor Nogo. Although overladen with puns and with local allusions which have now lost their humor, Burnand's work does not deserve oblivion, for in many instances he caught the mannerisms of H u g o and brought them into high relief. A n y hardened reader of Hugo's prose will recognize the propriety of this excerpt: * Low

published

the translation b y Benedict

and F r i s w e l l

in t h r e e v o l u m e s

j i s 6d in 1 8 7 4 , a n d a d u o d e c i m o e d i t i o n o f t h e same at 6s i n record of another edition until 3s 6d a n d is.

1 8 8 5 , w h e n R o u t l e d g e b r o u g h t o u t t w o e d i t i o n s at

W a r d & L o c k issued t w o m o r e e d i t i o n s in

t h e m p r i c e d at s i x p e n c e .

at

1 8 7 5 . T h e r e is n o

1886 and

1887, one

of

194

Hugo as Novelist

[The Loosed Cannon on the Corvette] . . . A desperate cry. At the same time a noise as unaccountable as it was awful. From the interior of the vessel. A frightful thing had just happened. IV.—Pulcher Lebes Piscis ONE of the pretty kettles of fish had got loose. This is, perhaps, the most formidable of marine accidents. Everyone was at sea. A kettle of fish, with steam full up and the lid on, that jumps off the stove in the caboose, becomes suddenly like some supernatural wild beast. It pitches with the pitching; it lops with the lopping; it rolls with the rolling; it dances waltzes, polkas, mazurkas; cannons like a billiard-ball; rebounds like a racquet-ball; is partout dans le magasin; it butts like a ram; it pops like a weasel; it hops about like old boots; it darts at you like Winkin; it dashes its wig: it comes at you like one o'clock. . . . You can beard an oyster, you can get a chop and potato to follow, you can say bo to a goose, you can tickle a trout, you can hug the wild sea-shore, but there is no resource with a monster kettle of fish let loose. It was, indeed, le dtable par-mi les tailleurs. . . . Suddenly, into the midst of the arena, where the fish-kettle leaped and bounded, sprang a man. The Cook. Behind a mast he waited for the fish-kettle. He had dealt with it for years. It was his pet monster. He seemed to think it would recognise him. . . . He addressed it, as though it loved him, and would obey him. "Now then! Come up! will yer," he said. Then a Titanic struggle began. The struggle between the Cook and his Kettle! V.—Quodcunque vis, meus parvus carus . . . The Kettle, . . . with a whisking noise, and spouting forth an overflow of boiling soup, . . . rushed at him. He, supple, agile, adroit, glided away out of reach of these lightning-like movements. . . . Then the Cook rushed at the handle, as a Spanish Matador will seize a bull by the tail. Far safer than acting by the proverb, and

Hugo as Novelist taking him by the horns. Proverbs are not Practice. Even a wise saw has no wisdom teeth. . . . The Furious Monster was on him, and, in another moment, the doom of the Man would have been sealed. But for the Mysterious Passenger, M A S S A B O N E S [N.B.—Lantenac], on the companion. It flashed across him. An Inspiration. A memory of his early childhood. Kettles sang—he sang. Now he sang loudly. He sang wisely, but not well. The Kettle paused in its fierce onslaught. The Monster seemed to remember the time when it, too, sat on a hob, singing. Clearly the creature was moved. Its lid trembled, and more than one drop trickled down its sides. Taking advantage of this momentary weakness, the Cook scrambled on his legs, and catching the machine a stupendous kick, sent it over, sprawling, on its side, spent, helpless: an inert, inanimate mass. . . . It was ended. The Man had conquered the Monster. The Cow had jumped over the Moon. . . . Burnand's sense of humor and his unerring instinct led him directly to the vulnerable points in H u g o ' s armor. T h e limitations, the occasional absurdity of the style coupé came to the s u r f a c e in this parody, as well as the impropriety of m i x i n g aphorism and narration. Perhaps the best passages were those in which he exposed H u g o ' s trick of veiling nonsense in sublimi t y — c o n d u c t i n g his reader, with all the a p l o m b of a veteran showman, into a blind alley: [Character of Cimourdain] [N.B.—Cimourdain] possessed the power of the inexplicable. He was without human weakness. . . . He was petrified ice amid a circle of volcanoes. . . . His eye was generally clear; at all events, it was seldom watery. "Watery" was a word not in his vocabulary. . . . Such was A N T O N E R O L Y . To-day few knew his name. History has many of these unknowns. "Heigho!" said A N T O N E R O L Y . By this saying, if by no other, he is remembered. [Lantenac and Gauvain] ANTONEROLY

Hugo

196

as Novelist

. G A M M O N [N.B.—Gauvain] was the M A R K Y DU C R O W ' S [ N . B . — Lantenac's] nephew. When they spoke of one another, the M A R K Y DU C R O W said of him " H e is my nephew"; when the nephew spoke of the M A R K Y DU C R O W , he only said " M y uncle." [Cimourdain condemns Gauvain] Hence arose an altercation between them: then a quarrel. A N T O N E R O L Y quitted the room, but returned with wolf-like paces to where G A M M O N was standing before the window, glazed to the ground, meditating. . . . G A M M O N ' S thoughts sped quickly. Quicker than G A M M O N ' S thoughts rose the boot, clumped and

hob-nailed, of

ANTONEROLY.

There are moral earthquakes. G A M M O N felt every faculty of his soul totter. . . . The unforeseen—that inexplicable power of the strongest sole—had struck GAMMON, and launched him into space. Before him was the middle of next week. Behind him was the Improbable transformed into a Reality—palpable, inevitable, inexorable. It was the Palpable against the Pulpable. . . . G A M M O N . . . felt within his soul that pang which a tree may feel when torn up by its roots. In such cases there is an analogy between men and trees, between roots and boots. Every man has a foundation on which he rests. A disturbance of this foundation causes deep anxiety. It was what G A M M O N now felt. His head whirled. . . . He had been, as it were, lifted out of himself by the recent event. It was, indeed, in the middle of the following week that he alighted. Burnand brought his comedy to an end with a Letter FICTOR NOGO . . .

to our

Eminent

Translator,

from

M.

inspired b y

H u g o ' s pompous addresses t o his fellowmen and by the egregious errors in L'Homme Y HONOURABLE

qui

rit:

CO-LABOURER,

Your noble and glorious translation of my immortal work touches me profoundly. I felicitate London. London, in publishing a work of mine, draws to itself the attention of the civilised world. London swells with pride under the benignant sway of a Lord Mayor. The L O R D M A Y O R crowns poets, glorifies literature. He decks you with turtle, and thus does homage to Genius. You represent Genius, for you represent me.

Hugo as Novelist

197

Thus I am shadowed: for this I embrace you in spirit. You have comingled your ideas with mine. You and I, the Translator and the Translated, the Adaptor and the Adapted—it is grand. More than grand—it is stupendous. More than stupendous, it is colossal. . . . One such book as One-and-Three suffices for a lifetime. Nothing more pathetic, nothing more dramatic, nothing more original. You will understand me to speak of Une-et-Trois, not of your representation of it. . . . I again felicitate you on being at so great a distance as you are from me.

fictor nogo.* 20

The translation published during the week of July 18—2 5 by Sampson Low, executed by Frank Lee Benedict and J . Hain Friswell,t seems to have been regarded rather as an anti-climax. Many had read the novel in French during the six-month interim. "The English of the translation is vile," announced the Athenaeum; "Mr. Burnand has given in Punch a version of 'Ninety-three' fully as valuable." 22 The Academy even claimed that the translators had "failed in that which it is quite easy to render"—an assertion which few had ever been bold enough to make. 23 It is, unfortunately, not possible to estimate the sale of Sampson Low's editions before 1885, because the publisher's records have not been preserved. The effects of Hugo's increased prestige both in France and England are very apparent in the English criticism of Quatrevingt-treize. We find, in fact, an entirely new and different tone of criticism. The reviewers had taken it upon themselves to judge Les Misérables and L'Homme qui rit; they had found "characteristic faults" in these novels and established criteria for weighing them. But in presenting Quatre-vingt-treize to the public, it seemed more appropriate to judge its readers for * With reference to the anecdotes of Hugo's grandiose remarks in conversation, Sir Edmund Gosse wrote in 1902, " T h i s expansive view of himself in relation to life always provoked a smile in the Anglo-Saxon countries." 2 1 t Friswell, a minor journalist, had published in 1870 a work called Modern of Letters Honestly Criticised, which contained a critique of Hugo.

Men

198

Hugo as Novelist

their ability to appreciate, rather than the novel for its ability to please. It was time to put an end to carping and caviling, for in the perspective of the i8/o's the gigantic proportions of Hugo against the European literary background became clearly apparent. He must, inevitably, continue to represent the French genius, and be regarded strictly as a Frenchman: this much was clear. And his poetry could never be cherished in England as English poetry was cherished: Tennyson spoke the truth when he addressed Hugo as Bard whose f a m e - l i t laurels glance D a r k e n i n g the wreaths of all that would advance,

Beyond our strait, their

claim to be t h y peers. 24 (italics mine)

But his novels could and did claim European supremacy in the 1870's. Blackwood's, after reading Quatre-vingt-treize, swept aside all Hugo's possible French rivals and confidently ushered him into the company of English literary giants: T h e greatest of

[his]

works . . . d w a r f

everything

that can

be

p u t b y their side. . . . T h e only w o r k . . . w h i c h exhibits a mode of treatment similar to that of H u g o , is Carlyle's " F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n " ; but the philosopher is scornful of his puppets, and throws a certain tragic gleam of ridicule across even that lurid b a c k g r o u n d of despair and suffering, whereas H u g o is always deadly serious. . . . There is no one . . .

on our o w n side of the Channel w h o can w i t h

any show of justicc be placed b y H u g o ' s side: his genius is too national . . . and even on other grounds w e k n o w no Englishman except G e o r g e Eliot ( m a y the bull be forgiven us) w h o could fairly stand a comparison w i t h him. 2 5

Why the names of Dickens and Thackeray did not occur to Blackwood's, and why only the two female Georges, Sand and Eliot, were permitted to challenge Hugo, I am unable to understand. It is worth noting that another English authority, Mrs. Oliphant, attempted a similar comparison of the European historical novelists, and came to a similar conclusion. War and Peace, Henry Esmond, and the Tale of Two Cities were not even to be found in this comparison (written in 1 8 8 5 ) ;

Hugo as Novelist

199

only Scott, Manzoni, and George Eliot were placed in the field against Hugo, and only George Eliot stayed with him to the finish.26 English criticism of Quatre-vingt-treize, then, partook more of the nature of instruction than of judgment. Insular prejudice was to be done away with ; and the public was to be taught the real aims and achievements of Hugo's novels. The first lecture was sent from Paris in February, 1874: it was Evelyn Jerrold's report to the Academy of "Victor Hugo's New Novel." In belaboring the public, Jerrold did not take the attitude of an outsider like Swinburne, but spoke as a plain Englishman upbraiding his fellows: T h e w o r k is not likely to become popular in E n g l a n d , or even to be understood. . . .

It is too purely artistic, too l o f t y in tone. . . .

It must u n f o r t u n a t e l y be admitted that w e prefer our romances

composed

after

the

recipe

possessed . . .

by

historical Messrs.

G . P . R . J a m e s and G r a n t . T h e novel w i t h a purpose is, as a rule, a thing of s u b t e r f u g e and deception in the sight of the normal Briton. A n d he has discovered, or fancies that he has discovered, during the last f e w years, that V i c t o r H u g o preaches; that the Misérables

en-

listed his sympathies, aroused his interest under false pretences; that Notre

Dame

de Paris,

under the treacherous cloak of

designed to teach him archaeology and social history. Treize

fiction,

was

Quatre-Vingt-

will not cure him of this suspicion. H e will wonder w h a t the

long analysis of the Convention has to do w i t h the story of

the

three babes and the widowed mother. H e will wonder w h y nobody is married imbroglio

in the third volume, and w h y

there is not one love

in all the work. . . . 2 T

After making this discouraging prophecy, Jerrold pointed out what the public should find in Quatre-vingt-treize, emphasizing particularly the "epic simplicity and sobriety," the "mighty purpose," the "shrewd artistry" and the "stroke of genius" which had led Hugo to introduce the "love of mother and children" as "the only relief to the black background." 28 Another instructor, and a very influential one, was John Morley, who surveyed for the Fortnightly 29 the "sombre mys-

Hugo as Novelist

200

t e r i o u s heights o f i m a g i n a t i v e e f f e c t " in H u g o ' s last r o m a n c e . Blackwood's

h a d p r e f e r r e d H u g o to C a r l y l e ; M o r l e y g a v e h i m

preference over Scott: Let us mark V i c t o r Hugo's signal distinction in his analysis of character. I t is not mere vigour of drawing, nor acuteness of perception, nor fire of imagination, though he has all these gifts. . . . B u t then S c o t t had them too, and yet we feel in V i c t o r Hugo's work a seriousness, a significance, a depth o f tone which never touches us in the work of his famous predecessor. . . . H e is without a rival in the sombre mysterious heights of imaginative effect. . . . N o writer living is so consummate a master of landscape, and besides the forest we here have an elaborate sea-piece, full o f . . . weird, ineffable, menacing suggestion. . . , 3 0 T h e m o s t i n s t r u c t i v e c o m m e n t a r y o f all was R o b e r t Louis Stevenson's article, " V i c t o r H u g o ' s R o m a n c e s , " a p p e a r i n g in t h e Cornhill

