No More Learning

—Pan. : Nay!

Have you manhood suffrage? —Pan. : Eh?

Is Jack as good as his master? —Pan. : Nay!

Have you joined the Arbitration Society? —Pan. : _Quoy_?

Will you let another kick you, and will you ask his neighbour if you
deserve the same? —Pan. : Nay!

Do you eat what you list? —Pan. : Ay!

Do you drink when you are athirst? —Pan. : Ay!

Are you governed by the free expression of the popular will? —Pan. : How?

Are you servants of priests, pulpits, and penny papers? —Pan. : NO!

Now, when they heard these answers of Pantagruel they all fell, some a
weeping, some a praying, some a swearing, some an arbitrating, some a
lecturing, some a caucussing, some a preaching, some a faith-healing,
some a miracle-working, some a hypnotising, some a writing to the daily
press; and while they were thus busy, like folk distraught, “reforming
the island,” Pantagruel burst out a laughing; whereat they were greatly
dismayed; for laughter killeth the whole race of Coqcigrues, and they may
not endure it.

Then Pantagruel and his company stole aboard a barque that Panurge had
ready in the harbour. And having provisioned her well with store of meat
and good drink, they set sail for the kingdom of Entelechy, where, having
landed, they were kindly entreated; and there abide to this day; drinking
of the sweet and eating of the fat, under the protection of that
intellectual sphere which hath in all places its centre and nowhere its
circumference.

Such was their destiny; there was their end appointed, and thither the
Coqcigrues can never come. For all the air of that land is full of
laughter, which killeth Coqcigrues; and there aboundeth the herb
Pantagruelion. But for thee, Master Françoys, thou art not well liked in
this island of ours, where the Coqcigrues are abundant, very fierce,
cruel, and tyrannical. Yet thou hast thy friends, that meet and drink to
thee, and wish thee well wheresoever thou hast found thy _grand
peut-être_.




VIII.
_To Jane Austen_.


MADAM,—If to the enjoyments of your present state be lacking a view of
the minor infirmities or foibles of men, I cannot but think (were the
thought permitted) that your pleasures are yet incomplete. Moreover, it
is certain that a woman of parts who has once meddled with literature
will never wholly lose her love for the discussion of that delicious
topic, nor cease to relish what (in the cant of our new age) is styled
“literary shop. ” For these reasons I attempt to convey to you some
inkling of the present state of that agreeable art which you, madam,
raised to its highest pitch of perfection.

As to your own works (immortal, as I believe), I have but little that is
wholly cheering to tell one who, among women of letters, was almost alone
in her freedom from a lettered vanity. You are not a very popular
author: your volumes are not found in gaudy covers on every bookstall;
or, if found, are not perused with avidity by the Emmas and Catherines of
our generation. ’Tis not long since a blow was dealt (in the estimation
of the unreasoning) at your character as an author by the publication of
your familiar letters. The editor of these epistles, unfortunately, did
not always take your witticisms, and he added others which were too
unmistakably his own. While the injudicious were disappointed by the
absence of your exquisite style and humour, the wiser sort were the more
convinced of your wisdom. In your letters (knowing your correspondents)
you gave but the small personal talk of the hour, for them sufficient;
for your books you reserved matter and expression which are imperishable.
Your admirers, if not very numerous, include all persons of taste, who,
in your favour, are apt somewhat to abate the rule, or shake off the
habit, which commonly confines them to but temperate laudation.

’Tis the fault of all art to seem antiquated and faded in the eyes of the
succeeding generation. The manners of your age were not the manners of
to-day, and young gentlemen and ladies who think Scott “slow,” think Miss
Austen “prim” and “dreary. ” Yet, even could you return among us, I
scarcely believe that, speaking the language of the hour, as you might,
and versed in its habits, you would win the general admiration. For how
tame, madam, are your characters, especially your favourite heroines! how
limited the life which you knew and described! how narrow the range of
your incidents! how correct your grammar!

As heroines, for example, you chose ladies like Emma, and Elizabeth, and
Catherine: women remarkable neither for the brilliance nor for the
degradation of their birth; women wrapped up in their own and the
parish’s concerns, ignorant of evil, as it seems, and unacquainted with
vain yearnings and interesting doubts. Who can engage his fancy with
their match-makings and the conduct of their affections, when so many
daring and dazzling heroines approach and solicit his regard?

Here are princesses dressed in white velvet stamped with golden
fleurs-de-lys—ladies with hearts of ice and lips of fire, who count their
roubles by the million, their lovers by the score, and even their
husbands, very often, in figures of some arithmetical importance. With
these are the immaculate daughters of itinerant Italian musicians—maids
whose souls are unsoiled amidst the contaminations of our streets, and
whose acquaintance with the art of Phidias and Praxiteles, of Dædalus and
Scopas, is the more admirable, because entirely derived from loving study
of the inexpensive collections vended by the plaster-of-Paris man round
the corner. When such heroines are wooed by the nephews of Dukes, where
are your Emmas and Elizabeths? Your volumes neither excite nor satisfy
the curiosities provoked by that modern and scientific fiction, which is
greatly admired, I learn, in the United States, as well as in France and
at home.

