Avant de m’emboîter pour Paris, j’ai été dire un dernier adieu à la Méditerranée. II faisait encore beau sur le quai, le soleil brillant, le mistrao ne soufflait pas, le ciel était pur comme le jour où j’y fus avant de partir pour la Corse, alors que j’avais devant moi encore, et dans un rose horizon, un mois de beau temps, d’excursions libres, encore tout un mois de Méditerranée et de grand soleil. Les navires étaient attachés sur le quai par des câbles tendus, néanmoins ils remuaient un peu, comme les cœurs par les temps plus calmes, aussi amarrés au rivage, font des bonds qu’eux seuls sentent, pour repartir au large. J’ai encore vu quelques pantalons plissés, des pelisses arabes, des dolmans turcs, et puis il a fallu repartir, tourner le dos à tout cela, sans savoir quand je reverrai ni Arles, ni Marseille, et la baie aux Oursins, et les golfes de Liamone, de Chopra, de Sagone, le Prato, la plaine d’AIeria.
La première page de ceci a été écrite à Bordeaux dans un accès de bonne humeur, le matin, la fenêtre ouverte ; la rue était pleine de cris de femmes, de chansons, de voix joyeuses.
Maintenant il pleut, il fait froid, les arbres dépouillés ont l’air de squelettes verts ou noirs. Au lieu de partir bientôt pour Bayonne, pour Biarritz, pour Fontarabie, me voilà empêtré dans des plans d’études admirables, ayant cinq ou six fois plus de travaux qu’un honnête homme ne peut en accomplir ; dans un mois ce sera la même chose, je serai à la même table, sur la même chaise et toujours ainsi de même. Mais je me console en pensant que cet hiver je pourrai boire quelquefois du Champagne frappé et manger du canard sauvage ; et puis quand reviendra la saison où les blés commencent à mûrir, je m’en irai aussi dans les champs ou dans les îles de la Seine, je nagerai en regardant les arbres qui se mirent au bord, je fumerai une pipe à l’ombre, je laisserai aller ma barque à la dérive vers 5 heures, quand le soleil se couche, mais non !
Car je retournerai à Bordeaux, je passerai SaintJean-de-Luz, Irun ; j’irai en Espagne. II serait trop stupide en effet qu’un homme bien élevé n’ait pas vu l’Andalousie ni les lauriers-roses qui bordent le Guadalquivir, ni l’Alhambra, ni Tolède, ni Séville, ni toutes ces vieilles villes aux balcons noirs, où les Inès chantent la nuit les romances du Cid.
Mais, de grâce, Arles aussi, et Marseille également, et Toulon, parce que je désire avant de mourir dîner encore deux ou trois fois chez M. Cauvière. Plus loin même, je dépasserai la bastide de Raynaud et j’irai à Venise, à Rome, à Naples, dans la baie de Baia, puisque je relis maintenant Tacite et que je vais apprendre Properce.
Mais la Méditerranée est si belle, si bleue, si calme, si souriante qu’elle vous appelle sur son sein, vous attire à elle avec des séductions charmantes. J’irai bien en Grèce ; me voilà lisant Homère, son vieux poète qui l’aimait tant, et à Constantinople, à qui j’ai pensé plus d’heures dans ma vie qu’il n’en faudrait pour faire d’ici le voyage à pied, ayant toute ma vie aimé à me coucher sur des tapis, à respirer des parfums, regrettant de n’avoir ni esclaves, ni sérails, ni mosquées pavées de marbre et de porphyre, ni cimeterre de Damas pour faire tomber les têtes de ceux qui m’ennuient.
Oh ! moi qui si souvent en regardant la lune, soit les hivers à Rouen, soit l’été sous le ciel du Midi, ai pensé à Babylone, à Ninive, à Persépolis, à Palmyre, aux campements d’Alexandre, aux marches des caravanes, aux clochettes des chamelles, aux grands silences du désert, aux horizons rouges et vides, est-ce que je n’irai pas m’abreuver de poésie, de lumière, de choses immenses et sans nom à cette source où remontent tous mes rêves ?
Povero ! Tu iras dimanche prochain à Déville, s’il fait beau ; cet été, à Pont-l’Évêque.