Magazine

in A u g u s t . S t e v e n s o n w a s t h e first E n g -

lish w r i t e r t o s u r v e y t h e e n t i r e sweep o f H u g o ' s

fiction

and

give an idea o f its d i r e c t i o n and u l t i m a t e goal. J e r r o l d h a d a n t i c i p a t e d some o f t h e ideas, b u t he had n o t t h e l a r g e r historic a l perspective o f Stevenson. I f you look back at the five books [Stevenson urged the public] you will be astonished at the freedom with which the original purposes of story-telling have been laid aside and passed by. Where are now the two lovers who descended the main watershed o f all the Waverley novels . . . ? Sometimes they are almost lost sight of before the solemn isolation of a man against the sea and sky . . . sometimes . . . they merely figure for a while, as a beautiful episode in the epic of oppression; sometimes they are entirely absent. . . . There is no hero in Notre Dame: in Les Miserables it is an old m a n : in L'Homme qui rit it is a monster; in Quatre Vingt Treize [ j / c ] it is the Revolution. Those elements that only began to show themselves timidly, as adjuncts, in the novels of W a l t e r S c o t t , have usurped ever more and more of the canvas; until we find the whole interest of one o f Hugo's romances centring around matter that Fielding would have banished from his altogether, as being out of the field of fiction. So we have elemental forces occupying nearly as large a place . . . as the man, Gilliat [ s / c ] , who opposes and over-

Hugo as Novelist

201

comes them. So we find the fortunes of a nation put upon the stage with as much vividness as ever before the fortunes of a village maiden or a lost heir; and the forces that oppose and corrupt a principle holding the attention quite as strongly as the wicked barons or dishonest attorneys of the past. Hence those individual interests that were supreme in Fielding, and even in Scott, . . . figure here only as one set of interests among many sets. . . . For H u g o , man is no longer an isolated spirit without antecedent or relation here below, but a being involved in the action and reaction of natural forces. . . . This is a long w a y that we have travelled. 3 1

The scholars and critics undoubtedly gained much from this excellent survey of Hugo's achievement. Nevertheless, it must be regarded as a contribution to literary history rather than as an influential recommendation. English novel-readers were only mildly and indirectly interested in the extension of the novel; they showed a strong preference for the ancient ways of storytelling, and clung to the patterns of Scott and Dumas. We know that in Hugo's romances they went straight for the story, and often objected to the "obstacles" that resulted f r o m extension. The instructing critics were chiefly preoccupied with the size of Hugo's panorama and his originality in personifying the Revolution. But these features did not impress the rankand-file reviewers or the public so much as the characters of '93—particularly Lantenac and the children. The old nobleman, often considered Hugo's finest impersonation, attracted so much sympathy that the English fought their way through the Vendean War, so to speak, on his side. 32 It is a real sign of liking for a novel when readers take up the cudgels in favor of one character against another. A n d this is what happened in the case of '93: the English claimed that their hero, Lantenac, had "carried the day over the very man who created him—a quite incalculable triumph." 3 3 The Spectator put up a vigorous defense f o r Lantenac. Its reviewer pointed out that Gauvain was "only a dreamer"; that Cimourdain was unworthy of the reader's sympathy ( " T h e author calls him severe, the

202

Hugo

as

Novelist

reader knows that he was cruel"); and declared that Lantenac had been maligned: H u g o himself seems to have felt that . . . the Marquis . . . had become so imposing that it became necessary to load him with crimes. . . . The man who gives up his life . . . to save three little children, is not the man to commit a useless murder. It is a psychological error to make Lantenac commit this crime, but this error has become an absolute necessity for the purposes of Victor Hugo. . . . T h e irony of nature has taken revenge on the poet, and what was intended to be the apotheosis of 1 7 9 3 , has become almost the glorification of old honour and loyalty. 3 4

Both the Spectator and Blackwood's conjectured that Lantenac's triumph came about because Hugo's "Vendean blood" was stronger than his recently-formed Republican opinions. This rather fanciful notion indicates that the doctrines of Victor Hugo raconté were not completely unknown in England. 35 The three children completely won the hearts of English readers. The scenes in which they took part were so "heartrending," so "charming and natural," so "infinitely pathetic and tender," that they made up for the lack of an ordinary love intrigue. 36 Morley pointed out that Hugo's success was especially noteworthy because it had been achieved in a very difficult art: " A s a rule the attempt to make infancy interesting in literature ends in maudlin failure. But at length the painters have found an equal, or more than an equal." 37 A f t e r meeting Réné-Jean, Gros-Alain, and Georgette, some critics even decided that they had liked Gavroche, the gamin of Les Misérables.3S The English made only one objection to '93, and that was prompted more by nationalistic feeling than by literary delicacy. Hugo had described the War as a spectator, not as a critic, and his treatment of the whole subject had been notably impartial. But when he came to the Convention, Revolutionary fervor ran away with him; and many English critics—among them the historian Morley—emphatically refused to accept his

Hugo as Novelist

203

views. The Times noted with distaste that " f o r M. Hugo, this distracted Congress, . . . rash, violent, and morally weak, . . . the mere instrument of a small knot of blood-thirsty tyrants . . . was the personification of Spartan courage; at home it was the saviour of France, abroad the missionary of a new Gospel." 39 "The mystic, supernatural view of the French revolution," protested Morley, "which is so popular among French writers, . . . is to us a thing most incredible, most puerile, most mischievous." * 40 A Saturday reviewer summed up the English objections rather accurately when he observed: French writers . . . go on to this day repeating . . . that mankind at large have derived some wonderful benefit from the French R e v o lution. . . . The f a c t is that the French delivered themselves f r o m a wholly intolerable state of things at a terrible price. . . . But what has the rest of the world gained by it? In England we had all reasonable improvement thrown back f o r well-nigh half a century. . . . Readers who know anything of the author's former works will not be surprised at finding it still an article of faith with him that Paris is the centre of the universe. . . . This is perhaps the most dangerous of all the fallacies which carried away the leaders of the Revolution. . . . 4 1

There were a few other reservations in the English tribute to '93, particularly regarding the digressions and what Swinburne called the "anatomy of probabilities." 42 But in all the criticism the note of enthusiasm was most audible, and moreover it was a spontaneous expression of approval, not an echo of French opinion. Under the tutelage of Jerrold, Morley, and Stevenson the reviewers learned to survey Hugo's novels from a higher vantage point, and they in turn revealed new beauties to the public. The results of this campaign of instruction are apparent in much of the English criticism between 1875 and 188 j. 4 3 * T h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n was no longer a bone o f contention between political parties in E n g l a n d . B y

1 8 7 0 , R a d i c a l s and Conservatives alike could see its f a u l t s

and merits in true historical perspective. H u g o w a s condemned» t h e r e f o r e , not f o r praising the R e v o l u t i o n , but f o r exaggerating its good effects.

204

Hugo as Novelist

The circulation of Hugo's novels in England increased tremendously after 1875, mainly because the prices of them decreased. Purchasers of the English rights had always managed to keep prices up to js or 6s for a few years at least, so that before 1870 the only novel offered for very wide circulation was Notre Dame* 44 But toward the end of the Victorian era the expensive three-volume novel went out of fashion, and the "sixpenny novel" began to find a public. Hugo's novels, as well as those of Dumas, George Sand, and a host of English novelists, were thus made available to a much larger circle of English readers. During the ten years from 1875 to 1885 the circulation of Hugo's novels had some logical relation to his "official" prestige, for this was the period of instructive criticism and popularization. But after 1885 this relationship completely disappears. The critical majority turned very strongly against Hugo, as we shall see,t and his reputation steadily declined. Yet the publishers seem not to have been daunted by this reversal; almost twenty of them ventured into the business of bringing out Hugo's novels, sometimes with extraordinary success.48 This curious situation cannot be otherwise explained than by conjecture; but I believe it indicates a change of Hugo's public. For the new circulation was almost entirely in cheap editions, at sixpence or a shilling, and this may mean that Hugo was reaching a lower class of readers, a class which was not influenced by the literary critics and reviewers. Between 1885 and 1915 at least thirty-six editions of Notre Dame, at prices ranging from 30s to threepence, were issued.49 In the same period the English publishers brought out twenty* In 1 8 7 4 the rights to Let Miserables expired, and three new publishers soon entered the field. Within five years the price was reduced to 2s; in 1887 it went to is, and by 1900 seven publishers were dealing in it. 4 5 In 1875 and 1876 the price of L'Homme qui rit was reduced f r o m 6s to 2s, and by 1887 it had become a "sixpenny n o v e l . " 4 ® Wide circulation of Les Travailleurs and '95 began in 1886, when Ward & Lock began issuing them at 6d.4' t Infra, pp. 2 4 0 - 2 4 3 .

20J

Hugo as Novelist

four editions of Les Misérablesthirteen editions of Les Travailleurs, nine editions of 'pj and five of L'Homme qui rit.so The rate at which these novels were issued, and their relative popularity in the estimation of the principal publishers, may be judged from the accompanying table, t According to the figures, Les Misérables was the English favorite, with Notre Dame a close second and Les Travailleurs third. By 1888, Hugo's novels had even gained a foothold in the English schoolroom. The "principal episodes" of Les Misérables, selected and edited by James Boielle, were offered as a school text in 1885, and two similar adaptations of Notre Dame followed in 1 8 S j / ' 1 Between 1886 and 1912 Longmans Green issued seven school editions of Les Travailleurs, also prepared by Boielle, 2,250 copies of which were distributed among the schools during that time."'- Among the schoolbooks Les Misérables seems to have been the best seller, as it was the most popular with the general public; 3 3 Les Travailleurs was the next best, and Notre Dame third. 54 Whether the subjection of Hugo's novels to a disagreeable regimen of grammar and vocabulary-building ever hurt their popularity with the wider public, it is impossible to ascertain; I believe it did not, for their circulation continued to increase during the first decades of the twentieth century.5"' Hugo would have bettered his chances for permanent reto nown in England if he had allowed Quatre-vingt-treize stand as his last novel. This extraordinary success put the novelist's crown within his grasp, and it was the fitting climax to his career. But the veteran faiseur d'antithèses could not let well enough alone. Three years after Quatre-vingt-treize he * There were f e w e r editions of Les Misérables

than of Notre

Dame,

because the

longer novel was not so easy to publish. It seems certain, h o w e v e r , t h a t Les bles

had the wider

Miséra-

circulation.

t T h i s table lists o n l y the principal publishers of H u g o ' s novels. It is necessarily incomplete, bccausc m a n y of the publishers' records arc not available; yet it gives, I believe, an accurate idea of the relative popularity of the novels.

a

S o a:

O o -a O 0 V o g ">t- m cL Os M -—\ 1 so M oo oo ON NN M

—'

o O o 0 V l^s m o n oo «--» ON i-< y—s 1 ' oo N M O as Os M M

o Os

To

O 0\

0 -o o V o C w 'S.

. O o

/—s M ON M W

o os

rx NO

o Os

,—s ' o M Os

O

O

O

— ,O^Is. ON i1 OO O Os

o

ON

'

— ,N vooVsoo *S£—V rToo

o

-à

1-1

Os M 11 -»-

—

^

o" Os o M* 1 Os K oo 1-41

—

T

i os

I os Os

^

oo o l^-s

ON M I NO OO s«/

s

—'

O

o o

O O

— ,NO^oo •

'

cR N rf 0 ** ON ON

oo

Os 1 o M ON M

• 1 ON O ON M

•—*

60 C •S 3 o Pü

vt

.S o u

s tú

z

E o -e

H

-t- .J. C vt "O o C H "C

^

I M Os M W

I VO -1K 00 M

C C o /—S o-< *—-

— ,-J"soo ,Ms oo K,

N© N» OO wM

'

O S rx M M ON 1 ^s OO OO M

» «s

%

u C u

1 33 — 1 34> Mi25. Frank T . Marzials, Life of Victor Hugo, London, Walter Scott, 1888, p. 18. 26. Ibid., p. 38 n. 27. Alfred Barbou, Victor Hugo, His Life and Works, tr. by E. E. Frewer, London, 1882, p. 234. 28. Edmond Biré, Victor Hugo après iS}o, Vol. 1, pp. 98-99. 29. F. T . Marzials, Life 0/ Victor Hugo, p. 54. 30. J. Pringle Nichol, op. cit., pp. 146-147. 31. Ibid., p. 87. 32. Ibid., pp. 127-128, 147. 33. A . F. Davidson, Victor Hugo, ed. by Francis Gribble, London, Eveleigh Nash, 1912. 34. Quoted in Marcel Moraud, op. cit., p. 293. 35. "Hugo's Diary," Athenaeum, No. 3 115, p. 46 (July 8, 1887) ; see also " V i c t o r Hugo's 'Choses vues,' " Spectator, Vol. 60, part II, p. 1572 (November 19, 1887). 36. Victor Hugo, Things Seen, London, Routledge and Sons, 1887,

Notes

197

2 vols. See British Museum Catalogue and English Catalogue for later editions. 37. "Victor Hugo," Spectator, Vol. 7 1 , p. 581 (October 28, 1893).

38. W. E. Henley, "Victor Hugo," Chambers's Encyclopaedia, London, W. & R . Chambers, 1890, Vol. 5, p. 822 ff. 39. See table p. 206. 40. "Victor Hugo's Correspondence," Saturday Review, Vol. 8 j , p . 5 2 7 ( A p r i l 16,

1898).

41. " H u g o on Hugo," The Academy, Vol. 57, p. 487 (October 28, 1 8 9 9 ) . For the estimate of sales I am indebted to William Heinemann Ltd., The Windmill Press, Kingswood, Tradworth, Surrey. 42. Edmund Gosse, "Current French Literature," Cosmopolis, V o l . 1 0 , p. 6 7 0 ( J u n e , 43. 16,

1898).