You erred, it cannot be denied, with your eyes open. Knowing Lydia and
Kitty so intimately as you did, why did you make of them almost
insignificant characters? With Lydia for a heroine you might have gone
far; and, had you devoted three volumes, and the chief of your time, to
the passions of Kitty, you might have held your own, even now, in the
circulating library. How Lyddy, perched on a corner of the roof, first
beheld her Wickham; how, on her challenge, he climbed up by a ladder to
her side; how they kissed, caressed, swung on gates together, met at odd
seasons, in strange places, and finally eloped: all this might have been
put in the mouth of a jealous elder sister, say Elizabeth, and you would
not have been less popular than several favourites of our time. Had you
cast the whole narrative into the present tense, and lingered lovingly
over the thickness of Mary’s legs and the softness of Kitty’s cheeks, and
the blonde fluffiness of Wickham’s whiskers, you would have left a
romance still dear to young ladies.

Or, again, you might entrance fair students still, had you concentrated
your attention on Mrs. Rushworth, who eloped with Henry Crawford. These
should have been the chief figures of “Mansfield Park. ” But you timidly
decline to tackle Passion. “Let other pens,” you write, “dwell on guilt
and misery. I quit such odious subjects as soon as I can. ” Ah, _there_
is the secret of your failure! Need I add that the vulgarity and
narrowness of the social circles you describe impair your popularity? I
scarce remember more than one lady of title, and but very few lords (and
these unessential) in all your tales. Now, when we all wish to be in
society, we demand plenty of titles in our novels, at any rate, and we
get lords (and very queer lords) even from Republican authors, born in a
country which in your time was not renowned for its literature. I have
heard a critic remark, with a decided air of fashion, on the brevity of
the notice which your characters give each other when they offer
invitations to dinner. “An invitation to dinner next day was
despatched,” and this demonstrates that your acquaintance “went out” very
little, and had but few engagements. How vulgar, too, is one of your
heroines, who bids Mr. Darcy “keep his breath to cool his porridge. ” I
blush for Elizabeth! It were superfluous to add that your characters are
debased by being invariably mere members of the Church of England as by
law established. The Dissenting enthusiast, the open soul that glides
from Esoteric Buddhism to the Salvation Army, and from the Higher
Pantheism to the Higher Paganism, we look for in vain among your studies
of character. Nay, the very words I employ are of unknown sound to you;
so how can you help us in the stress of the soul’s travailings?

You may say that the soul’s travailings are no affair of yours; proving
thereby that you have indeed but a lowly conception of the duty of the
novelist. I only remember one reference, in all your works, to that
controversy which occupies the chief of our attention—the great
controversy on Creation or Evolution. Your Jane Bennet cries: “I have no
idea of there being so much Design in the world as some persons imagine. ”
Nor do you touch on our mighty social question, the Land Laws, save when
Mrs. Bennet appears as a Land Reformer, and rails bitterly against the
cruelty “of settling an estate away from a family of five daughters, in
favour of a man whom nobody cared anything about. ” There, madam, in that
cruelly unjust performance, what a text you had for a _tendenz-romanz_.
Nay, you can allow Kitty to report that a Private had been flogged,
without introducing a chapter on Flogging in the Army. But you formally
declined to stretch your matter out, here and there, “with solemn
specious nonsense about something unconnected with the story. ” No
“padding” for Miss Austen! in fact, madam, as you were born before
Analysis came in, or Passion, or Realism, or Naturalism, or Irreverence,
or Religious Open-mindedness, you really cannot hope to rival your
literary sisters in the minds of a perplexed generation. Your heroines
are not passionate, we do not see their red wet cheeks, and tresses
dishevelled in the manner of our frank young Mænads. What says your best
successor, a lady who adds fresh lustre to a name that in fiction equals
yours? She says of Miss Austen: “Her heroines have a stamp of their own.
_They have a certain gentle self-respect and humour and hardness of
heart_ . . . Love with them does not mean a passion as much as an
interest, deep and silent. ” I think one prefers them so, and that
Englishwomen should be more like Anne Elliot than Maggie Tulliver. “All
the privilege I claim for my own sex is that of loving longest when
existence or when hope is gone,” said Anne; perhaps she insisted on a
monopoly that neither sex has all to itself. Ah, madam, what a relief it
is to come back to your witty volumes, and forget the follies of to-day
in those of Mr. Collins and of Mrs. Bennet! How fine, nay, how noble is
your art in its delicate reserve, never insisting, never forcing the
note, never pushing the sketch into the caricature! You worked, without
thinking of it, in the spirit of Greece, on a labour happily limited, and
exquisitely organised. “Dear books,” we say, with Miss Thackeray—“dear
books, bright, sparkling with wit and animation, in which the homely
heroines charm, the dull hours fly, and the very bores are enchanting. ”




IX.
_To Master Isaak Walton_.


FATHER ISAAK,—When I would be quiet and go angling it is my custom to
carry in my wallet thy pretty book, “The Compleat Angler. ” Here,
methinks, if I find not trout I shall find content, and good company, and
sweet songs, fair milkmaids, and country mirth. For you are to know that
trout be now scarce and whereas he was ever a fearful fish, he hath of
late become so wary that none but the cunningest anglers may be even with
him.

It is not as it was in your time, Father, when a man might leave his shop
in Fleet Street, of a holiday, and, when he had stretched his legs up
Tottenham Hill, come lightly to meadows chequered with waterlilies and
lady-smocks, and so fall to his sport. Nay, now have the houses so much
increased, like a spreading sore (through the breaking of that excellent
law of the Conscientious King and blessed Martyr, whereby building beyond
the walls was forbidden), that the meadows are all swallowed up in
streets. And as to the River Lea, wherein you took many a good trout, I
read in the news sheets that “its bed is many inches thick in horrible
filth, and the air for more than half a mile on each side of it is
polluted with a horrible, sickening stench,” so that we stand in dread of
a new Plague, called the Cholera. And so it is all about London for many
miles, and if a man, at heavy charges, betake himself to the fields, lo
you, folk are grown so greedy that none will suffer a stranger to fish in
his water.