Encore un mot : Je réserve dix cahiers de bon papier que j’avais destinés à être noircis en route, je vais les cacheter et les serrer précieusement, après avoir écrit sur le couvert : papier blanc pour d’autres voyages.
THE GEORGE SAND-GUSTAVE FLAUBERT LETTERS
Translated by A.L. McKenzie (1921)
CONTENTS
PREFATORY NOTE
INTRODUCTION
EARLY LETTERS
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
LAST LETTER
PREFATORY NOTE
This translation of the correspondence between George Sand and Gustave Flaubert was undertaken in consequence of a suggestion by Professor Stuart P. Sherman. The translator desires to acknowledge valuable criticism given by Professor Sherman, Ruth M. Sherman, and Professor Kenneth McKenzie, all of whom have generously assisted in revising the manuscript.
A. L. McKenzie
INTRODUCTION
The correspondence of George Sand and Gustave Flaubert, if approached merely as a chapter in the biographies of these heroes of nineteenth century letters, is sufficiently rewarding. In a relationship extending over twelve years, including the trying period of the Franco-Prussian War and the Commune, these extraordinary personalities disclose the aspects of their diverse natures which are best worth the remembrance of posterity. However her passionate and erratic youth may have captivated our grandfathers, George Sand in the mellow autumn of her life is for us at her most attractive phase. The storms and anguish and hazardous adventures that attended the defiant unfolding of her spirit are over. In her final retreat at Nohant, surrounded by her affectionate children and grandchildren, diligently writing, botanizing, bathing in her little river, visited by her friends and undistracted by the fiery lovers of the old time, she shows an unguessed wealth of maternal virtue, swift, comprehending sympathy, fortitude, sunny resignation, and a goodness of heart that has ripened into wisdom. For Flaubert, too, though he was seventeen years her junior, the flamboyance of youth was long since past; in 1862, when the correspondence begins, he was firmly settled, a shy, proud, grumpy toiling hermit of forty, in his family seat at Croisset, beginning his seven years’ labor at L’Education Sentimentale, master of his art, hardening in his convictions, and conscious of increasing estrangement from the spirit of his age. He, with his craving for sympathy, and she, with her inexhaustible supply of it, meet; he pours out his bitterness, she her consolation; and so with equal candor of self-revelation they beautifully draw out and strengthen each the other’s characteristics, and help one another grow old.
But there is more in these letters than a satisfaction for the biographical appetite, which, indeed, finds ITS account rather in the earlier chapters of the correspondents’ history. What impresses us here is the banquet spread for the reflective and critical faculties in this intercourse of natural antagonists. As M. Faguet observes in a striking paragraph of his study of Flaubert:
“It is a curious thing, which does honor to them both, that Flaubert and George Sand should have become loving friends towards the end of their lives. At the beginning, Flaubert might have been looked upon by George Sand as a furious enemy. Emma [Madame Bovary] is George Sand’s heroine with all the poetry turned into ridicule. Flaubert seems to say in every page of his work: ‘Do you want to know what is the real Valentine, the real Indiana, the real Lelia? Here she is, it is Emma Roualt.’ ‘And do you want to know what becomes of a woman whose education has consisted in George Sand’s books? Here she is, Emma Roualt.’ So that the terrible mocker of the bourgeois has written a book which is directly inspired by the spirit of the 1840 bourgeois. Their recriminations against romanticism ‘which rehabilitates and poetises the courtesan,’ against George Sand, the Muse of Adultery, are to be found in acts and facts in Madame Bovary.”
Now, the largest interest of this correspondence depends precisely upon the continuance, beneath an affectionate personal relationship, of a fundamental antagonism of interests and beliefs, resolutely maintained on both sides. George Sand, with her lifelong passion for propaganda and reformation, labors earnestly to bring Flaubert to her point of view, to remould him ne
arer to her heart’s desire. He, with a playful deference to the sex and years of his friend, addresses her in his letters as “Dear Master.” Yet in the essentials of the conflict, though she never gives over her effort, he never budges a jot; he has taken his ground, and in his last unfinished work, Bouvard and Pecuchet, he dies stubbornly fortifying his position. To the last she speaks from a temperament lyrical, sanguine, imaginative, optimistic and sympathetic; he from a temperament dramatic, melancholy, observing, cynical, and satirical. She insists upon natural goodness; he, upon innate depravity. She urges her faith in social regeneration; he vents his splenetic contempt for the mob. Through all the successive shocks of disillusioning experience, she expects the renovation of humanity by some religious, some semi-mystical, amelioration of its heart; he grimly concedes the greater part of humanity to the devil, and can see no escape for the remnant save in science and aristocratic organization. For her, finally, the literary art is an instrument of social salvation — it is her means of touching the world with her ideals, her love, her aspiration; for him the literary art is the avenue of escape from the meaningless chaos of existence — it is his subtly critical condemnation of the world.