"Victor Hugo's Letters," Athenaeum, No.

3690,

p.

92

(July

1898).

Saturday Review, Vol. 8 2 , p. 4 9 9 (November 7 , 1 8 9 6 ) . 45. Edmund Gosse, "Current French Literature," Cosmopolis, p. 670 (June, 1 8 9 8 ) ; see also Saturday Review, Vol. 8 j , p. J27 (April 44.

16,

1898).

46. For this estimate I am indebted to Methuen & Co. Ltd., 36 Essex Street, London, W. C. 2. 47. C f . William Canton, "The Great Poet of Childhood," Sunday Magazine, Vol. 2 8 , pp. 3 8 3 - 3 9 0 (June, 1 8 9 9 ) ; Herbert Rix, "Hauteville House," Good Words, Vol. 3 3 , pp. 8 2 3 - 8 2 7 ( 1 8 9 2 ) ; Esme Stuart, "Victor Hugo the Poet," Scottish Review, Vol. 2 8 , pp. 2 2 3 — 246 (October, 1896) ; Helene Vacaresco, " A Visit to Victor Hugo," Contemporary Review, Vol. 8 9 ( 1 9 0 4 ) ; Elizabeth L. Banks, "Love That Was Blind," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 7 6 , pp. 3 0 7 - 3 1 6 (August,

1901).

48. Maurice Baring, "Goethe and Victor Hugo," National Review, Vol. 3 4 , pp. 9 0 3 ff. 49. Victor Hugo, Notre Dame de Paris, tr. from the French, with a critical introduction by Andrew Lang, "Century of French Romance," London, Heinemann, 1902. 50. A . C. Swinburne, "Victor Hugo," Encyclopedia Britannica, n t h ed., London, 1910. j 1. W. E. Henley, "Victor Hugo," Chambers's Encyclopaedia, Vol. 5, p. 8 2 2 . 52. Ibid. 53. C f . Edmund Gosse, The Influence of Victor Hugo, p. 627.

298

Notes

54. Ibid., p. 628. 5 j. G. K. Chesterton, "The Ways of the World," Pall Mall Magazine, Vol. 26, pp. 562, 563. j6. "Œuvres complètes de Victor Hugo," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 196, p. i $6 (July, 1902). 57. Ibid., p. 156. $8. Edmund Gosse, The Influence of Victor Hugo, pp. 6} 1-634. $9. Ibid., p. 632. 60. H. C. Macdowall, "Victor Hugo," Macmillan's Magazine, Vol. 85, pp. 3 1 1 - 3 2 0 (February, 1902). 61. W. E. Henley, "The Two Hugos," Pall Mall Magazine, Vol. 20, p. 134 ff. (January, 1900). 62. "Victor Hugo," The Academy, Vol. 61, pp. 197-198 (February 22, 1902). 63. Ibid., p. 197. 64. Havelock Ellis, "Victor Hugo," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 77, pp. 218. 6j. Ibid., p. 226; see also W. E. Henley, "Victor Hugo," Chambers's Encyclopaedia, p. 822. 66. Havelock Ellis, op. cit., pp. 218-219, 2 2 367. Havelock Ellis, "Victor Hugo," Virginia Quarterly Review ( '934) •

'Bibliography * 1823 The Literary Gazette, No. 3 17, p. 107 (February 15, 1 8 2 3 ) . [Stendhal], "Foreign Publications: Odes et poesies sacrees," New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 9, pp. 1 2 5 - 1 2 6 (March, 1 8 2 3 ) . "Sketch of Foreign Literature," London Magazine, Vol. 7, p. 472 (April, 1 8 2 3 ) . [Stendhal], "Foreign Publications: Han d'Islande," New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 9, pp. 1 7 4 - 1 7 $ (April 1 , 1 8 2 3 ) . 1825 [Stendhal], "Letters from Paris, by Grimm's Grandson," London Magazine, Vol. 1 1 , pp. 49-60 (January, 1 8 2 $ ) . [Stendhal], "Letters from Paris, by Grimm's Grandson," London Magazine,\o 1. 12, pp. 276-290, 573 (June-August, 1 8 2 $ ) . [Stendhal], "Present French Prose Literature," New Monthly Magazine, "Vol. 13, pp. $ 8 1 - 5 8 7 ( 1 8 2 5 ) . 1827 [Stendhal], "Sketches of Parisian Society, Politics, and Literature," New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 19, pp. 3 7 4 - 3 8 1 (March, 1 8 2 7 ) . 1828 "Original Correspondence," The Literary Gazette, No. 589, p. 280 (May 3, 1 8 2 8 ) . Leitch Ritchie, "Cromwell: Drame," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 2, pp. 7 1 5 - 7 1 8 (June, 1 8 2 8 ) . 1829 "Original Correspondence," The Literary Gazette, Nos. 624, 6 3 1 , 636, 643, pp. 13, 127, 208, 319 (January 3-May 16, 1 8 2 9 ) . * This Bibliography,

arranged in chronological

order and aiming at

selection

rather than completeness, lists the more notable comments on H u g o and his w r i t ings that appeared in the English press d u r i n g the nineteenth c e n t u r y .

300

Bibliography

"Modern French Poetry," London Magazine, Vol. 3, p. 242 (March, 1829). Henry Southern, "Victor Hugo's Poems and Novels," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, pp. 205-236 (April, 1 8 2 9 ) . "Memoirs of Vidocq," Westminster Review, Vol. 1 1 , pp. 1 6 2 - 1 8 0 (July, 1 8 2 9 ) . J , "French Literature," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. 26, pp. 2 0 5 2 1 0 (August, 1 8 2 9 ) . "Short Reviews of Books," Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany, Vol. 3, pp. $38-542 ( 1 8 2 9 ) . "French Drama," Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany, Vol. 4, pp. 309-322 (October, 1 8 2 9 ) . 1830 Sydney Owenson (Lady Morgan), France in 1 8 2 9 - 1 8 3 0 , London, 1830, 2 vols. "M. Victor Hugo's Tragedy," Athenaeum, No. 124, pp. 1 5 7 - 1 5 8 (March 1 3 , 1 8 3 0 ) . "Anglo-French Drama," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 5 1, pp. 225-246 (April, 1 8 3 0 ) . "Foreign Correspondence," Athenaeum, No. 129, p. 235 (April 17, 1 8 3 0 ) . G . Moir, "Victor Hugo's 'Hernani,' " Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 6, pp. 455-473 (October, 1 8 3 0 ) . 1831 " T h e Drama," New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 33, pp. 178, 216 (April-May, 1 8 3 1 ) . "Drury Lane Theatre," London Times, April 9, 1 8 3 1 , p. 3, col. 1. [Leigh H u n t ] , "The Play Goer," The Tatler, Vol. 2, pp. 747-748 (April 9, 1 8 3 1 ) . "Theatrical Examiner," The Examiner, No. 1 2 1 0 , p. 243 (April 10, 1 8 3 1 ) . "Theatricals," Athenaeum, No. 1 8 1 , pp. 253-254 (April 16, 1831). "Drama. Drury Lane," The Literary Gazette, No. 743, pp. 252, 309 (April 16, 1 8 3 1 ) . H. Southern, "Victor Hugo's 'Notre Dame,' " Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 8, pp. 1 9 6 - 2 1 5 (July, 1 8 3 1 ) .

Bibliography

301

The Englishman's Magazine, Vol. 1, pp. 468-476 (July, 1 8 3 1 ) . " T h e Selector: French Romance," The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, Vol. 18, pp. 4 4 - 4 6 (July 16, 1 8 3 1 ) . 1832

"Lady Poets of France," Eraser's Magazine, Vol. 4, pp. 7 2 8 - 7 3 4 (January, 1 8 3 2 ) . "French D r a m a , " Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 9, pp. 7 8 - 9 0 (January, 1 8 3 2 ) . "Recent French Literature," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 9, pp. 34J-373 ( M a y . i g 3 2 ) "Victor Hugo's New Tragedy," Athenaeum, 795 (December 8, 1 8 3 2 ) .

No. 267, pp. 7 9 4 -

1833

"Le Roi s'amuse," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 11, pp. 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 (January, 1 8 3 3 ) . "Paris Correspondence," Athenaeum, Nos. 277, 281, pp. 106, 170 (February 16 and March 16, 1 8 3 3 ) . L'Europe litteraire, No. 42 (June 5, 1 8 3 3 ) . "French Literature—Recent Novelists," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 57. P- 3 3 ° (July. I " 3 3 ) • " T h e D r a m a , " New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 39, p. 109 ( 1 8 3 3 ) . "Victoria Theatre," London Times (July 17-September 3, 1833).

" D r a m a : Victoria Theatre," The Literary Gazette, N o . 861, p. 461 (July 20, 1 8 3 3 ) . "Theatricals: Victoria Theatre," Athenaeum, No. 300, p. 500 (July 27, 1 8 3 3 ) . " N o t r e D a m e , " Athenaeum, No. 304, pp. 5 6 3 - 5 6 4 (August 24, 1833).

"Review of N e w Books. ' N o t r e Dame,' " The Literary

Gazette,

N o . 866, p p . 5 2 9 - 5 3 0 ( A u g u s t 24, 1 8 3 3 ) .

" T h e Literary Examiner. Notre-Dame," The Examiner, Vol. for 1833, pp. 533-534 (August 25, 1 8 3 3 ) . " N e w Books: The Hunchback of N o t r e Dame," The Mirror, Vol. 22, p p . 2 4 5 - 2 4 8 , 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 ( O c t o b e r , 1 8 3 3 ) .

" O u r Weekly Gossip on Literature and A r t , " Athenaeum, p. 818 (November 30, 1 8 3 3 ) .

N o . 318,

302

Bibliography 1834

Henry Lytton Bulwer, France, Social, Literary, Political, London, Bentley, 1834, 2 vols. "Notre Dame," The Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 1 n.s., pp. 8 1 - 8 3 (January, 1 8 3 4 ) . " T h e State of the French Drama," Quarterly Review, Vol. 5 1, pp. 1 7 7 - 2 1 3 (March, 1 8 3 4 ) . "Victor Hugo," Tail's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 1 n.s., pp. 310— 3 1 6 (June, 1 8 3 4 ) . "The New French School of Poetry," The Printing Machine, Vol. 1 , pp. 1 6 9 - 1 7 1 , 1 9 5 - 1 9 7 (June 14 and July 1, 1 8 3 4 ) . 1835 Father Prout, "The Songs of France," Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 1 1 , pp. 83-99 (January, 1 8 3 5 ) . "Theatricals," The Literary Gazette, Nos. 961, 962, pp. 396, 4 1 2 (June 20-27, 1 8 3 5 ) . "Present State of Theatricals in France and England," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 1 y, pp. 266-288 (July, 1 8 3 5 ) . Father Prout, "Victor Hugo's 'Hunchback of Notre Dame,' " Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 1 2 , pp. 89-105 (July, 1 8 3 5 ) . B, "Prose Fictions and Their Varieties," Westminster Review, Vol. 30, pp. 485-486 (July, 1 8 3 5 ) . 1836 Frances Trollope, Paris and the Parisians in 1835, London, Bentley, 1836, 2 vols. Désiré Nisard, "Victor Hugo," Westminster Review, Vol. 3 1 , pp. 3 8 9 - 4 1 7 (January, 1 8 3 6 ) . "Miscellaneous Literary Notices," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 16, p. 458 (January, 1 8 3 6 ) . "Music and the Drama," Athenaeum, No. 432, p. 1 1 2 (February 6, 1 8 3 6 ) . "French Novels," Quarterly Review, Vol. 56, pp. 65—131 (April, 1836). "Marie Tudor," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 17, pp. 4 1 7 - 4 2 8 (July, 1 8 3 6 ) . "Our Weekly Gossip on Literature and A r t , " Athenaeum, No. 475, p. 852 (December, 1 8 3 6 ) .

Bibliography "Mr. Bulwer and the Lady Novelists," British view, Vol. 3, p. 491 (December, 1836).

303 and Foreign

Re-

1837

"Lamartine's 'Jocelyn,'" Edinburgh Review, Vol. 64, p. 453 (January, 1837). Jules Janin, "Literature of the Nineteenth Century—France," Athenaeum, No. 506, pp. 499-506 ( J u l y 8, 1837). "German and French Fiction," British and Foreign Review, Vol. 5» PP- 444-445. 467 (October, 1837). 1838 F. B., "Philosophy of Fiction," Westminster Review, Vol. 29, p. 92 (April, 1838). Giuseppe Mazzini, "On the Poems of Victor Hugo," British and Foreign Review, Vol. 6, pp. 439—471 (April, 1838). Edward Lytton Bulwer, Critical and Miscellaneous Writings, Philadelphia, Lea and Blanchard, 1841, Vol. 1, p. 52, contains comment on Hugo as dramatist, reprinted from Monthly Chronicle (1838). "Our Weekly Gossip on Literature and Art," Athenaeum, No. 577, p. 826 (November 17, 1838). 1839 "Reynolds's Modern Literature of France," The Spectator, Vol. 12, pp. 851-853 (September 7, 1839). "French Literature—Victor Hugo," Monthly Review, Vol. 2 n.s., pp. 167-187 (1839). 1840 W. M. Thackeray, The Paris Sketch Book of Mr. M. A. Titmarsh, London, John Macrone, 1840. "The Last Days of a Condemned," The Literary Gazette, No. 1217, p. 3 11 (May 16, 1840). "Publications Received," The Spectator, Vol. 13, p. 497 (May 23, 1840). "The Last Days of a Condemned," Monthly Review, Vol. 2 n.s., pp. 252-265 (June, 1840).