So poor anglers are in sore straits. Unless a man be rich and can pay
great rents, he may not fish in England, and hence spring the discontents
of the times, for the angler is full of content, if he do but take trout,
but if he be driven from the waterside, he falls, perchance, into evil
company, and cries out to divide the property of the gentle folk. As
many now do, even among Parliament-men, whom you loved not, Father Isaak,
neither do I love them more than Reason and Scripture bid each of us be
kindly to his neighbour. But, behold, the causes of the ill content are
not yet all expressed, for even where a man hath licence to fish, he will
hardly take trout in our age, unless he be all the more cunning. For the
fish, harried this way and that by so many of your disciples, is
exceeding shy and artful, nor will he bite at a fly unless it falleth
lightly, just above his mouth, and floateth dry over him, for all the
world like the natural _ephemeris_. And we may no longer angle with worm
for him, nor with penk or minnow, nor with the natural fly, as was your
manner, but only with the artificial, for the more difficulty the more
diversion. For my part I may cry, like Viator in your book, “Master, I
can neither catch with the first nor second Angle: I have no fortune. ”

So we fare in England, but somewhat better north of the Tweed, where
trout are less wary, but for the most part small, except in the extreme
rough north, among horrid hills and lakes. Thither, Master, as methinks
you may remember, went Richard Franck, that called himself
_Philanthropus_, and was, as it were, the Columbus of anglers,
discovering for them a new Hyperborean world. But Franck, doubtless, is
now an angler in the Lake of Darkness, with Nero and other tyrants, for
he followed after Cromwell, the man of blood, in the old riding days.
How wickedly doth Franck boast of that leader of the giddy multitude,
“when they raged, and became restless to find out misery for themselves
and others, and the rabble would herd themselves together,” as you said,
“and endeavour to govern and act in spite of authority. ” So you wrote;
and what said Franck, that recreant angler? Doth he not praise “Ireton,
Vane, Nevill, and Martin, and the most renowned, valorous, and victorious
conqueror, Oliver Cromwell”? Natheless, with all his sins on his head,
this Franck discovered Scotland for anglers, and my heart turns to him
when he praises “the glittering and resolute streams of Tweed. ”

In those wilds of Assynt and Loch Rannoch, Father, we, thy followers, may
yet take trout, and forget the evils of the times. But, to be done with
Franck, how harshly he speaks of thee and thy book. “For you may
dedicate your opinion to what scribbling putationer you please; the
_Compleat Angler_ if you will, who tells you of a tedious fly story,
extravagantly collected from antiquated authors, such as Gesner and
Dubravius. ” Again he speaks of “Isaac Walton, whose authority to me
seems alike authentick, as is the general opinion of the vulgar prophet,”
&c.

Certain I am that Franck, if a better angler than thou, was a worse man,
who, writing his “Dialogues Piscatorial” or “Northern Memoirs” five years
after the world welcomed thy “Compleat Angler,” was jealous of thy favour
with the people, and, may be, hated thee for thy loyalty and sound faith.
But, Master, like a peaceful man avoiding contention, thou didst never
answer this blustering Franck, but wentest quietly about thy quiet Lea,
and left him his roaring Brora and windy Assynt. How could this noisy
man know thee—and know thee he did, having argued with thee in
Stafford—and not love Isaak Walton? A pedant angler, I call him, a
plaguy angler, so let him huff away, and turn we to thee and to thy sweet
charm in fishing for men.

How often, studying in thy book, have I hummed to myself that of Horace—

_Laudis amore tumes? Sunt certa piacula quæ te_
_Ter pure lecto poterunt recreare libello_.

So healing a book for the frenzy of fame is thy discourse on meadows, and
pure streams, and the country life. How peaceful, men say, and blessed
must have been the life of this old man, how lapped in content, and
hedged about by his own humility from the world! They forget, who speak
thus, that thy years, which were many, were also evil, or would have
seemed evil to divers that had tasted of thy fortunes. Thou wert poor,
but that, to thee, was no sorrow, for greed of money was thy detestation.
Thou wert of lowly rank, in an age when gentle blood was alone held in
regard; yet thy virtues made thee hosts of friends, and chiefly among
religious men, bishops, and doctors of the Church. Thy private life was
not unacquainted with sorrow; thy first wife and all her fair children
were taken from thee like flowers in spring, though, in thine age, new
love and new offspring comforted thee like “the primrose of the later
year. ” Thy private griefs might have made thee bitter, or melancholy, so
might the sorrows of the State and of the Church, which were deprived of
their heads by cruel men, despoiled of their wealth, the pious driven,
like thee, from their homes; fear everywhere, everywhere robbery and
confusion: all this ruin might have angered another temper. But thou,
Father, didst bear all with so much sweetness as perhaps neither natural
temperament, nor a firm faith, nor the love of angling could alone have
displayed. For we see many anglers (as witness Richard Franck aforesaid)
who are angry men, and myself, when I get my hooks entangled at every
cast in a tree, have come nigh to swear prophane.

