Twice I have seen Alfred de Vigny, who has kept me three hours each time. He is an admirable and delightful man, but not fitted for action, and even dissuading from action. However, he has shown me the warmest sympathy.
You do not know that the month of January has been a month of fretfulness and neuralgia for me.... I say this in order to explain the interruption in my proceedings.
I have seen Lamartine, Patin, Viennet, Legouvé, de Vigny, Villemain (horror!), Sandeau. Really, I do not remember any others. I have not been able to find either Ponsard, or M. Saint-Marc Girardin, or de Sacy.
At last I have sent a few copies of some books to ten of those whose works I know. This week I shall see some of these gentlemen.
I have written an analysis, such as it is, of your excellent article (without signing it; but my conduct is infamous, is it not?) in the “Revue anecdotique” As for the article itself, I have sent it to M. de Vigny, who did not know it, and who showed me that he wished to read it.
As for the talkers of politics, among whom I shall not be able to find any pleasure, I shall go the round of them in a carriage. They shall have only my card and not my face.
This evening I have read your “Pontmartin.” Pardon me for saying to you, “What lost talent!” In your prodigality there is at times something which scandalises me. It seems to me that I, after having said, “The most noble causes are sometimes upheld by bumpkins,” I should have considered my work finished. But you have particular talents for suggestion and divination. Even towards the most culpable beasts you are delightfully polished. This Monsieur Pontmartin is a great hater of literature....
I have sent you a little parcel of sonnets. I will next send you several packets of reveries in prose, without counting a huge work on the “Painters of Morals” (crayon, water-colour, printing, engraving).
I do not ask you if you are well. That is sufficiently apparent.
I embrace you and shake you by the hands. — I leave your house.
Baudelaire to Sainte-Beuve
15th March, 1865.
Dear friend, I take advantage of the “Histoires grotesques et sérieuses” to remind myself of you. Sometimes, in the mornings, I talk about you with M. Muller, of Liège, by whose side I take luncheon, — and in the evening, after dinner, I am re-reading “Joseph Delorme” with Malassis. Decidedly, you are right; “Joseph Delorme” is the old woman’s “Flowers of Evil.” The comparison is glorious for me. Have the goodness not to find it offensive to yourself.
And the Preface of the “Vie de César?” Is it predestinarian enough?
Yours always.
BRUXELLES, RUE DE LA MONTAGNE, 28.
Baudelaire to Sainte-Beuve
Thursday, 30th March, 1865.
My dear friend, I thank you for your excellent letter; can you write any which are not excellent? When you call me “My dear son,” you touch me and make me laugh at the same time. In spite of my many white hairs, which make me look (to the stranger) like an academician, I have great need of some one who loves me enough to call me his “son”; but I cannot help thinking of that burgrave of 120 years of age who, speaking to a burgrave of eighty, said to him: “Young man, be silent!” (In parentheses — and let this be between us — if I wrote a tragedy I should be afraid of letting fly some shafts of this energy and of hitting another target than that at which I had aimed.)
Only, I observe that in your letter there is no allusion to the copy of “Histoires grotesques et sérieuses” that I asked Michel Lévy to send you. I swear to you, besides, that I have no intention whatever of getting the least advertisement for this book out of you. My only aim was, knowing as you well know how to distribute your time, to provide you with an occasion for enjoying once more an amazing subtlety of logic and sensations. There are people who will find that the fifth volume is inferior to the preceding ones; but that is of no consequence to me.
We are not as bored as you think, Malassis and I. We have learnt to go without everything, in a country where there is nothing, and we have understood that certain pleasures (those of conversation, for example) grow in proportion as certain needs diminish.
On the subject of Malassis, I will tell you that I marvel at his courage, at his activity, and his incorrigible gaiety. He has arrived at a very surprising erudition in point of books and prints. Everything amuses him and everything teaches him. One of our chief amusements is when he pretends to play the atheist and when I try to play the Jesuit. You know that I can become religious by contradiction (above all here) so that, to make me impious, it would be sufficient to put me in contact with a slovenly curé (slovenly of body and soul). As for the publication of some humorous books which it has pleased him to amend with the same piety that he would have put at the service of Bossuet or Loyola, even I have drawn from them a little, little unexpected gain: it is a clearer understanding of the French Revolution. When people amuse themselves in a certain way, it is a good diagnosis of revolution.