304

Bibliography

"Capital Punishment," Foreign Quarterly

Review,

Vol. 25, pp.

394-406 (July, 1840).

G. H. Lewes, "The French Drama: Racine and Victor Hugo," Westminster Review, Vol. 3 4 , pp. 2 8 7 - 3 2 4 (September, 1 8 4 0 ) . 1841

Marguerite Gardiner, Countess of Blessington, The Idler in France, London, Colburn, 1841, 2 vols. "Rousseau, and the Modern Littérature Extravagante," Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 27, pp. 1 1 8 - 1 4 2 (April, 1841 ). 1842

L. Raymond de Vericour, Modern French Literature, Edinburgh, W. & R. Chambers, 1842. "The Rhine," Athenaeum, No. 7 4 J , pp. 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 (February 5, 1842).

"Victor Hugo," Fraseras Magazine, Vol. 26, pp. cember, 1 8 4 2 ) .

740-742

(De-

1843

"Victor Hugo's 'Letters on the Rhine,' " Quarterly Review, Vol. pp. 3 1 5 - 3 3 1 (March, 1 8 4 3 ) . "Victor Hugo's 'Burgraves of the Rhine,' " Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 3 1 , pp. 1 9 3 — 1 9 8 (April, 1 8 4 3 ) . "Victor Hugo's Letters," Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 27, pp. 411— 4 2 7 , 5 8 4 - 5 9 7 (April-May, 1 8 4 3 ) . "The Burgraves: a Trilogy," Athenaeum, Nos. 811 and 825, pp. 71,

4 5 9 - 4 6 0 ( M a y 1 3 , A u g u s t 9, 1 8 4 3 ) .

"Excursions along the Banks of the Rhine," The Spectator, 1 6 , p. 4 9 9

(May 27,

Vol.

1843).

"Victor Hugo's Excursions up the Rhine," New Monthly

Mag-

azine, V o l . 68, pp. 2 8 1 - 2 8 2 ( J u n e , 1 8 4 3 ) .

"The Rhine," The Mirror, Vol. 4 1 , p. 3 6 3 (June 1 0 , 1 8 4 3 ) . "Excursions along the Banks of the Rhine," The Literary Gazette, N o . 1 3 7 9 , p. 4 1 5 ( J u n e 24, 1 8 4 3 ) . 1844

"State of Criticism in France," British and Foreign Review, 16, pp. 3 2 7 - 3 6 2

(1844).

Vol.

Bibliography

30 j

i84J Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 35, p. 333 (July, 1845). 1846 "Something More about Victor Hugo," Eraser's Magazine, Vol. 33, pp. 515-529 (May, 1846). Foreign Quarterly Review, Vol. 36, p. 3$ (October, 1846). 1847 "Streets of Paris," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 85, p. 73 (January, 1847). 1848 S. Smiles, article in Howitt's Journal, Vol. 3, p. 368 ff. (1848). "An Evening at Victor Hugo's," Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 1 j , pp. 234-237 (March, 1848). 1849 "Victor Hugo," People's and Howitt's Journal, Vol. 1 n.s., pp. *75-*77 (I849)The Spectator, Vol. 22, p. 1009 (October 27, 1849). 1851 "France since 1848," North British Review 15, pp. 1—34 (May-August, 18$ 1 ) .

(Edinburgh), Vol.

1852 "Our Library Table: Napoleon the Little," Athenaeum, No. 1300, p. 1035 (September 2$, 1852). "Books: Victor Hugo's Napoleon the Little," The Spectator, Vol. 25, p. 924 (September 25, 1852). Westminster Review, Vol. 58, p. 624 (October, 1852). "Napoleon the Little," The Literary Gazette, No. 1867, pp. 8 1 0 811 (October 30, 1852). "Napoleon the Little," Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 19, pp. 700-702 (November, 1852).

3 o6

Bibliography 1854

London Times, Parliamentary report, December IJ, 1854. 1855 Edinburgh Review, Vol. 101, p. 92 (January, 1855). "Victor Hugo and His Writings," Westminster Review, Vol. 7 n.s., pp. 424-450 (April, 1855). London Times, April 21, 185$, p. 9, col. 1; October 17, 1 8 J J , p. 6, col. 4; October 22, 185$, p. 6, cols. 3-4; October 26, 1855, p. 7, col. 5; editorial, October 31, 185 j ; November 13, 1855, p. 6, col. 3. London Morning Post, October 24, 1855, p. 4; October 31, 1855, p. 4; editorial, November 1, 185 5. London Morning Advertiser, editorial, October 2 j , 1855; October 3 1 , 1855; editorial, November 1, 1855; November 5, 1855; November 12, 1855; November 23, 185 5, p. 4, col. $; November 26, 18 j y, p. 4, col. 6. London Daily News, October 31, 1855, p. 5; November 5, 1855, p. 3, col. 1 ; editorial, November 10, 1855; November 12, 1855, p. 4, col. 6; November 13, 1855, pp. 4— 5; Correspondence, November 16, 1855; November 20, 1855, p. 2, col. 6; November 27, 1855, p. 2, col. 5. Newcastle Chronicle, November 16, 1855, p. 3, col. 4. Newcastle Guardian, November 17, 185 j , p. 3. Newcastle Journal, October 27, 1855, p. 4, col. 2; November 17, 18 jy, p. 3, col. 1. Glasgow Citizen, October 20, 1855, p. 1, col. 9; October 27, 1855, p. 1, col. 7; November 17, 1855, p. 2, col. 4; December 1, 1855, p. 1, col. 5. Glasgow Herald, November 28, 1855, p. 4, col. 4. Glasgow Sentinel, December 1, 1855. 1856 "The Present State of France," The National Review, Vol. 2, pp. 1 2 3 - 1 5 5 (January, 1856). "Victor Hugo's Contemplations," Saturday Review, Vol. 2, pp. 204-206 (June 28, 1856). "Contemporary Literature: Belles Lettres," Westminster Review, Vol. 66, pp. 262-264 (July, 1856).

Bibliography

307

"Literary Tendencies in France," North British Review, Vol. 25, PP- 349-375 (August, 1 8 $ 6 ) . "Victor Hugo: 'Les Contemplations,' " New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 108, pp. 2 1 3 - 2 1 7 (September, 1 8 5 6 ) . 1859 "The Legend of Ages," Athenaeum, No. 1668, pp. 489—490 (October 15, 1859). "La Légende des siècles," Saturday Review, Vol. 8, pp. 580—582 (November 12, 1859). J . M. Ludlow, "Victor Hugo's 'Legend of the Ages,' " Macmillan's Magazine, Vol. 1, pp. 131—141 (December, 1 8 5 9 ) . 1860 Westminster Review, Vol. 73, p. 330 (January, i 8 6 0 ) . "Victor Hugo—French and English Poetry," British Quarterly Review, Vol. 32, pp. 7 1 - 9 8 (July, i860). "French Fiction: The Lowest Deep," The National Review, Vol. i i , pp. 400-427 (October, i860). 1862 "Les Misérables," Athenaeum, Nos. 1797, 1804, 1827, pp. 4 5 5 456, 687-689, 561 (April 5-November i , 1 8 6 2 ) . [A. C. Swinburne], Reviews of "Les Misérables," The Spectator, Vol. for 1862, pp. 4 1 0 - 4 1 1 , 694-695, 8 3 1 - 8 3 2 , 9 1 5 - 9 1 6 , 1 1 9 3 1 1 9 5 (April 12-October 25, 1 8 6 2 ) . " A Sensation Novel," St. James's Magazine, Vol. 4, pp. 2 1 7 - 2 2 5 (May, 1 8 6 2 ) . "Victor Hugo's Last Romance," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. 92, pp. 1 7 2 - 1 8 2 (August, 1862). "Les Misérables," "The Waterloo of Thiers and Victor Hugo," Quarterly Review, Vol. 1 1 2 , pp. 271-306,410—444 (October, 1 8 6 2 ) . "Victor Hugo's 'Misérables,' " Home and Foreign Review, Vol. 1 , pp. 3 9 2 - 4 1 9 (October, 1 8 6 2 ) . "Les Misérables," Temple Bar, Vol. 6, pp. 572—578 (November, 1862). "Our Survey of Literature and Science," Cornhill Magazine, Vol. 6, pp. 704-706 (November, 1862). "Victor Hugo: 'Les Misérables," " Eclectic Review, Vol. 3 n.s., pp. 451—466 (December, 1862).

3o8

Bibliography 1863

"Les Misérables," Westminster Review, Vol. 23, pp. 7 7 - 1 1 4 (January, 1 8 6 3 ) . "Les Misérables," British Quarterly Review, Vol. 37, pp. 1 2 1 147 (January, 1 8 6 3 ) . " V i c t o r Hugo's 'Les Misérables,'" Edinburgh Review, Vol. 1 1 7 , p. 208 (January, 1 8 6 3 ) . "Les Misérables," Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 67, pp. 3 7 2 - 3 8 2 (March, 1863). Frank T . Marzials, " T h e Life of Victor H u g o , " The Reader, Vol. 1, p. 616 (June 27, 1 8 6 3 ) . "Victor H u g o , " Chambers's Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 1 8 5 - 1 8 7 (September 19, 1 8 6 3 ) . " V i c t o r H u g o , " 'Westminster Review, Vol. 24, pp. 4 8 3 - 5 1 0 (October, 1 8 6 3 ) . J . F. H., "Victor H u g o , " Temple Bar, Vol. 9, pp. 5 7 6 - 5 8 9 ( N o vember, 1 8 6 3 ) . 1864 William Alexander, Victor Hugo as a Poet, " A f t e r n o o n Lectures on Literature and A r t , " 2d series, London, 1864. Frank T . Marzials, "William Shakespeare," The Reader, Vol. 3, pp. 6 1 5 , 616 ( 1 8 6 4 ) . "William Shakespeare," Athenaeum, No. 1904, pp. 569—572 (April 23, 1 8 6 4 ) . " V i c t o r Hugo on Shakespeare," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. 96, pp. 1 6 4 - 1 8 0 (August, 1 8 6 4 ) . 1865 G. H . Lewes, " V i c t o r Hugo's Latest Poems," Fortnightly Vol. 3, pp. 1 8 1 - 1 9 0 (December, 1 8 6 5 ) .

Review,

1866 "Les Travailleurs de la mer," Athenaeum, No. 2004, pp. 389—391 (March 24, 1 8 6 6 ) . [John Morley], " T h e Toilers of the Sea," Saturday Review, Vol. 2 i , pp. 4 1 4 - 4 1 6 (April 7, 1 8 6 6 ) . "Victor Hugo's Third Human Problem," Eclectic Review, Vol. 10, pp. 386-404 (May, 1 8 6 6 ) .

Bibliography

309

G. H. Lewes, " V i c t o r Hugo's New Novel," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 5, pp. 30—46 (May 15, 1866). "Les Travailleurs de la Mer," Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 73, pp. 7 3 5 745 (June, 1866). Cyrus Redding, "Victor Hugo," New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 138, pp. 8 1 - 9 5 (September, 1866). " T h e Toilers of the Sea," London Times, September 7, 1866, p. 9, col. 1. "Victor Hugo," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. 100, pp. 744-769 (December, 1 8 6 6 ) . 1867 London Times, January 4, 1867, p. 10. "New Paris," Quarterly Review, Vol. 123, p. 1 (July, 1867). 1868 Justin McCarthy, Con Amore, or Critical Chapters, London, 1868. 1869 "L'Homme qui rit," Punch, Vol. 56, p. 233, engraving ( 1 8 6 9 ) . "Victor Hugo at Home," Once a Week, Vol. 2, pp. 5 6 3 - 5 7 0 (January 9, 1869). "More About Victor Hugo," Once a Week, Vol. 3, pp. 1—4 (January 16, 1869). "L'Homme qui rit," Athenaeum, No. 2166, pp. 602-604 (May 1, 1869). S. P. Oliver, "Victor Hugo on Gilliatt's Death," Athenaeum, No. 2168, p. 678 (May 15, 1869). Joseph Hatton, "Correspondence," Athenaeum, No. 2168, p. 669 (May 15, 1869). "M. Victor Hugo's New Romance," Macmillan's Magazine, Vol. 20, pp. 163—169 (June, 1869). "French Literature," Saturday Review, Vol. 27, p. 758 (June 5, 1869). " M . Victor Hugo's England," St. Paul's, Vol. 4, pp. 466-481 (July, 1869). A. C. Swinburne, "L'Homme qui rit," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 6> PP- 7 3 - g l ( J u l y '> 1869). "L'Homme qui rit," Saturday Review, Vol. 28, pp. 451—452, 4 8 6 - 4 8 7 (October, 1869).