Also we see religious men that are sour and fanatical, no rare thing in
the party that professes godliness. But neither private sorrow nor
public grief could abate thy natural kindliness, nor shake a religion
which was not untried, but had, indeed, passed through the furnace like
fine gold. For if we find not Faith at all times easy, because of the
oppositions of Science, and the searching curiosity of men’s minds,
neither was Faith a matter of course in thy day. For the learned and
pious were greatly tossed about, like worthy Mr. Chillingworth, by doubts
wavering between the Church of Rome and the Reformed Church of England.
The humbler folk, also, were invited, now here, now there, by the
clamours of fanatical Nonconformists, who gave themselves out to be
somebody, while Atheism itself was not without many to witness to it.
Therefore, such a religion as thine was not, so to say, a mere innocence
of evil in the things of our Belief, but a reasonable and grounded faith,
strong in despite of oppositions. Happy was the man in whom temper, and
religion, and the love of the sweet country and an angler’s pastime so
conveniently combined; happy the long life which held in its hand that
threefold clue through the labyrinth of human fortunes! Around thee
Church and State might fall in ruins, and might be rebuilded, and thy
tears would not be bitter, nor thy triumph cruel.

Thus, by God’s blessing, it befell thee

_Nec turpem senectam_
_Degere, nec cithara carentem_.

I would, Father, that I could get at the verity about thy poems. Those
recommendatory verses with which thou didst grace the Lives of Dr. Donne
and others of thy friends, redound more to the praise of thy kind heart
than thy fancy. But what or whose was the pastoral poem of “Thealma and
Clearchus,” which thou didst set about printing in 1678, and gavest to
the world in 1683? Thou gavest John Chalkhill for the author’s name, and
a John Chalkhill of thy kindred died at Winchester, being eighty years of
his age, in 1679. Now thou speakest of John Chalkhill as “a friend of
Edmund Spenser’s,” and how could this be?

Are they right who hold that John Chalkhill was but a name of a friend,
borrowed by thee out of modesty, and used as a cloak to cover poetry of
thine own inditing? When Mr. Flatman writes of Chalkhill, ’tis in words
well fitted to thine own merit:

Happy old man, whose worth all mankind knows
Except himself, who charitably shows
The ready road to virtue and to praise,
The road to many long and happy days.

However it be, in that road, by quiet streams and through green pastures,
thou didst walk all thine almost century of years, and we, who stray into
thy path out of the highway of life, we seem to hold thy hand, and listen
to thy cheerful voice. If our sport be worse, may our content be equal,
and our praise, therefore, none the less. Father, if Master Stoddard,
the great fisher of Tweedside, be with thee, greet him for me, and thank
him for those songs of his, and perchance he will troll thee a catch of
our dear River.

Tweed! winding and wild! where the heart is unbound,
They know not, they dream not, who linger around,
How the saddened will smile, and the wasted rewin
From thee—the bliss withered within.

Or perhaps thou wilt better love,

The lanesome Tala and the Lyne,
And Manor wi’ its mountain rills,
An’ Etterick, whose waters twine
Wi’ Yarrow frae the forest hills;
An’ Gala, too, and Teviot bright,
An’ mony a stream o’ playfu’ speed,
Their kindred valleys a’ unite
Amang the braes o’ bonnie Tweed!

So, Master, may you sing against each other, you two good old anglers,
like Peter and Corydon, that sang in your golden age.




X.
_To M. Chapelain_.


MONSIEUR,—You were a popular poet, and an honourable, over-educated,
upright gentleman. Of the latter character you can never be deprived,
and I doubt not it stands you in better stead where you are, than the
laurels which flourished so gaily, and faded so soon.

Laurel is green for a season, and Love is fair for a day,
But Love grows bitter with treason, and laurel outlives not May.

I know not if Mr. Swinburne is correct in his botany, but _your_ laurel
certainly outlived not May, nor can we hope that you dwell where Orpheus
and where Homer are. Some other crown, some other Paradise, we cannot
doubt it, awaited _un si bon homme_. But the moral excellence that even
Boileau admitted, _la foi, l’honneur, la probité_, do not in Parnassus
avail the popular poet, and some luckless Glatigny or Théophile, Regnier
or Gilbert, attains a kind of immortality denied to the man of many
contemporary editions, and of a great commercial success.

If ever, for the confusion of Horace, any Poet was Made, you, Sir, should
have been that fortunately manufactured article. You were, in matters of
the Muses, the child of many prayers. Never, since Adam’s day, have any
parents but yours prayed for a poet-child. Then Destiny, that mocks the
desires of men in general, and fathers in particular, heard the appeal,
and presented M. Chapelain and Jeanne Corbière his wife with the future
author of “La Pucelle. ” Oh futile hopes of men, _O pectora cæca_! All
was done that education could do for a genius which, among other
qualities, “especially lacked fire and imagination,” and an ear for
verse—sad defects these in a child of the Muses. Your training in all
the mechanics and metaphysics of criticism might have made you exclaim,
like Rasselas, “Enough! Thou hast convinced me that no human being can
ever be a Poet. ” Unhappily, you succeeded in convincing Cardinal
Richelieu that to be a Poet was well within your powers, you received a
pension of one thousand crowns, and were made Captain of the Cardinal’s
Minstrels, as M. de Tréville was Captain of the King’s Musketeers.