The origins of these unreconciled antipathies lie deep beneath the personal relationship of George Sand and Gustave Flaubert; lie deep beneath their successors, who with more or less of amenity in their manners are still debating the same questions today. The main currents of the nineteenth century, with fluent and refluent tides, clash beneath the controversy; and as soon as one hears its “long withdrawing roar,” and thinks it is dying away, and is become a part of ancient history, it begins again, and will be heard, no doubt, by the last man as a solemn accompaniment to his final contention with his last adversary.
George Sand was, on the whole, a natural and filial daughter of the French Revolution. The royal blood which she received from her father’s line mingled in her veins with that of the Parisian milliner, her mother, and predestined her for a leveller by preparing in her an instinctive ground of revolt against all those inherited prejudices which divided the families of her parents. As a young girl wildly romping with the peasant children at Nohant she discovered a joy in untrammeled rural life which was only to increase with years. At the proper age for beginning to fashion a conventional young lady, the hoyden was put in a convent, where she underwent some exalting religious experiences; and in 1822 she was assigned to her place in the “established social order” by her marriage at seventeen to M. Dudevant. After a few years of rather humdrum domestic life in the country, she became aware that this gentleman, her husband, was behaving as we used to be taught that all French husbands ultimately behave; he was, in fact, turning from her to her maids. The young couple had never been strongly united — the impetuous dreamy girl and her coarse hunting mate; and they had grown wide apart. She should, of course, have adjusted herself quietly to the altered situation and have kept up appearances. But this young wife had gradually become an “intellectual”; she had been reading philosophy and poetry; she was saturated with the writings of Rousseau, of Chateaubriand, of Byron. None of the spiritual masters of her generation counselled acquiescence in servitude or silence in misery. Every eloquent tongue of the time-spirit urged self-expression and revolt. And she, obedient to the deepest impulses of her blood and her time, revolted.
At the period when Madame Dudevant withdrew her neck from the conjugal yoke and plunged into her literary career in Paris, the doctrine that men are created for freedom, equality and fraternity was already somewhat hackneyed. She, with an impetus from her own private fortunes, was to give the doctrine a recrudescence of interest by resolutely applying it to the status of women. We cannot follow her in detail from the point where she abandons the domestic sewing-basket to reappear smoking black cigars in the Latin Quarter. We find her, at about 1831, entering into competition with the brilliant literary generation of Balzac, Hugo, Alfred de Musset, Merimee, Stendhal, and Sainte-Beuve. To signalize her equality with her brothers in talent, she adopts male attire: “I had a sentry-box coat made, of rough grey cloth, with trousers and waist-coat to match. With a grey hat and a huge cravat of woolen material, I looked exactly like a first-year student.” In the freedom of this rather unalluring garb she entered into relations Platonic, fraternal, or tempestuously passionate with perhaps the most distinguished series of friends and lovers that ever fluttered about one flame. There was Aurelien de Seze; Jules Sandeau, her first collaborator, who “reconciled her to life” and gave her a nom de guerre; the inscrutable Merimee, who made no one happy; Musset — an encounter from which both tiger-moths escaped with singed wings; the odd transitional figure of Pagello; Michel Euraed; Liszt; Chopin, whom she loved and nursed for eight years; her master Lamennais; her master Pierre Leroux; her father-confessor Sainte-Beuve; and Gustave Flaubert, the querulous friend of her last decade.