Bibliography "L'Homme qui rit," London Times, October 14, 1869, p. 4. "Correspondence," London Times, October 16, 18, 19, 1869. "Victor Hugo's L'Homme qui rit," Fraser1 s Magazine, Vol. 8o, pp. 798-805 (December, 1869). 1870 Blanchard Jerrold, The Gavroche Party: Being Literary Estimates of Political France, London, J . C. Hotten, 1870. J . Hain Friswell, Modern Men of Letters Honestly Criticised, London, 1870. S. P. Oliver, "Victor Hugo at Home," Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 4 n.s., pp. 7 1 3 - 7 2 5 (May, 1 8 7 0 ) . "Sainte-Beuve," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 132, p. 126 (July, 1 8 7 0 ) . "Victor Hugo's 'By Order of the King' " Literary World, Vol. 2 n.s., pp. 1 3 7 - 1 3 9 (August 26, 1870). London Times, September 20, 1870, p. 10; October 8, 1870, p. 7. "M. Victor Hugo's 'By Order of the King,' " The Spectator, Vol. 43, pp. 1 3 2 5 - 1 3 2 6 (November 5, 1870). 1872 A. C. Swinburne, "L'Année terrible," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 12, pp. 243-267 ( 1 8 7 2 ) . Sidney Colvin, "L'Année terrible," Macmillan's Magazine, Vol. 26, pp. 326—336 (August, 1 8 7 2 ) . Camille Barrère, "L'Année terrible," Dark Blue, Vol. 4, pp. 26-38 (September, 1 8 7 2 ) . Keningale Cook, "Victor Hugo," London Society Magazine, Vol. 22, pp. 501—511 (December, 1 8 7 2 ) . 1873 Robert Buchanan, Master-Spirits, London, 1873. E. C. G. Murray, The Men of the Third Republic, London, 1873. Edward Dowden, "The Poetry of Victor Hugo," Contemporary Review, Vol. 22, pp. 1 7 5 - 1 9 7 (July, 1 8 7 3 ) . 1874 Evelyn Jerrold, "Victor Hugo's New Novel," The Academy, Vol. 5, pp. 2 1 7 - 2 1 9 (February 28, 1 8 7 4 ) . "Quatrevingt-treize," Athenaeum, Nos. 2418, 2439, pp. 1 1 2 , 281, 295 (February-July, 1 8 7 4 ) .

Bibliography

311

John Morley, "M. Victor Hugo's New Romance," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 2 i , pp. } $ 7 - 3 7 0 (March 1, 1 8 7 4 ) . "Quatrevingt-Treize," Saturday Review, Vol. 37, pp. 3 7 1 - 3 7 2 , 408-409 (March 2 1 , 28, 1 8 7 4 ) . [Francis Burnand], "Our New Novel, One-and-Three, by That Distinguished French Novelist, Fictor Nogo," Punch, Vols. 66—67, pp. 165 ff., 7, 73 (April-August 1 8 7 4 ) . " T h e Father of Universal Suffrage in France," Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 9 n.s., pp. 6 1 0 - 6 1 9 (May, 1 8 7 4 ) . "Books: Quatre Vingt Treize," The Spectator, Vol. 47, pp. 5 6 3 566 (May 2, 1874). "Victor Hugo's ' 1 7 9 3 , ' " London Times, May 26, 1874, p. 4. " N e w Books: Victor Hugo's Quatre-Vingt-Treize," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. 1 1 5 , pp. 750-769 (June, 1874). Camille Barrère, "Victor Hugo's Dramas," Macmillan's Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 281-294 (August, 1 8 7 4 ) . [Robert Louis Stevenson], "Victor Hugo's Romances," Cornhill Magazine, Vol. 30, pp. 1 7 9 - 1 9 4 (August, 1 8 7 4 ) . "Victor Hugo and Romanticism," Temple Bar, Vol. 42, pp. 3 1 7 333 (October, 1 8 7 4 ) . 1875 E. B., "Victor Hugo," The Argosy, Vol. 20, pp. 1 8 5 - 1 9 : tember, 1 8 7 5 ) .

(Sep-

1876 Henri van Laun, History of French Literature, London, 1 8 7 6 1877. "Mr. Swinburne's Essays," Quarterly Review, Vol. 1 4 1 , pp. 507526 (April, 1876). 1877 Blanchard Jerrold, Life of Napoleon III, London, Longmans, Green, 1877, Vol. 3. " L a Légende des siècles," The Academy, Vol. 1 1 , p. 184 (March 3, 1877)"La Légende des siècles," Athenaeum, Nos. 2577, 2578, pp. 348— 349, 380—382 (March, 1 8 7 7 ) . "La Légende des Siècles," Saturday Review, Vol. 43, pp. 365-366 (March 24, 1 8 7 7 ) .

312

Bibliography

"La Légende des siècles," The Spectator, Vol. jo, p. 472 (April 14, 1877). Gabriel Monod, "L'Art d'être Grand-père," The Academy, Vol. 1 1 , p. 451 (May 16, 1877). "L'Art d'être Grand-Père," Athenaeum, No. 2587, pp. 665-666 (May 26, 1877). "Histoire d'un crime," The Academy, Vol. 12, p. 344 and Vol. 13, p. 248 ( 1 8 7 7 - 1 8 7 8 ) . Alfred Tennyson, "To Victor Hugo," Nineteenth Century, Vol. for 1877, p. 547 (June, 1877). "L'Art d'etre Grand-père," Saturday Review, Vol. 43, p. 802 (June 30, 1877). "Victor Hugo," Temple Bar, Vol. 50, pp. 367-373 (July, 1877). "Victor Hugo," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. 122, pp. 1 5 7 - 1 8 1 (August, 1877). "The Coup d'état," Athenaeum, No. 2607, p. 464 (October 13, 1877). 1878 Edmund Yates, Celebrities at Home, 2d series, London, 1878. "L'Histoire d'un crime," The Spectator, Vol. $1, p. 796 (1878). "Histoire d'un crime," Athenaeum, No. 2630, p. 374 (March, 1878). "The History of a Crime," Saturday Review, Vol. 45, pp. 5 3 1 532 (April 27, 1878). Gabriel Monod, "Le Pape," The Academy, Vol. 13, p. 394 (May 4» 1878). "Le Pape," Saturday Review, Vol. 45, p. 593 (May 1 1 , 1878). "Le Pape," Athenaeum, No. 2637, pp. 598-599 (May 1 1 , 1878). " A Parisian Pagan," The University Magazine, Vol. 2, pp. 70-85 (July, 1878). 1879 Walter Herries Pollock, Lectures on the French Poets, London, Kegan Paul, 1879. Matthew Arnold, "The French Play in London," Nineteenth Century, Vol. 5 (1879). "La Pitié Suprême," Athenaeum, No. 2679, pp. 276-277 (March 1,1879). "La Pitié suprême," The Academy, Vol. 15, pp. 210, 295 (March, 1879).

Bibliography

313

"M. Victor Hugo on Africa," Saturday Review, Vol. 47, p. 640 ( M a y 24,

1879).

Frederic W. H. Myers, "Victor Hugo," Nineteenth Century, Vol. 5> PP- 773-787. 95 5-97o (May-June, 1 8 7 9 ) . Henry Latchford, "A Meeting with Victor Hugo in 1 8 7 8 , " Time, Vol. 2 , pp. 2 9 2 - 2 9 9 (December, 1 8 7 9 ) . 1880

"Victor Hugo," Temple Bar, Vol. 5 9 , pp. 2 5 1 - 2 5 9 ( 1 8 8 0 ) . A. C. Swinburne, "Religion et Religions," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 27, pp. 7 6 1 - 7 6 8

(1880).

"Religion et Religions," The Academy, Vol. 17, p. J64 (May i j , 1880).

"Religion et Religions," Athenaeum, No. (May

29,

2744,

pp.

692-69}

1880).

"L'Ane," Athenaeum,

No.

2769,

pp.

670-672

(November

20,

1880). 1881

"Victor Hugo," New Monthly 383

Magazine, Vol. 4 n.s., pp. 356-

(1881).

F. A. Maxse, The Irish Question and Victor Hugo, London, W. Ridgway, 1881. "The Victor Hugo Festival," Saturday Review, Vol. 51, pp. 3003 0 1 (March 5 , 1 8 8 1 ) . George Saintsbury, "The Four Winds of the Spirit," Fortnightly Review, Vol. 3 6 , pp. 4 0 - J 3 (July 1, 1 8 8 1 ) . "Les Quatre Vents de l'Esprit," Athenaeum, No. 2 8 0 2 , pp. 3 9 - 4 1 (July 9 , 1 8 8 1 ) . "Les Quatre Vents de l'Esprit," Saturday Review, Vol. $2, p. 172 (August 6, 18 81 ) . Charles Hargrove, "Les Quatre Vents de l'Esprit," Modern Review, Vol. 2 , pp. 8 7 2 - 8 7 3 (October, 1 8 8 1 ) . 1882

Alfred Barbou, Victor Hugo: His Life and Works, tr. by Ellen E. Frewer, London, 1882. "Victor Hugo and His Times," Saturday Review, Vol. 53, pp. 3 0 3 - 3 0 4 (March 11, 1 8 8 2 ) .

314

Bibliography

Philip Castle, "Victor H u g o , " St. James's Magazine, Vol. 42, pp. 3 6 4 - 3 7 7 (March, 1 8 8 2 ) . " L e Times s'amuse," Saturday Review, Vol. 54, pp. 667-678, 696697 (November, 1 8 8 2 ) . 1883 Robert Buchanan, A Poet's Sketch-Book, London, Chatto & Windus, 1883. C. E. Vaughan, "Victor H u g o , " British Quarterly Review, Vol. 77, pp. 7 1 - 9 7 (January, 1 8 8 3 ) . " T h e Conclusion of La Légende des Siècles," Athenaeum, No. 2 9 1 1 , pp. 1 6 5 - 1 6 7 (August 1 1 , 1 8 8 3 ) . "Victor Hugo on the Channel Islands," Athenaeum, No. 2923, pp. j6i—562 (November 3, 1 8 8 3 ) . 1885 George Barnett Smith, Victor Hugo: His Life and Work, London, Ward and Downey, 1885. James Cappon, Victor Hugo, A Memoir and a Study, Edinburgh, Blackwood, 1885. Victor Hugo devant l'opinion: presse française, presse étrangère, Paris, 188$. W. E. Henley, "Victor H u g o , " Athenaeum, No. 3005, pp. 695— 698 (May 30, 1 8 8 5 ) . Richard Heath, "Victor H u g o , " The Leisure Hour, Vol. 34, pp. 809-816 ( 1 8 8 5 ) . Henry Ceard, "Victor H u g o , " Fortnightly Review, Vol. 38 n.s., PP- 1 7 - 3 i "Victor "Victor (May 29, "Victor

(ig8j)Hugo," London Times, May 23, 1885, pp. 5-6. H u g o , " The Literary World, Vol. 31 n.s., pp. j 2 0 - 5 2 1 188j). Hugo," The Spectator, Vol. 58, pp. 704-706 (May 30,

i88j).

"Victor H u g o , " Saturday Review, Vol. 59, pp. 708-709 (May 30, i 8 8 j ) . " T h e Funeral of Victor H u g o , " London Times, June 2, 1885, p. 5. "The Funeral of Victor H u g o , " Saturday Review, Vol. $9, p. 739 (June 6, 1 8 8 5 ) . G. Julian Harney, "Victor Hugo in Jersey," Athenaeum, N o . 3008, p. 791 (June 20, 1 8 8 $ ) .

Bibliography

31 j

Maude Petre, "Victor Hugo," The Month, Vol. 54, pp. 3 1 8 - 3 3 0 (July, 1 8 8 5 ) . Mrs. M. O. W. Oliphant, "Victor Hugo," Contemporary Review, Vol. 48, pp. 1 0 - 3 2 (July, 1885). William Archer, "The Plays of Victor Hugo," Time, Vol. 2, 2d series, pp. 1 4 3 - 1 5 7 (August, 1 8 8 5 ) . Lady Pollock, "Victor Hugo," Temple Bar, Vol. 74, pp. 5 0 7 - 5 1 7 (August, 1885). "The Outlaw of Iceland," Athenaeum, No. 3019, pp. 299-300 (September 5, 1 8 8 5 ) . "Victor Hugo," Temple Bar, Vol. 75, pp. 388-399 (November, 1885). 1886 A. C. Swinburne, A Study of Victor Hugo, London, 1886. "Victor Hugo in English Verse," Book Lore, Vol. 3, pp. 50—52 (January, 1886). "Victor Hugo," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 163, pp. 1 1 9 - 1 6 4 (January, 1886). "Victor Hugo," London Quarterly Review, Vol. 65, pp. 3 0 3 - 3 2 5 (January, 1886). 1887 Robert Buchanan, A Look around Literature, London, Ward and Downey, 1887. Francis Paul, " A French Critic on Victor Hugo," National Review, Vol. 9, pp. 407—417 (May, 1 8 8 7 ) . "Hugo's Diary," Athenaeum, No. 3 1 1 5 , pp. 46-47 (July, 1 8 8 7 ) . "Choses vues," Westminster Review, Vol. for 1887, pp. 674—683 (September, 1 8 8 7 ) . "Victor Hugo's 'Choses vues,' " The Spectator, Vol. 60, pp. 1 5 7 2 1 J 7 3 (November 19, 1887). 1888 George Moore, Confessions of a Young Man, London, Sonnenschein, 1888. Frank T . Marzials, Life of Victor Hugo, London, Walter Scott, 1888.

316

Bibliography 1889

Walter Pater, Appreciations, London, 1889. Walter Pater, "Correspondance de Gustave Flaubert," August 3, 1889.