Ah, pleasant age to live in, when good intentions in poetry were more
richly endowed than ever is Research, even Research in Prehistoric
English, among us niggard moderns! How I wish I knew a Cardinal, or
even, as you did, a Prime Minister, who would praise and pension _me_;
but envy be still! Your existence was made happy indeed; you constructed
odes, corrected sonnets, presided at the Hôtel Rambouillet, while the
learned ladies were still young and fair, and you enjoyed a prodigious
celebrity on the score of your yet unpublished Epic. “Who, indeed,” says
a sympathetic author, M.
Théophile Gautier, “who could expect less than a
miracle from a man so deeply learned in the laws of art—a perfect Turk in
the science of poetry, a person so well pensioned, and so favoured by the
great? ” Bishops and politicians combined in perfect good faith to
advertise your merits. Hard must have been the heart that could resist
the testimonials of your skill as a poet offered by the Duc de
Montausier, and the learned Huet, Bishop of Avranches, and Monseigneur
Godeau, Bishop of Vence, and M. Colbert, who had such a genius for
finance.

If bishops and politicians and Prime Ministers skilled in finance, and
some critics (Ménage and Sarrazin and Vaugelas), if ladies of birth and
taste, if all the world in fact, combined to tell you that you were a
great poet, how can we blame you for taking yourself seriously, and
appraising yourself at the public estimate?

It was not in human nature to resist the evidence of the bishops
especially, and when every minor poet believes in himself on the
testimony of his own conceit, you may be acquitted of vanity if you
listened to the plaudits of your friends. Nay, you ventured to pronounce
judgment on contemporaries—whom Posterity has preferred to your
perfections. “Molière,” said you, “understands the genius of comedy, and
presents it in a natural style. The plot of his best pieces is borrowed,
but not without judgment; his _morale_ is fair, and he has only to avoid
scurrility. ”

Excellent, unconscious, popular Chapelain!

Of yourself you observed, in a Report on contemporary literature, that
your “courage and sincerity never allowed you to tolerate work not
absolutely good. ” And yet you regarded “La Pucelle” with some
complacency.

On the “Pucelle” you were occupied during a generation of mortal men. I
marvel not at the length of your labours, as you received a yearly
pension till the Epic was finished, but your Muse was no Alcmena, and no
Hercules was the result of that prolonged night of creation. First you
gravely wrote out all the composition in prose: the task occupied you for
five whole years. Ah, why did you not leave it in that commonplace but
appropriate medium? What says the Précieuse about you in Boileau’s
satire?

In Chapelain, for all his foes have said,
She finds but one defect, he can’t be read;
Yet thinks the world might taste his Maiden’s woes,
If only he would turn his verse to prose!

The verse had been prose, and prose, perhaps, it should have remained.
Yet for this precious “Pucelle,” in the age when “Paradise Lost” was sold
for five pounds, you are believed to have received about four thousand.
Horace was wrong, mediocre poets may exist (now and then), and he was a
wise man who first spoke of _aurea mediocritas_. At length the great
work was achieved, a work thrice blessed in its theme, that divine Maiden
to whom France owes all, and whom you and Voltaire have recompensed so
strangely. In folio, in italics, with a score of portraits and
engravings, and _culs de lampe_, the great work was given to the world,
and had a success. Six editions in eighteen months are figures which
fill the poetic heart with envy and admiration. And then, alas! the
bubble burst. A great lady, Madame de Longueville, hearing the “Pucelle”
read aloud, murmured that it was “perfect indeed, but perfectly
wearisome. ” Then the satires began, and the satirists never left you
till your poetic reputation was a rag, till the mildest Abbé at Ménage’s
had his cheap sneer for Chapelain.

I make no doubt, Sir, that envy and jealousy had much to do with the
onslaught on your “Pucelle. ” These qualities, alas! are not strange to
literary minds; does not even Hesiod tell us that “potter hates potter,
and poet hates poet”? But contemporary spites do not harm true genius.
Who suffered more than Molière from cabals? Yet neither the court nor
the town ever deserted him, and he is still the joy of the world. I
admit that his adversaries were weaker than yours. What were Boursault
and Le Boulanger, and Thomas Corneille and De Visé, what were they all
compared to your enemy, Boileau? Brossette tells a story which really
makes a man pity you. You remember M. de Puimorin, who, to be in the
fashion, laughed at your once popular Epic. “It is all very well,” said
you, “for a man to laugh who cannot even read. ” Whereon M. de Puimorin
replied: “Qu’il n’avoit que trop sû lire, depuis que Chapelain s’étoit
avisé de faire imprimer. ” A new horror had been added to the
accomplishment of reading since Chapelain had published. This repartee
was applauded, and M. de Puimorin tried to turn it into an epigram. He
did complete the last couplet,

Hélas! pour mes péchés, je n’ai sû que trop lire
Depuis que tu fais imprimer.

But by no labour would M. de Puimorin achieve the first two lines of his
epigram. Then you remember what great allies came to his assistance. I
almost blush to think that M. Despréaux, M. Racine, and M. de Molière,
the three most renowned wits of the time, conspired to complete the poor
jest, and assail you. Well, bubble as your poetry was, you may be proud
that it needed all these sharpest of pens to prick the bubble. Other
poets, as popular as you, have been annihilated by an article. Macaulay
put forth his hand, and “Satan Montgomery” was no more. It did not need
a Macaulay, the laughter of a mob of little critics was enough to blow
him into space; but you probably have met Montgomery, and of contemporary
failures or successes I do not speak.