As we have compressed the long and complex story of her personal relationships, so we must compress the intimately related history of her works and her ideas. When under the inspiration of Rousseau, the emancipated George Sand began to write, her purposes were but vaguely defined. She conceived of life as primarily an opportunity for unlimited self-expansion, and of literature as an opportunity for unrestricted self-expression. “Nevertheless,” she declares, “my instincts have formed, without my privity, the theory I am about to set down, — a theory which I have generally followed unconsciously. … According to this theory, the novel is as much a work of poetry as of analysis. It demands true situations, and characters not only true but real, grouped about a type intended to epitomize the sentiment or the main conceptions of the book. This type generally represents the passion of love, since almost all novels are love- stories. According to this theory (and it is here that it begins) the writer must idealize this love, and consequently this type, — and must not fear to attribute to it all the powers to which he inwardly aspires, or all the sorrows whose pangs he has observed or felt. This type must in no wise, however, become degraded by the vicissitude of events; it must either die or triumph.”
In 1831, when her pen began its fluent course through the lyrical works of her first period — Indiana, Valentine, Lelia, Jacques, and the rest — we conceive George Sand’s culture, temper, and point of view to have been fairly comparable with those of the young Shelley when, fifteen years earlier, he with Mary Godwin joined Byron and Jane Clairmont in Switzerland — young revoltes, all of them, nourished on eighteenth century revolutionary philosophy and Gothic novels. Both these eighteenth century currents meet in the work of the new romantic group in England and in France. The innermost origin of the early long poems of Shelley and the early works of George Sand is in personal passion, in the commotion of a romantic spirit beating its wings against the cage of custom and circumstance and institutions. The external form of the plot, whatever is fantastic and wilful in its setting and its adventures, is due to the school of Ann Radcliffe. But the quality in Shelley and in George Sand which bewitched even the austere Matthew Arnold in his green and salad days is the poetising of that liberative eighteenth century philosophy into “beautiful idealisms” of a love emancipated from human limitations, a love exalted to the height of its gamut by the influences of nature, triumphantly seeking its own or shattered in magnificent despair. In her novels of the first period, George Sand takes her Byronic revenge upon M. Dudevant. In Indiana and its immediate successors, consciously or unconsciously, she declares to the world what a beautiful soul M. Dudevant condemned to sewing on buttons; in Jacques she paints the man who might fitly have matched her spirit; and by the entire series, which now impresses us as fantastic in sentiment no less than in plot, she won her early reputation as the apologist for free love, the adversary of marriage.
In her middle period — say from 1838 to 1848 — of which The Miller of Aginbault, Consuelo, and The Countess of Rudolstadt are representative works, there is a marked subsidence of her personal emotion, and, in compensation, a rising tide of humanitarian enthusias
m. Gradually satiated with erotic passion, gradually convinced that it is rather a mischief-maker than a reconstructive force in a decrepit society, she is groping, indeed, between her successive liaisons for an elusive felicity, for a larger mission than inspiring Musset’s Alexandrines or Chopin’s nocturnes. It is somewhat amusing, and at the same time indicative of her vague but deep-seated moral yearnings, to find her writing rebukingly to Sainte-Beuve, as early as 1834, apropos of his epicurean Volupte: “Let the rest do as they like; but you, dear friend, you must produce a book which will change and better mankind, do you see? You can, and therefore should. Oh, if poor I could do it! I should lift my head again and my heart would no longer be broken; but in vain I seek a religion: Shall it be God, shall it be love, friendship, the public welfare? Alas, it seems to me that my soul is framed to receive all these impressions, without one effacing another … Who shall paint justice as it should, as it may, be in our modern society?”
To Sainte-Beuve, himself an unscathed intellectual Odysseus, she declares herself greatly indebted intellectually; but on the whole his influence seems to have been tranquillizing. The material for the radical program, economic, political, and religious, which, like a spiritual ancestor of H. G. Wells, she eagerly sought to popularize by the novels of her middle years, was supplied mainly by Saint-Simon, Lamennais, and Leroux. Her new “religion of humanity,” a kind of theosophical socialism, is too fantastically garbed to charm the sober spirits of our age. And yet from the ruins of that time and from the emotional extravagance of books grown tedious, which she has left behind her, George Sand emerges for us with one radiant perception which must be included in whatever religion animates a democratic society: “Everyone must be happy, so that the happiness of a few may not be criminal and cursed by God.”
Complete Works of Gustave Flaubert Page 506