Athenaeum,

1890 W . E. Henley, "Hugo, Victor," Chambers's Encyclopaedia, London, W. & R . Chambers, 1890, Vol. 5, p. 822. "The Modern French Novel," Quarterly Review, Vol. 170, pp. 287—317 (April, 1890). "Realism and Decadence in French Fiction," Quarterly Review, Vol. 1 7 1 , pp. $7-90 (July, 1890). 1892 Herbert Rix, "Hauteville House: An Exiled Poet's Home," Good Words, Vol. 33, pp. 823-827 ( 1 8 9 2 ) . 1893 J . Pringle Nichol, Victor Hugo: A Sketch of His Life and Work, London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1893. "Hugonica," Saturday Review, Vol. 75, pp. 292-293, 374-375 (March-April, 1 8 9 3 ) . "Victor Hugo," The Spectator, Vol. 7 1 , pp. $ 8 1 - 5 8 2 (October 28, 1 8 9 3 ) . 1894 C. E. Meetkerke, "The Legend of the Centuries," The Argosy, Vol. $7, pp. 1 1 4 - 1 2 1 (February, 1894). 1896 Esme Stuart, "Victor Hugo, the Poet," Scottish Review, Vol. 28, pp. 223-246 (October, 1896). "Victor Hugo's Letters," Saturday Review, Vol. 82, p. 499 (November 7, 1896). "Victor Hugo as a Letter Writer," The Academy, Vol. 50, pp. 4 1 5 - 4 1 6 (November 2 i , 1896). Edmund Gosse, "Current French Literature," Cosmopolis, Vol. 4, pp. 6 8 1 - 7 1 8 (December, 1896).

Bibliography

317

1898

"Victor Hugo's Correspondence," Saturday

Review,

Vol. 85, pp.

5 2 7 - 5 2 8 ( A p r i l 16, 1 8 9 8 ) .

Edmund Gosse, "Current French Literature," Cosmopolis,

Vol.

10, pp. 660-674 ( J u n e , 1 8 9 8 ) .

"Victor Hugo's Letters," Athenaeum,

No. 3690, pp. 92-9} (July

16, 1 8 9 8 ) . 1899

William Canton, "The Great Poet of Childhood," Sunday Magazine, Vol. 28, pp. 383-390 (June, 1899). "Scott and His French Pupils," Quarterly Review, Vol. 190, pp. 423-441 (October, 1899).

Vol. 57, pp. 487-488 (October

"Hugo on Hugo," The Academy, 28, 1 8 9 9 ) . 1900

W. E. Henley, "The Two Hugos," Pall Mall Magazine,

Vol. 20,

pp. 134—138 ( J a n u a r y , 1900).

Maurice Baring, "Goethe and Victor Hugo," National

Review,

V o l . 34, pp. 9 0 1 - 9 1 3 ( F e b r u a r y , 1900).

1901 Elizabeth L. Banks, "Love That Was Blind," Fortnightly

Review,

V o l . 76, pp. 3 0 7 - 3 1 6 ( A u g u s t 1, 1 9 0 1 ) . 1902

Havelock Ellis, "Victor Hugo," Fortnightly

Review,

Vol. 77, pp.

2 1 7 - 2 2 7 ( F e b r u a r y 1, 1 9 0 2 ) .

H. C. Macdowall, "Victor Hugo," Macmillan's

Magazine,

Vol.

85, pp. 311—320 ( F e b r u a r y , 1 9 0 2 ) .

"Victor Hugo," The Academy,

Vol. 62, pp. 197-198 (February

22, 1 9 0 2 ) .

Edmund Gosse, "The Influence of Victor Hugo," The itan,

Cosmopol-

V o l . 32, pp. 6 2 7 - 6 3 4 ( 1 9 0 2 ) .

G. K. Chesterton, "The Ways of the World," Pall Mall

Magazine,

V o l . 26, pp. 5 6 1 - 5 6 4 ( A p r i l , 1 9 0 2 ) .

"The Discipline of Taste," Saturday Review, Vol. 93, pp. 456— 457 (April 12, 1902). "Œuvres complètes de Victor Hugo," Edinburgh Review, Vol. 196, pp. 156-177 (July. ! 9 0 2 ) .

318

Bibliography

Ernest Tissot, " T h e Centenary of Victor Hugo," East and West, Vol. I, pp. iooj—1018 (August, 1 9 0 2 ) . " T h e Novel of Misery," Quarterly Review, Vol. 196, pp. 391— 393 (October, 1 9 0 2 ) . 1905 H. Wellington Wack, The Romance of Victor Hugo and Juliette Drouet, New York, Putnam, 1905. 1910 Francis Gribble, The Passions of the French Romantics, London, Chapman, 1 9 1 0 . 1912 A . F. Davidson, Victor Hugo: His Life and Work, ed. by Francis Gribble, London, Eveleigh Nash, 1 9 1 2 .

OTHER

REFERENCES

Edmond Biré, Victor Hugo avant 1830, Paris, 1883; Victor Hugo après 1830, Paris, 1 8 9 1 ; Victor Hugo après 1852, Paris, 1893. Elizabeth B. Browning, Letters, ed. by F. G. Kenyon, New York, Macmillan, 1897. Léo Claretie, "Victor Hugo et La Gazette de Guernsey," La Revue, Vol. 105, pp. 289—307 (December, 1 9 1 3 ) . Charles Dickens, Letters, London, Chapman & Hall, 1882. Francis Espinasse, Literary Recollections, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1893. Edmund Gosse, Life of Algernon Charles Swinburne, London, Macmillan, 1 9 1 7 . Pierre de Lacretelle, La Vie Politique de Victor Hugo, Paris, Hachette, 1928. Georges Lafourcade, Swinburne, a Literary Biography, London, G. Bell & Sons, 1932. George Meredith, Letters, coll. and ed. by his son, New York, Scribner's, 1 9 1 2 . Mary Russell Mitford, Correspondence with Charles Boner and John Ruskin, ed. by Elizabeth Lee, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1 9 1 5 ; Letters of Mary Russell Mitford, 2d series, ed. by H. F. Chorley,

Bibliography

319

London, Bentley, 1872; The Friendships of Mary Russell Mitford, ed. by A. G. L'Estrange, London, Hurst & Blackett, 1882. George Moore, Conversations in Ebury Street, New York, Boni & Liveright, 1924. Marcel Moraud, Le Romantisme français en Angleterre de 1814 à 1848 ("Bibliothèque de la littérature comparée," t. 90), Paris, H. Champion, 1933. John Morley, Recollections, New York, Macmillan, 1917. John Heywood Thomas, L'Angleterre dans l'oeuvre de Victor Hugo, Paris, Pierre, André, 1934. Julius West, A History of the Chartist Movement, London, Constable, 1920. Auguste Vacquerie, Les Miettes de l'histoire, Paris, Pagnerre, 1863. David A. Wilson, Carlyle in Old Age (1865-1881), London, Kegan Paul, 1934.

FIRST E N G L I S H

TRANSLATIONS O F

PRINCIPAL

HUGO'S

WORKS

Hans of Iceland, tr. from the French, with etchings by G. Cruikshank, London, 1825. Catherine of Cleves, and Hernani: Tragedies, tr. from the French . . . , by Lord Francis Leveson Gower, London, 1832. The Slave-King, from the Bug Jargal ("Library of Romance," Vol. 6) London, Smith & Elder, 1833. Notre Dame, a Tale of the 'Ancien Régime,' from the French of M. Victor Hugo [by William Hazlitt, Jr.] London, E. Wilson, 1833. "Claude Gueux. By Victor Hugo," Athenaeum, No. 353, pp. 571— 574 (August 2, 1834). Songs of Twilight (Les Chants du crépuscule), tr. from the French by G. W. M. Reynolds ("Paris, French, English, and American Library"), 1836. The Last Days of a Condemned, from the French of Victor Hugo . . . by Sir P. Hesketh Fleetwood, London, 1840. The King's Fool; or Le Roi s'amuse, from the French of Victor Hugo; tr. by W. T. Haley ("The Romanticist," Vol. j n.s.), London, 1841. "Angelo; a Tale (taken from the Drama of Victor Hugo)," Blackwood's Magazine, Vol. j i , pp. 799-812 (June, 1842). Lucretia Borgia; a dramatic tale, tr. from the French of Victor

3 2o

Bibliogra phy

Hugo by W. T . Haley ("The Romanticist," Vol. j n.s.), London, 1842. Excursions along the Banks of the Rhine (Le Rhin), London, Colburn, 1843. Napoleon the Little, London, Vizetelly, 1852. R u y Bias, tr. by E. O'Rourke ("Lacy's Acting Edition of Plays," Vol. 49), London, 1861. Les Miserables, tr. by Lascelles Wraxall, London, Hurst & Blackett, 1862. Victor Hugo; a Life, Narrated by a Witness, London, W. H. Allen, 1863. William Shakespeare, tr. by A. Baillot, London, 1864. Toilers of the Sea, tr. by W. Moy Thomas, London, Sampson Low, 1866. Mentana, by Victor Hugo, tr. by "the Oxford Graduate" [Edwin Arnold], London, Farrah, 1868. By Order of the King (L'Homme qui rit), authorized translation, London, Bradbury & Evans, 1869-1870. The King's Edict, by B. Fairclough, adapted from . . . "Marion Delorme," London, 1872. Ninety-three, tr. by Benedict and Friswell, London, Sampson Low, 1874—187$. History of a Crime, tr. by Joyce and Locker, London, Sampson Low, 1877—1878, 4 vols. Things Seen, London, Routledge, 1887.

Index Académie prize story, 247, 250, 2 3 1 n, IJ} Academy, founded; status, 2 2 ) ; excerpts, 187, 199, 2 Î J Actes et paroles, m , 1 1 2 , 1 1 ) , 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 », 1 3 2 ,

1 9 1 , 245, 249,

2J4

Affaire Biard, 264 A f r i c a , speech on, 209 Alexandrine verse, 10, 229, 230 Alien Bill, 1 1 8 , 120, 128, 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 Allen, W. H „ tc Co., i J 9 Alpes et Pyrenees, 259 America, treatment by reviews, 4 Amy Robsart, authorship, 248, 251 n Anderson, J . P., Hugo bibliography, 252 n Ane, L', 2 3 0 , 2 3 2 Atigelo, Tyran de Padoue, 37, 60, 61, 80 Anglo-French relations, 3 S. ; Hugo warns English against dangers of alliance, n o Annie terrible, V, 187, 2 1 4 - 1 8 Annuals, storehouses of poetry, 69 Archer, William, 242 Aristocratic system, 1 7 1 , 180, 192 Arnold, Sir Edwin, 73, 1 7 1 Arnold, Matthew, 2 1 1 ; objections to Hugo's poetry, 228; quoted, 229, 256 " A r t , French," and "English Nature," »3. ' 3 7 Art d'etre Grand-père, V, 230 {., 263 " A r t f o r art's sake" movement, 2 1 1 , i«3 Asseline, A l f r e d , quoted, 160 n; Victor Hugo intime, 234 Athenaeum, founded; editors, 20; excerpts, 20, 36, 37, 52, 54, s j , 36, 70, 168

Austin, A l f r e d , 230 "Austrian insult," 233 Aux Habitants de Guernsey, 108 " A w a k e n i n g " and vision of la Liberté, 249, 2 5 2 » , 2 3 j

Ballades, 13, 1 ; , 1 7 » , 19, 24, 7 2 ; see also Odes et ballades Balzac, Honoré de, J J . >9« Blanc, Louis, 83, 189 Blessington, Lady, The Idler

in

Bliss, publisher, 239 Boccaccio, Decameron, 175 Boielle, James, 203 Boileau, Nicolas, 12 Bony, Félix, n o Bourbons, invasion of Spain, 16 n Bourget, Paul, 223 Bowles-Byron controversy, 12 Bowring, Sir John, 23, 68 Bradbury J i Evans, 1 7 3 , 178, 183

France,

3 zz

Index

Bright, John, quoted, 1 2 j Britannica, articles on Hugo, 261 Britiib and Foreign Review, excerpt, 98 Browning, Elizabeth Barrett, 86, 9 ) ; quoted, 9 1 , 100 n, 104; letter to Napoleon III, excerpt, 1 3 7 Browning, Robert, quoted, 104 "Brussels incident," 1 0 2 , 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 , 249, 2 5 2 », 257 Buchanan, Robert, 2 2 1 ; quoted, 189, 218 Buckingham, J . S., 20 Bug-Jar gal, 19, 2 5 ; published under title The Slave King, 4 0 ; translated as The Noble Rival, 90 "Bug-pipe," 169, 176 Bulwer, Henry, j i , i j ; France, Social, Literary, Political, j 5 ; criticisms of Hugo's plays, 55, j 6 , 59 Bulwer-Lytton, Edward, The Lady of Lyons, 63 Burgraves, Lei, 248; political message, 96; failure in England; translated as The Robber Lords of the Rhine, 97 Burnand, Sir Francis, 1 9 ) , 1 9 ; , 196, 197 Burty, Ph., 224 By

Order of the King, 17j; see also L'Homme qui rit Byron, Lord, 1 2 , 7 8 ; influence upon French, 14 By the King's Command, 1 8 3 ; see also L'Homme qui rit

Cahaigne, J . , 106 Capital punishment, 22, 40, 92,

108,

Cappon, James, 252 n, 254; Victor Hugo 2 5 1 fCarlyle, Thomas, 8 j , 86, 87, 198; quoted, 190 Cassagnac, Granier de, 98 Castle, Philip, 189 Catholic Church and Hugo, 2 3 4 , 237 Céard, Henry, obituary article, quoted, 237 ff. Chambers, W. & R . , 91 Chambers's Encyclopedia, 261 Channel Islands, Hugo's exile on, 10542, 1 6 0 ; see also Guernsey; Jersey