I wonder, sometimes, whether the consensus of criticism ever made you
doubt for a moment whether, after all, you were not a false child of
Apollo? Was your complacency tortured, as the complacency of true poets
has occasionally been, by doubts? Did you expect posterity to reverse
the verdict of the satirists, and to do you justice? You answered your
earliest assailant, Linière, and, by a few changes of words, turned his
epigrams into flattery. But I fancy, on the whole, you remained calm,
unmoved, wrapped up in admiration of yourself. According to M. de
Marivaux, who reviewed, as I am doing, the spirits of the mighty dead,
you “conceived, on the strength of your reputation, a great and serious
veneration for yourself and your genius. ” Probably you were protected by
the invulnerable armour of an honest vanity, probably you declared that
mere jealousy dictated the lines of Boileau, and that Chapelain’s real
fault was his popularity, and his pecuniary success,

Qu’il soit le mieux renté de tous les beaux-esprits.

This, you would avow, was your offence, and perhaps you were not
altogether mistaken. Yet posterity declines to read a line of yours,
and, as we think of you, we are again set face to face with that eternal
problem, how far is popularity a test of poetry? Burns was a poet: and
popular. Byron was a popular poet, and the world agrees in the verdict
of their own generations. But Montgomery, though he sold so well, was no
poet, nor, Sir, I fear, was your verse made of the stuff of immortality.
Criticism cannot hurt what is truly great; the Cardinal and the Academy
left Chimène as fair as ever, and as adorable. It is only pinchbeck that
perishes under the acids of satire: gold defies them. Yet I sometimes
ask myself, does the existence of popularity like yours justify the
malignity of satire, which blesses neither him who gives, nor him who
takes? Are poisoned arrows fair against a bad poet? I doubt it, Sir,
holding that, even unpricked, a poetic bubble must soon burst by its own
nature. Yet satire will assuredly be written so long as bad poets are
successful, and bad poets will assuredly reflect that their assailants
are merely envious, and (while their vogue lasts) that the purchasing
public is the only judge. After all, the bad poet who is popular and
“sells” is not a whit worse than the bad poets who are unpopular, and who
deride his songs.

Monsieur,

Votre très-humble serviteur, &c.




XI.
_To Sir John Maundeville_, _Kt. _
(OF THE WAYS INTO YNDE. )


SIR JOHN,—Wit you well that men holden you but light, and some clepen you
a Liar. And they say that you never were born in Englond, in the town of
Seynt Albones, nor have seen and gone through manye diverse Londes. And
there goeth an old knight at arms, and one that connes Latyn, and hath
been beyond the sea, and hath seen Prester John’s country. And he hath
been in an Yle that men clepen Burmah, and there bin women bearded. Now
men call him Colonel Henry Yule, and he hath writ of thee in his great
booke, Sir John, and he holds thee but lightly. For he saith that ye did
pill your tales out of Odoric his book, and that ye never saw snails with
shells as big as houses, nor never met no Devyls, but part of that ye
say, ye took it out of William of Boldensele his book, yet ye took not
his wisdom, withal, but put in thine own foolishness. Nevertheless, Sir
John, for the frailty of Mankynde, ye are held a good fellow, and a
merry; so now, come, let me tell you of the new ways into Ynde.

In that Lond they have a Queen that governeth all the Lond, and all they
ben obeyssant to her. And she is the Queen of Englond; for Englishmen
have taken all the Lond of Ynde. For they were right good werryoures of
old, and wyse, noble, and worthy. But of late hath risen a new sort of
Englishman very puny and fearful, and these men clepen Radicals. And
they go ever in fear, and they scream on high for dread in the streets
and the houses, and they fain would flee away from all that their fathers
gat them with the sword. And this sort men call Scuttleres, but the mean
folk and certain of the baser sort hear them gladly, and they say ever
that Englishmen should flee out of Ynde.

Fro Englond men gon to Ynde by many dyverse Contreyes. For Englishmen
ben very stirring and nymble. For they ben in the seventh climate, that
is of the Moon. And the Moon (ye have said it yourself, Sir John,
natheless, is it true) is of lightly moving, for to go diverse ways, and
see strange things, and other diversities of the Worlde. Wherefore
Englishmen be lightly moving, and far wandering. And they gon to Ynde by
the great Sea Ocean. First come they to Gibraltar, that was the point of
Spain, and builded upon a rock; and there ben apes, and it is so strong
that no man may take it. Natheless did Englishmen take it fro the
Spanyard, and all to hold the way to Ynde. For ye may sail all about
Africa, and past the Cape men clepen of Good Hope, but that way unto Ynde
is long and the sea is weary. Wherefore men rather go by the Midland
sea, and Englishmen have taken many Yles in that sea.

For first they have taken an Yle that is clept Malta; and therein built
they great castles, to hold it against them of Fraunce, and Italy, and of
Spain. And from this Ile of Malta Men gon to Cipre. And Cipre is right
a good Yle, and a fair, and a great, and it hath 4 principal Cytees
within him. And at Famagost is one of the principal Havens of the sea
that is in the world, and Englishmen have but a lytel while gone won that
Yle from the Sarazynes. Yet say that sort of Englishmen where of I told
you, that is puny and sore adread, that the Lond is poisonous and barren
and of no avail, for that Lond is much more hotter than it is here. Yet
the Englishmen that ben werryoures dwell there in tents, and the skill is
that they may ben the more fresh.