Alexander Dumas has just left us. This fine man has come to show himself with his ordinary candour. In flocking round him to get a shake of the hand, the Belgians made fun of him.... That is unworthy. A man can be worthy of respect for his vitality. Vitality of the negro, it is true. But I think that many others, besides myself, lovers of the serious, have been carried away by “La Dame de Montsoreau” and by “Balsamo.”
As I am very impatient to return to France, I have written to J. L. to commission him with my small affairs. I would like to collect, in three or four volumes, the best of my articles on the “Stimulants,” the “Painters,” and the “Poets,” adding thereto a series of “Observations on Belgium.” If, in one of your rare strolls, you go along the boulevard de Gand, stir up his good feeling a little and exaggerate what you think of me.
I must own that three important fragments are lacking, one on Didactic Painting (Cornélius, Kaulbach, Chenavard, Alfred Réthel), another, “Biography of the Flowers of Evil,” and then a last: “Chateaubriand and his Family.” You know that my passion for this old dandy is incorrigible. To sum up, little work; ten days perhaps. I am rich in notes.
Pardon me if I intrude in a delicate question; my excuse is my desire to see you content (supposing that certain things would content you) and to see every one do you justice. I hear many people saying, “What! Sainte-Beuve is not yet a senator?” Many years ago I said to E. Delacroix, to whom I could speak my mind, that many young men preferred to see him remaining in the state of an outcast and rebel. (I alluded to his stubbornness in presenting himself at the Institute.) He replied: “My dear sir, if my right arm was struck by paralysis, my capacity as member of the Institute would give me the right of teaching, and if I always keep well the Institute can serve to pay my coffee and cigars. In two words, I think that, with regard to you, it resolves itself into a certain accusation of ingratitude against the government of Napoleon, in many other minds besides mine.” You forgive me, do you not? for violating the limits of discretion; you know how much I love you; and then I chatter like some one who rarely has an opportunity for talking.
I have just read Émile Ollivier’s long discourse. It is very extraordinary. He speaks, it seems, with the authority of a man who has a great secret in his pocket.
Have you read Janin’s abominable article against melancholy and mocking poets? And Viennet, quoted amongst the great poets of France! And a fortnight after, an article in favour of Cicero! Do they take Cicero for an Orleanist or an academician? M. de Sacy says: “Cicero is our Cæsar, ours!” Oh no, he is not, is he?
Your very affectionate.
Without any transition, I will tell you that I have just found an admirable melancholy ode by Shelley, composed on the shores of the Gulf of Naples, and which ends with these words:
“I know that I am one of those whom men do not love; but I am one of those whom they remember.” Very good! this is poetry!
Baudelaire to Sainte-Beuve
Thursday 4th May, 1865.
MY DEAR SAINTE-BEUVE, — A
s I take up a pen to write you some words of congratulation on your nomination, I find a letter that I wrote you on March 31st which has not yet gone, probably because of stupidity on my part or on the part of the hotel people.
I have read it again. I find it boyish, childish. But I send it to you just the same. If it makes you laugh, I shall not say “So much the worse,” but “So much the better.” I am not at all afraid, knowing your indulgence, to strip myself before you.
To the passage which treats of J. L. I shall add that I have finished the fragments in question (except the book on Belgium, which I have not the courage to finish here) and that, obliged to go to Honfleur to seek all the other pieces composing the books announced to L..., I shall doubtless go on to Paris on the 15th, in order to torment him a little. If, by chance, you see him, you can tell him.
As for Malassis, his terrible affair happens on the 12th, He thinks he is sure to be condemned to five years. The serious thing is that this closes France to him for five years. That this momentarily cuts off supplies, I do not think so great an evil. He will be constrained to do other things. It is more to count on the universal mind than to brave compulsory public decency. As for me, who am not a prude, I have never possessed one of these silly books, even printed in beautiful characters and with beautiful illustrations.
Alas! the “Poems in Prose” to which you have again sent a recent encouragement, are much delayed. I am always giving myself difficult work. To make a hundred laborious trifles which demand unfailing good-humour (good-humour necessary even to treat of sad subjects), a strange stimulant which needs sights, crowds, music, even street-lamps, that is what I wanted to do! I am only at sixty and I can go no further. I need this famous “bath of the multitude” of which the error has justly shocked you.