Chansons " 5 Chants

des rues et des bois, Les, 1 5 9 , du

crépuscule,

64, 69, 73 S.,

76* 7 7 . 79» 80 Chapman, George, 73 Chapman and Hall, 69 Chartists, 84, 1 0 2 ; stir up opposition to Palmerston, 12 j ff. Cbastelard (Swinburne), 149 Chateaubriand, 7 , 16, 3$, 70, 76, 78, 86; credited with calling Hugo enfant sublime, 247, 250, 2 5 1 » , 253 Châtiments, Les, 7 5 , 104, 107, 1 3 6 , 1 4 7 , 207, 2 1 4 Chatto Ac Windus, 206 Chauvinism in Hugo's poems, 2 1 4 Chesterton, Gilbert K., quoted, 261 Choses vues, 257, 2 5 8 ; translated

as

Things Seen, 258 Claretie, Léo, quoted, 1 0 5 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 , 160 n Clarke, F., 260 Classic-romantic controversy, 44 Claude Gueux, 40 Cobden, Richard, 1 0 1 , 1 2 5 , 128 Colburn's New Monthly Magazine, 3, 7, 1 5 , 1 6 « ; excerpts, 1 7 , 18, 1 3 8 , 150 Coleridge, S. T . , on French poetry, 1 2 Collins, publisher, 206 Col vin, Sidney, 2 1 6 ; quoted, 2 1 4 , 21$, Comte, Auguste, 85 Conservateur Littéraire, 16, 16 Constant, Benjamin, Adolphe, 8 Contemplations, Les, 75, 1 0 7 , 1 3 7 - 3 9 , 148 Contemporary Review, excerpt, 2 1 9 Convention, the, treatment o f , offends English, 202 Corneille, Pierre, 9, 10, 1 2 Cornhill Magazine, excerpts, 166, 200 Cosmopolitanism, struggle between nationalism and, 68; ideal o f , 82; nourished by radicals, 84 ; Hugo's, 8 8, 95 Cowen, Joseph, 1 2 3 , 129 Cowley-Brown, G. J . , 2 1 6 Crimean War, 1 1 0 , 1 2 4 , 132 Croker, John Wilson, 10

Index Cromwell, 20, 2 ) , 28, 44, j 6 , 1 6 0 , 248 Cruikshank, George, illustrations, 18 n Daily News, excerpt, 1 1 8 Dallas, E. S., 1 7 3 ; quoted, 1 7 4 , 17$ Daudet, Léon, quoted, 246 Davidson, A. F., biography of Hugo, iJ7 Davidson, John, 63 n, 7 } Dea, blind girl, 181, 182 Death penalty, see Capital punishment "Decadence" of French writing, 222 Déclaration following Pyat letter incident, 116, 1 1 7 Delavigne, Casimir, 9, 1 2 , 1 5 , 4 $ , 69, 74 Democracy, England's attitude toward, 4 Democratic propaganda, materials for, «5 Dent, J . M., 206 De Quincey, Thomas, on French poetry, 12 Dernier Jour d'un condamné, Le, 22, 24. 2 Í< 39. 4 ' . 9 « - 9 4 . Dickens, Charles, accused of following Hugo too closely, 93; quoted, loo Dilke, Charles W., 20 Djinns, Les, 23 Doré, Paul Gustave, illustrations, 161 Dowden, Edward, 7 3 , 2 2 1 , 2 j i n; quoted, 2 1 9 , 220; History of trench Literature, 261 Drama, English, poverty of, 8, 4 3 ; dependence on French originals, 43 ; plays most in demand, 44; disparity of taste between critics and public; French plays "toned down" for stage, Í4 Drama, French pre-eminence, 8, 4 3 ; press campaign against Hugo and Dumas, 39; English dependence on, 4 3 ; plays most in demand, 44; reaction against Hugo's romantic dramas, 4 3 - 6 6 ; classic-romantic controversy, 44; 1 8 3 2 the turning point in, 51; "toned down" for English stage, 54; Quarterly Review's edict against, 57; critics pass judgment on, too easily, 62; English ready to discard, 6 3 ; more

3*3

liberal attitude toward, 64; Lewes'i article on, a milestone indicating progress of Romanticism, 84; knell sounded by failure of Les Burgraves, 97 Dramatic "Works, 258 Dramatists, French, 8 Drouet, Juliette, 1 3 4 , 253 Dublin University Magazine, 7 4 , 81 Dulau, publisher, 144 n, 193 Dumas pere, 39, 44, 45, 52, 59, 86 n, 89, 130, 188, 2 0 1 ; Bulwer's indebtedness to, 6 3 ; better appreciated than Hugo, 64 Edinburgh Review, 3, 4 1 , 1 j 2 , 239, 263; new drama, 4 ; Eichthal, Gustave d', Eliot, George (Mary

4, 7, 19; excerpts, influential, 4 4 ; on 85 Ann Evans), 66,

86, 198, 199 Ellis, Havelock, scientific study of Hugo, 26 j ; quoted, 266 Encyclopaedia Britannica, articles on Hugo, 261 Encyclopedia articles, 261 English army, valor praised, 1 $ $ Englishman's Magazine, 3 1 , 38 "English Nature" and "French A r t , " «J. '57 Esmeralda, 30, 34, 36 Esmeralda, La, 90, 248; an operatic version of Notre Dame, 61 Espinasse, his Literary Recollections quoted, 86, 87 Esquiros, Alphonse, 144 n Evans, Mary Ann, 66; see also Eliot, George Examiner, excerpt, 48 Excursions along the Banks of the Rhine, 96 n; see also Rhin, Le Exiles among Chartists, 8$ Exiles in Jersey, 1 0 2 , 1 0 6 ; plan demonstration against Napoleon I I I , 1 1 2 ; expulsion and resulting political controversies, 1 1 6 - 3 2 Faider, loi, story of, 2 J 2 n, 257 Fairclough, B., 51

Index

3*4

Fantine, 146» 1 5 2 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 7 Farrah, publisher, 1 7 1 "Father Prout," pseud., see Mahoney, F. S. " F . B . , " 81 Female virtue, arguments about, 66 Feminists, begin to be heard ; George Sand a guiding star, 86 Feuilles d'automne, Let, 72, 7 3 , 74, 76, 79» M 7 » Fielding, Henry, 200, 201 Fils de la bossue, Le, never written, 91 Finlen, James, 1 2 7 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 1 Fitzball, Edward, 57 Fleetwood, Sir P. Hesketh, 9 1 , 92 Fleurs de Poesie Moderne, 69 Foreign Quarterly Review, j 2 , 84; founded; authority on French literature, 20, 23, 59; excerpts, 2 1 , 50, 53, 70, 89, 100 Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany, 20, 24 "Foreign Varieties" columnists, 3, 9 Fortnightly Review, 1 6 5 ; excerpts, 199, ¿ 3 7 . * 3 8 , 239 Foucher, Paul, 248 France, relations with England, 3; prejudice against, 4; belief in England's superiority to, 7 ; more intelligent attitude toward, 1 9 ; interest of radicals in, 85; English warned against alliance with, 1 1 0 Franco-German unity, spirit o f , in Le Rhin, 88 Francophil campaign in Fraser's, 7$ Franco-Prussian War, 249, 277 Fraser's Magazine, 8 1 ; excerpts, 36, 95, 99, 1 7 2 , 1 7 9 ; Francophil campaign, 7 5 ; sequence of opinions on Hugo's novels, 1 7 2 n French, the, immorality, 6, 6 1 ; more sympathetic than the English, 93 ; idea of justice, Thackeray's diatribe against, quoted, 94; charged with interfering with exiles, 1 1 8 ; use of term "the French," 1 5 7 "French A r t " and "English N a t u r e , " 8}. M 7 French exiles, see Exiles " F r e n c h " faults, characteristic,

iéi

"Frenchman, the representative," 167 French Revolution, 4, 202 Friswell, J . Hain, 197 Funeral orations, 107, 1 1 0

1 y 8,

Garibaldi's defeat, poem on, 1 7 1 Gazette de Guernsey, 1 3 4 Gentleman's Magazine, 33, 1 7 3 ; publication of By Order of the King, 1 7 3 , 1 7 $ ; exchange of volleys with Hugo, 1 7 j ; excerpt, 176 Germany, angered by Le Rhin, 94 Gilliatt, 1 6 2 , 166, 200 Gissing, George R . , 2 1 3 Globe, excerpt, 70 God save the queen, 1 3 4 n, 13 j Goethe, 38; cosmopolitan ideal, 82; compared with Hugo, 260 Gonzalez, Angelo, 1 1 4 , 1 1 8 , 120 Gosse, Sir Edmund, 1 3 6 , 2 1 2 , 267; quoted, 147, 149, 197, 259, 260, 262; " T h e Influence of Victor H u g o , " excerpt, 263 Gosselin, publisher, 22, 27, 28, 29, 3 1 Gower, Lord Francis Leveson, 49 n, S7 », 7y Grand-mère, La, 24 Gribble, Francis, 238 Grimm's Grandson, see Stendhal Guedalla, Philip, quoted, 1 2 5 Guernsey, Hugo in, 1 0 j , 1 1 6 , 1 3 2 ff.; requirements f o r social success, 1 3 3 ; Les Travailleurs a tale o f , 1 6 3 ; see also Channel Islands Guidebook to Rhine, 96 Gunnell, Doris, 1 5 Han d'Islande, i j , 1 7 , 22, 23, 2$, 27, 6 1 , 248, 250 Hans of Iceland, 90 Hargrove, Charles, 232 Harney, George Julian, 1 2 3 , i 2 j 129, 1 3 3 , 244; quoted, 1 3 1 Hatton, Joseph, 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 7 ; correspondence with Hugo, 175 Hazlitt, William, 32, 52; quoted» 1 2 Heine, 99 Heinemann, William, 260; "Memoirs of Victor H u g o , " 2 j 9

Index Hemans, Felicia, 90, 2 1 6 Henley, W. E . , 239, 2 6 1 , 266; quoted, 2 1 6 , 264, 1 6 5 Henri III (Dumas père), 44, j 2 Hernani, 52, j ) , $7 », 63, 229; "battle o f , " 44, 4 $ ; reviewed, 4 5 ; produced under title The Pledge, 46, 57; produced before royal family, 49 »

Histoire

d'un

crime,

V,

102, 104, 207,

Hodgson's "Parlour Library," 90 Homme, L', newspaper, 106, 1 1 4 , 1 3 2 Homme qui rit, V, 168, 1 7 1 - 8 5 , 192, 267; a study of aristocratic system, 1 7 2 , 180; English title. By Order of the King, 1 7 3 ; translation, 1 7 3 , 1 7 7 ; publication, 1 7 3 , 1 8 3 , 1 9 3 ; condensation, 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 ; a forbidden book, 1 7 8 ; Hugo's worst novel, 179, 1 8 j ; price of editions; published again as By the King's Command, 1 8 3 ; editions and sales, 205, 206 Home, Richard Hengist, 2 1 9 Hotten, J . C., 206 Hugo, Adèle, 266 Hugo, Charles, 1 2 2 f . ; Les Hommes de l'exil, 1 2 1 Hugo, Eugène, 166 Hugo, François-Victor, 1 2 2 ; quoted, 107 Hugo, Léopoldine, 1 3 7 , 238 Hugo, Victor, introduction to the English, 3-26; early poems; wins Royalist recognition, 1 4 ; on way to literary fame; first romance; Royal pension, 1 5 ; political affiliation, 1 7 ; accused of imitating Scott, 1 8 ; elevation to Legion d'honneur, 1 9 ; reform in versification; in aesthetic standards; poetry never valued as in France, 2 1 ; later work comes into prominence, 22 ff.; against capital punishment, 22, 40, 92, 108, 146, 245; foundation of his English reputation, 27-42; never translated in early years; complete edition of works announced; SainteBeuve's laudatory Prospectus, 27; compared with Scott, 28, 29, 30, 32, 39, 83, 199, 200; charge of plagiarism against, 30, 34; dragged into po-

litical arena, 3 2 ; unsavory reputation of works, 38, 4 1 , 57; condemnation of dramas, 39, 43-46; earlier works brought to light in England, 4 0 ; leadership in classic-romantic controversy, 44, 4 5 ; production of plays in England, 46 if.; English seek political significance in his writings, 52; philosophical doctrine underlying dramas, 5 5 ; misrepresentation of English scenes and characters, $6; dramas made known to public by notices and reviews; wholesale attack on, 57; intentions shown by dramatic prefaces, 58; Bulwer's indebtedness to, 6 3 ; less appreciated than Dumas, 64; dramatic principle defended by Lewes; materials for democratic propaganda in plays; influential in English agitation and propaganda, 65; lyric poetry in England, 67-83; poetry read only by the educated élite, 67, 80; poetry his best work, 67, 267; prestige dependent upon his novels, 67; Printing Machine gives first useful commentary on, 7 0 ; becomes better known as poet; pseudo-primitivism o f , discovered, 7 2 ; poetry depends much on form and little on meaning; men who have Englished his poetry, 7 3 ; versions of his lyrics; only complete edition, 74; poems most admired, 7 4 , 76, 224; years marking low ebb of reputation, 76 ; critics' preference f o r royalist odes, 77, 78; criticisms by hostile Frenchmen, 7 7 , 7 9 ; by Mazzini, 79; criticism during the 1830*$, 80; waits twenty years for intellectual support, 87; criticism during the 1840's, 88; cosmopolitanism, 88, 9 $ ; humanitarianism, 88, 2 1 2 ; literary achievements up to 1840; real metier? 88; not drama, 89; reputation as poet during 1840's, 89; best known as a novelist, 90; fails to write two promised novels; public loses interest, 9 1 ; verses in behalf of Armand Barbès, 93 f . ; trial scenes compared with Dickens's, 93 n; accused of nationalism, 95; last literary project before