From Cypre, Men gon to the Lond of Egypte, and in a Day and a Night he
that hath a good wind may come to the Haven of Alessandrie. Now the Lond
of Egypt longeth to the Soudan, yet the Soudan longeth not to the Lond of
Egypt. And when I say this, I do jape with words, and may hap ye
understond me not. Now Englishmen went in shippes to Alessandrie, and
brent it, and over ran the Lond, and their soudyours warred agen the
Bedoynes, and all to hold the way to Ynde. For it is not long past since
Frenchmen let dig a dyke, through the narrow spit of lond, from the
Midland sea to the Red sea, wherein was Pharaoh drowned. So this is the
shortest way to Ynde there may be, to sail through that dyke, if men gon
by sea.

But all the Lond of Egypt is clepen the Vale enchaunted; for no man may
do his business well that goes thither, but always fares he evil, and
therefore clepen they Egypt the Vale perilous, and the sepulchre of
reputations. And men say there that is one of the entrees of Helle. In
that Vale is plentiful lack of Gold and Silver, for many misbelieving
men, and many Christian men also, have gone often time for to take of the
Thresoure that there was of old, and have pilled the Thresoure, wherefore
there is none left. And Englishmen have let carry thither great store of
our Thresoure, 9,000,000 of Pounds sterling, and whether they will see it
agen I misdoubt me. For that Vale is alle fulle of Develes and Fiendes
that men clepen Bondholderes, for that Egypt from of olde is the Lond of
Bondage. And whatsoever Thresoure cometh into the Lond, these Devyls of
Bondholders grabben the same. Natheless by that Vale do Englishmen go
unto Ynde, and they gon by Aden, even to Kurrachee, at the mouth of the
Flood of Ynde. Thereby they send their souldyours, when they are adread
of them of Muscovy.

For, look you, there is another way into Ynde, and thereby the men of
Muscovy are fain to come, if the Englishmen let them not. That way
cometh by Desert and Wildernesse, from the sea that is clept Caspian,
even to Khiva, and so to Merv; and then come ye to Zulfikar and Penjdeh,
and anon to Herat, that is called the Key of the Gates of Ynde. Then ye
win the lond of the Emir of the Afghauns, a great prince and a rich, and
he hath in his Thresoure more crosses, and stars, and coats that captains
wearen, than any other man on earth.

For all they of Muscovy, and all Englishmen maken him gifts, and he
keepeth the gifts, and he keepeth his own counsel. For his lond lieth
between Ynde and the folk of Muscovy, wherefore both Englishmen and men
of Muscovy would fain have him friendly, yea, and independent. Wherefore
they of both parties give him clocks, and watches, and stars, and
crosses, and culverins, and now and again they let cut the throats of his
men some deal, and pill his country. Thereby they both set up their rest
that the Emir will be independent, yea, and friendly. But his men love
him not, neither love they the English, nor the Muscovy folk, for they
are worshippers of Mahound, and endure not Christian men. And they love
not them that cut their throats, and burn their country.

Now they of Muscovy ben Devyls, and they ben subtle for to make a thing
seme otherwise than it is, for to deceive mankind. Wherefore Englishmen
putten no trust in them of Muscovy, save only the Englishmen clept
Radicals, for they make as if they loved these Develes, out of the fear
and dread of war wherein they go, and would be slaves sooner than fight.
But the folk of Ynde know not what shall befall, nor whether they of
Muscovy will take the Lond, or Englishmen shall keep it, so that their
hearts may not enduren for drede. And methinks that soon shall
Englishmen and Muscovy folk put their bodies in adventure, and war one
with another, and all for the way to Ynde.

But St. George for Englond, I say, and so enough; and may the Seyntes
hele thee, Sir John, of thy Gowtes Artetykes, that thee tormenten. But
to thy Boke I list not to give no credence.




XII.
_To Alexandre Dumas_.


SIR,—There are moments when the wheels of life, even of such a life as
yours, run slow, and when mistrust and doubt overshadow even the most
intrepid disposition. In such a moment, towards the ending of your days,
you said to your son, M. Alexandre Dumas, “I seem to see myself set on a
pedestal which trembles as if it were founded on the sands. ” These
sands, your uncounted volumes, are all of gold, and make a foundation
more solid than the rock. As well might the singer of Odysseus, or the
authors of the “Arabian Nights,” or the first inventors of the stories of
Boccaccio, believe that their works were perishable (their names, indeed,
have perished), as the creator of “Les Trois Mousquetaires” alarm himself
with the thought that the world could ever forget Alexandre Dumas.

Than yours there has been no greater nor more kindly and beneficent force
in modern letters. To Scott, indeed, you owed the first impulse of your
genius; but, once set in motion, what miracles could it not accomplish?
Our dear Porthos was overcome, at last, by a super-human burden; but your
imaginative strength never found a task too great for it. What an
extraordinary vigour, what health, what an overflow of force was yours!
It is good, in a day of small and laborious ingenuities, to breathe the
free air of your books, and dwell in the company of Dumas’s men—so
gallant, so frank, so indomitable, such swordsmen, and such trenchermen.
Like M. de Rochefort in “Vingt Ans Après,” like that prisoner of the
Bastille, your genius “n’est que d’un parti, c’est du parti du grand
air. ”

There seems to radiate from you a still persistent energy and enjoyment;
in that current of strength not only your characters live, frolic,
kindly, and sane, but even your very collaborators were animated by the
virtue which went out of you. How else can we explain it, the dreary
charge which feeble and envious tongues have brought against you, in
England and at home? They say you employed in your novels and dramas
that vicarious aid which, in the slang of the studio, the “sculptor’s
ghost” is fabled to afford.

Well, let it be so; these ghosts, when uninspired by you, were faint and
impotent as “the strengthless tribes of the dead” in Homer’s Hades,
before Odysseus had poured forth the blood that gave them a momentary
valour. It was from you and your inexhaustible vitality that these
collaborating spectres drew what life they possessed; and when they
parted from you they shuddered back into their nothingness. Where are
the plays, where the romances which Maquet and the rest wrote in their
own strength? They are forgotten with last year’s snows; they have
passed into the wide waste-paper basket of the world. You say of
D’Artagnan, when severed from his three friends—from Porthos, Athos, and
Aramis—“he felt that he could do nothing, save on the condition that each
of these companions yielded to him, if one may so speak, a share of that
electric fluid which was his gift from heaven. ”

No man of letters ever had so great a measure of that gift as you; none
gave of it more freely to all who came—to the chance associate of the
hour, as to the characters, all so burly and full-blooded, who flocked
from your brain. Thus it was that you failed when you approached the
supernatural. Your ghosts had too much flesh and blood, more than the
living persons of feebler fancies. A writer so fertile, so rapid, so
masterly in the ease with which he worked, could not escape the
reproaches of barren envy. Because you overflowed with wit, you could
not be “serious;” because you created with a word, you were said to scamp
your work; because you were never dull, never pedantic, incapable of
greed, you were to be censured as desultory, inaccurate, and prodigal.

A generation suffering from mental and physical anæmia—a generation
devoted to the “chiselled phrase,” to accumulated “documents,” to
microscopic porings over human baseness, to minute and disgustful records
of what in humanity is least human—may readily bring these unregarded and
railing accusations. Like one of the great and good-humoured Giants of
Rabelais, you may hear the murmurs from afar, and smile with disdain. To
you, who can amuse the world—to you who offer it the fresh air of the
highway, the battlefield, and the sea—the world must always return:
escaping gladly from the boudoirs and the _bouges_, from the surgeries
and hospitals, and dead rooms, of M. Daudet and M. Zola and of the
wearisome De Goncourt.

With all your frankness, and with that queer morality of the Camp which,
if it swallows a camel now and again, never strains at a gnat, how
healthy and wholesome, and even pure, are your romances! You never gloat
over sin, nor dabble with an ugly curiosity in the corruptions of sense.
The passions in your tales are honourable and brave, the motives are
clearly human. Honour, Love, Friendship make the threefold cord, the
clue your knights and dames follow through how delightful a labyrinth of
adventures! Your greatest books, I take the liberty to maintain, are the
Cycle of the Valois (“La Reine Margot,” “La Dame de Montsoreau,” “Les
Quarante-cinq”), and the Cycle of Louis Treize and Louis Quatorze (“Les
Trois Mousquetaires,” “Vingt Ans Après,” “Le Vicomte de Bragelonne”);
and, beside these two trilogies—a lonely monument, like the sphinx hard
by the three pyramids—“Monte Cristo. ”

In these romances how easy it would have been for you to burn incense to
that great goddess, Lubricity, whom our critic says your people worship.
You had Brantôme, you had Tallemant, you had Rétif, and a dozen others,
to furnish materials for scenes of voluptuousness and of blood that would
have outdone even the present _naturalistes_. From these alcoves of “Les
Dames Galantes,” and from the torture chambers (M. Zola would not have
spared us one starting sinew of brave La Mole on the rack) you turned, as
Scott would have turned, without a thought of their profitable literary
uses. You had other metal to work on: you gave us that superstitious and
tragical true love of La Mole’s, that devotion—how tender and how
pure! —of Bussy for the Dame de Montsoreau. You gave us the valour of
D’Artagnan, the strength of Porthos, the melancholy nobility of Athos:
Honour, Chivalry, and Friendship. I declare your characters are real
people to me and old friends. I cannot bear to read the end of
“Bragelonne,” and to part with them for ever. “Suppose Porthos, Athos,
and Aramis should enter with a noiseless swagger, curling their
moustaches. ” How we would welcome them, forgiving D’Artagnan even his
hateful _fourberie_ in the case of Milady. The brilliance of your
dialogue has never been approached: there is wit everywhere; repartees
glitter and ring like the flash and clink of small-swords. Then what
duels are yours! and what inimitable battle-pieces! I know four good
fights of one against a multitude, in literature. These are the Death of
Gretir the Strong, the Death of Gunnar of Lithend, the Death of Hereward
the Wake, the Death of Bussy d’Amboise. We can compare the strokes of
the heroic fighting-times with those described in later days; and, upon
my word, I do not know that the short sword of Gretir, or the bill of
Skarphedin, or the bow of Gunnar was better wielded than the rapier of
your Bussy or the sword and shield of Kingsley’s Hereward.

They say your fencing is unhistorical; no doubt it is so, and you knew
it. La Mole could not have lunged on Coconnas “after deceiving circle;”
for the parry was not invented except by your immortal Chicot, a genius
in advance of his time. Even so Hamlet and Laertes would have fought
with shields and axes, not with small swords. But what matters this
pedantry? In your works we hear the Homeric Muse again, rejoicing in the
clash of steel; and even, at times, your very phrases are unconsciously
Homeric.

Look at these men of murder, on the Eve of St.