32 6

Index

Hugo, Victor ( C o n t i n u e d ) . giving himself up definitely to politics, 96; Hugo-Ponsard conflict; first period of literary activity closes on a note of failure, 98; conceit, 99, 100, 169, 1 9 7 n, 208, 2 2 7 , 228, 245; home; Place Royale sslon, 99; appearance, 1 0 0 ; "apostasy," 1 0 0 , 249, 255» beginning of political reputation in England; identified with Liberal cause; as President of Peace Congress, 1 0 1 ; exile at Brussels; obliged to leave Belgium, 1 0 2 , 2 4 9 ; polemics against Napoleon III, 1 0 2 , IOJ, 104, 1 0 8 ; exile in the Channel Islands; consequences upon English prestige, 1 0 5 - 4 2 ; champion of Liberty or meddlesome troublemaker, 105; first residence on English soil; "halo of exile"; social relations, 1 0 6 ; occupations, 1 0 7 ; funeral orations; speeches at banquets, 1 0 7 , n o ; conflicts with English authority, 108 aspersions on Napoleon III, 109, i n , 1 1 2 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 8 « , 1 2 3 , 2 1 4 ; speeches provocative to the English, n o , 2 1 0 ; answer to Peel, 1 1 1 ; Pyat letter incident, 1 1 3 tí.; expulsion from Jersey, 1 1 3 , n 6 ; resulting controversies and his part in them, 1 1 6 - 3 2; charges of French interference with exiles, 1 1 8 ; accounts of expulsion interview, 1 2 1 f f . ; life in Guernsey, 1 3 2 ff.; efforts to gain popularity on island, 1 3 4 ; mistress, 1 3 4 , 238, 2 5 3 , 266; expulsion f r o m Jersey heightens prestige; disposition to re-evaluate his poems, 1 3 6 ; his later poetry, 1 3 7 ff.; compared with Tennyson, 1 3 9 , 1 4 1 , 224; semi-deifies himself under name of Olympio, 1 4 0 ; social doctrines, 146, 1 5 1 ; literary friendship with Swinburne, 149, 1 8 2 ; uniform objections against, crystallized and established ; effect on prestige, 1 5 1 ; objections to his prose style, 1 5 3 , 1 8 1 ; " T i t a n i c " power of style, 1 5 4 ; idolatry of Paris, i f 7 , 1 9 0 ; identified by critics with characteristic French faults, 1 5 7 , 1 6 1 ; the "representative

Frenchman," 1 5 7 , 167 ; first autobiography; years of great literary activity, 1 5 9 ; novel of his exile in Channel Islands, 1 6 0 ; better fitted to write of Nature than of Society, 162, 1 6 3 ; digressions, 1 6 5 , 2 0 1 , 267; suicide of characters, 1 6 7 ; mistakes on English subjects, 168, 180, 184; enters upon program of instruction in political economy, 1 7 1 ; "studies" of the aristocratic system, 1 7 1 , 1 8 0 ; exchange of volleys with publishers of By Order of the King, 1 7 5 ; worst novel, 1 7 9 , 1 8 5 ; reasons why, 1 7 9 f f . ; indecencies only typical of French indecencies, 1 7 9 ; high tide of English prestige; as a novelist, 1 8 6 - 2 1 0 ; return to Paris, 186, 2 1 4 ; political incompetence, 1 8 6 ; alone in exile, 1 8 7 ; in literature, 188, 222; English opinions on his refusal of 1859 amnesty, 1 8 9 ; proposals to the French; charged with lack of practical proposals f o r improvement of society, 1 9 0 ; Republicanism, 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 ; prestige in France influences critics, 1 9 7 ; reviewers survey novels from higher vantage point, 2 0 3 ; editions and sales, 204-7, 248 n, 258; circulation of novels; prices; reaches a lower class of readers; decline of reputation, 204; school editions, 205; poor taste in recounting his own bravery, 1 0 8 ; speech on A f rica at Schoelcher dinner, 209; high tide of English prestige: as poet, 2 1 1 3 3 ; technical skill as poet, 2 1 3 ; beginning of poetic reign in England, 2 1 4 ; patriotism, 2 1 4 , 2 1 5 ; exaggerated account of the "Brussels incident," 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 ; chauvinism, 2 1 4 ; English campaign of adulation and instruction, 2 1 6 ; success in molding French verse, 2 1 9 ; awarded titular crown of French poetry, 222; supremacy disputed in attack of Lewes and others on his poetry, 22$ if.; last poems, 230, 2 3 2 ; death, and decline of prestige, 2 3 4 - 6 7 ; funeral, 234; reaction against, 236; obituary articles, 237 ff.; sincerity in sexual matters;

Index scandalous liaisons, 2 3 8 ; personal provisions for his posthumous fame and the Hugo legend, 2 4 4 - 5 0 ; biographies, 244, 246 ff., 2 5 0 - 5 7 ; speeches, 245, 254 {see also Actes et parole s); fabrications in the Hugo legend, 247, 2 ( 0 , 2 5 1 n, 253, 256; lineage, 247, 2 j o , 2 5 1 1 s , 266; excuses f o r early failures, 248, 2 5 5 ; "awakening" and vision, 249, 252 n, 2 5 5 ; explanations of change in political views, 249, 253, 2 5 5 ; most complete bibliography o f , 252 n; Biré's biography the greatest source book, 2 5 5 ; Tennyson's sonnet to, 2 5 6 ; text, 2 2 3 ; posthumous works, 2 5 7 ; abilities as a letter writer, 259; critical writing about, in the nineties, 260 ff.; compared with Goethe, 260; Encyclopedia articles on, 2 6 1 ; centenary, 262; explanations of collapse of his reputation, 262; question of his sanity, 266 Hugo, Mme Victor, 244, 254; quoted, 106 f. Humanitarianism, welcomed in England, 2 1 1 ; of Hugo, 88, 111 Humanitarians, English, not satisfied with their own writers, 88; approve he Dernier Jour, 92 Hunchback of Notre Dame, The, 90; first use of title, 3 5 ; see also Notre Dame de Parts H u n t , Leigh, 3 5 , 53; quoted, 4 7 , 49 Hurst 8c Blackett, 144, 146 Hutton, Richard, 149 Immorality, French, 6, 61 Jameson, Mrs., 86, 93 Janin, Jules, 20, 40, 4 1 , 60, 7 7 , 78, 81 J e f f r e y , Francis, 1 3 , 68, 82 Jeffs, W., 102, 1 4 3 , 1 4 5 , 1 6 1 Jerdan's Literary Gazette, excerpt, 33 Jerrold, Blanchard, The Gavroche Party . . . , 1 9 1 , 208; Life of Napoleon III, 208 Jerrold, Douglas W., Black-Ey'd 43 Jerrold, Evelyn, 189, quoted, 187, 199

1 9 1 n,

Susan, 200;

3*7

Jersey, exiles in, 1 0 2 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 2 ; Pyat letter incident, 1 1 3 ff.; expulsion of exiles, 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 - 3 2 ; see also Channel Islands "Jersey coup d'état," 20, 1 2 4 Jones, Ernest, 1 2 ; , 1 2 7 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 ) Josiane, 1 7 7 , 1 7 9 , 182 Journal des Débats, 77 J o u y , Étienne de, Sylla, 9 Judicial practice attacked, 1 4 6 J u l y Revolution, 8 j Justice, French, diatribe against, 94 Keepsake français, Le, 69 Kenney, James, 46 Kesler, Hennett de, 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 King's Edict, The ( H u g o ) , J I ; see also Marion Delorme King's Fool; or, the Old Man's Curse, 53, 5 7 ; see also Le Roi s'amuse Knight, James, 7 1 Knowles, Sheridan, 4 3 , 64 Kock, Paul de, 62, 86 Kossuth, Louis, 8 ; , n o , i n Lacretelle, Pierre de, Vie Politique de Victor Hugo, 2JJ Lacroix, publisher, 144, 1 4 5 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 7 Lacroix & Verboeckhoven, 1 4 3 , 1 6 1 , '93 Lafayette, Marquis de, 99 La Fontaine, Jean de, 1 2 Lafourcade, Georges, 1 4 7 Lamartine, Alphonse de, 16, 1 7 , 23, 3 1 , ¿9> 7 ° . 74. 76, 8 1 ; reputation, 1 3 ; Méditations poétiques, 1 2 , 13 Lang, Andrew, 7 3 , 260 Language, French, poor medium f o r poetry, 1 1 , 82 Lantenac, 1 9 2 , 201 Larivière, Père, 2 5 1 , 233 Lebrun, Echouchard, 9 Légende des Siècles, La, 72, 1 0 6 , 1 3 9 42, 148, 224, 2 3 2 ; second series of poems, 2 2 3 ; popular poems in, 224 Légion d'honneur, Hugo's elevation to, •9 Legion d'honneur, La, drama, 48 Lemercier, Louis, 69

Index

328

Leneveu, John, n i , 121; quoted, 122 Letters from Paris, by Grimm's Grandson, i ; Lettre Lettre Lettres Lettres Levy,

ì Louis Bonaparte, 112 aux habitants de Guernsey, * la fiancee, 25« aux Anglais . . . , 2J9 Michel, 19}

lot

Lewes, George Henry, »2, 159, 161; defense of Marion Dtlorme, 6 j ; elopement, 6 6 ; quoted, 66, 82, 8 ) , 165, 166; champion of cosmopolitan ideal and of French poetry, 8 2 ; representative of new spirit; " T h e French Drama: Racine and Victor Hugo," 8 4 ; attack on Hugo's poetry, 223 Liberals, uphold French Democracy, j ; Hugo's name identified with cause, 33, 101 ; attitude toward French literature, 8 j ; disapprove of Napoleon's coup d'etat, 108 Liberté, la, vision of, 249, 25 j Life of Victor Hugo (Marzials), 252 8. Literary Gazette, Jerdan's, excerpt, 33 Literary recommendation, French and English methods, 28 Literary standards, difference between French and English, 179 Literary World, excerpt, 184 Literature, cosmopolitan ideal, 82 Literature, English, increase of French influence over, 2 1 1 ; see also Poetry, English Literature, French, English view of, 3, 6 if.; new diction and vocabulary, 11; English opinions on, begin to appear, 19; more liberal attitude toward, 64; moralistic view of, never accepted by Liberals or Radicals, 8 ; ; first English textbook on, 9 1 ; indecent writing, 179; decadence, 222; see also Poetry, French Littérature et philosophie mêlées, 26, 88 Locksley Hall Sixty Years After (Tennyson), excerpt, 222 Loi Faider, 2 5 2 » , 2 5 7 London Magazine, 15; excerpts, 14, 16 », 2) London

Times, excerpts, 1 1 ; , 119, 128,

174. »75. » 9 °

Longmans, Green, 2 0 ; Louis X I , 33, 34 Louis X V I I I , 14 Love, Major-General, 114, 120 Low, Sampson, 193, 197 Lucrèce Borgia, 39, J J , j 6 , 57, j 8 , 76, >47 Ludlow, J . M., 139; quoted, 140, 141 Macdowall, H . C., 252 n Macmillan's Magazine, 139, 264 " M a g a , " reviewer, 2 j , j j , 61 Magazines, see Reviews and magazines Maginn, William, 7 ; Mahoney, F. S. ("Father P r o u t " ) , 35, 7 4 . 7 J . ' 3 9 ; quoted, 36, 76 Mallarme's Tuesday evenings, 212 Manchester School, 123, 127 Manzoni, Alessandro, 199 Marguerite de Navarre, Heptameron, '7f Marie Tudor, 39, 56, $7, (8, 59, 64, 7 6 , 160, 248, 251 » Marine Terrace residence, 106, 107 Marion Delorme, 39, j o if., j j , 57, $8, 64 », 249, 2 { i n; adapted under title The King's Edict, j 1 ; defended by Lewes, 65 Martineau, Harriet, 86 Marzials, Frank, 159; biography of Hugo, 24 j , 2 j 2 ff. Masson, David, 131, 139 Maurice, F. D-, 20, 139 Mazzini, Giuseppe, 68, 79, 80, 8 ; , 87, •39 "Memoirs of Victor Hugo" (Heinem a n n ) , 239 Mentana, first entitled La Voix de Guernsey, 171 Meredith, George, quoted, 147, 164, 213 Mérimée, Prosper, 86 n Methuen, publisher, 260 Mézères, French dramatist, 44 Miall, Edward, 1 2 ; , 128 Mill, John Stuart, 19, 81, 190; quoted, 4 ; divorced from Benthamite faith; formulates doctrines, 85 Millais, John Everett, illustrations by, ' 4 4 ». ' 4 9 » Millingen, John Gideon, 33

Index Mirror of Literature, Amusement, lnttruction, 26, 3 1 Misérables, Les, 87, 106, 1 4 3 - 5 8 ,

and

161, editions, 1 4 3 , 144, 2 0 ; , 206; disapprobation of English press, 1 4 6 ; social evils attacked, 146, 1 5 1 ; recommendations, 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 ; reviews, 147 ff., 1 3 1 ; style, 1 5 3 ; digressions, 1 5 4 ; compared with Les Travailleurs, 162, 165 Mistress, see Drouet, Juliette M i t f o r d , Mary Russell, 89, 93, 216 Moir, George, 7 1 ; quoted, 4 ; Molesworth, Sir William, 81 Molière, 9, 1 2 , 229 162,

1 7 2 », 1 9 3 , 200, 202, 2 6 7 ;

Monod, Gabriel, 2 2 3 , 230; quoted, 207, Monteyremar, Henri de, quoted, 13 ( Moore, George, 2 1 3 ; quoted, 2 1 2 , 241 Moore, T o m , 13 Moraud, Marcel, cited, 3, 3 4 » , 49,