M. has come here. I have read your article. I have admired your suppleness and your aptitude to enter into the soul of all the talents. But to this talent there is something lacking which I cannot define. M. has gone to Anvers, where there are magnificent things — above all, examples of this monstrous, Jesuitical style which pleases me so much, and which I hardly know except from the chapel of the college at Lyons, which is made with different coloured marbles. Anvers has a museum of a very special kind, full of unexpected things, even for those who can put the Flemish school in its true place. Finally, this town has the grand, solemn air of an old capital, accentuated by a great river. I believe that this fine fellow has seen nothing of all this. He has only seen a fat fry that he has gone from the other side of the Escaut to eat. He is, nevertheless, a charming man.
Decidedly, I congratulate you with all my heart. You are now the equal (officially) of many mediocre people. That matters little. You wished it, did you not? need, perhaps? You are content, then I am happy.
Yours always.
Baudelaire to Sainte-Beuve
11th July, 1865.
Very dear friend, I could not cross Paris without coming to shake you by the hand. Very soon, probably in a month.
I saw J. L... three days ago, when I was making for Honfleur. L. pretended that he was going to undertake some important business for me with MM. G.... If you could intervene in my favour with one or two authoritative words, you would make me happy. You do not wish my awkward compliments on the subject of the Senate, do you?
Your very devoted friend.
I start again for the infernal regions to-morrow evening. Till then, I am at the Hôtel du chemin de fer du Nord. Place de Nord.
BRUXELLES,
Tuesday, 2nd January, 1866.
MY GOOD FRIEND,
I have just seen that, for the first time in your life, you have delivered your physical person to the public. I allude to a portrait of you published by “L’Illustration.” It really is very like you! The familiar, mocking, and rather concentrated expression, and the little calotte itself is not hidden. Shall I tell you I am so bored that this simple image has done me good? The phrase has an impertinent air. It means simply that, in the loneliness in which some old Paris friends have left me (J. L. in particular), your image has been enough to divert me from my weariness. What would I not give to go, in five minutes, to the rue Mont-Parnasse, to talk with you for an hour on your articles on Proudhon; with you who know how to listen even to men younger than yourself!
Believe me, it is not that I find the reaction in his favour illegitimate. I have read him a good deal and known him a little. Pen in hand, he was a bon bougre; but he was not, and would never have been, even on paper, a dandy. For that I shall never pardon him. And it is that that I shall express, were I to excite the ill-humour of all the great beasts, right-thinking, of the “Universe.”
Of your work I say nothing to you. More than ever you have the air of a confessor and accoucheur of souls. They said the same thing of Socrates, I think; but Messrs. Baillarger and Lélut have declared, on their conscience, that he was mad.
This is the commencement of a year that will doubtless be as boring, as stupid, as criminal as all the preceding ones. What good can I wish you? You are virtuous and lovable, and (extraordinary thing!) they are beginning to do you justice!...
I chatter far too much, like a nervous man who is tired. Do not reply to me if you have not five minutes of leisure.
Your very affectionate.
Baudelaire to Sainte-Beuve
15th January, 1866.
My dear friend, I do not know how to thank you enough for your good letters. It is really all the kinder of you because I know you are very busy. If I am sometimes long in replying it is on the score of health, which prevents me and even sends me to bed for many days.
I shall follow your advice: I shall go to Paris and I shall see the G...s myself. Then, perhaps, I shall commit the indiscretion of asking you to give me a helping hand. But when? For six weeks I have been immersed in a chemist’s shop. If it should be necessary to give up beer, I do not ask anything better. Tea and coffee, that is more serious; but will pass. Wine? the devil! it is cruel. But here is a still harder creature who says I must neither read nor study. What a strange medicine is that which prohibits the principal function! Another tells me for all consolation that I am hysterical. Do you admire, like me, the elastic usage of these fine words, well chosen to cloak our ignorance of everything?
I have tried to plunge again into the “Spleen de Paris” [“Poems in Prose”], for that was not finished. Finally, I hope to be able to show, one of these days, a new Joseph Delorme, grappling with his rhapsodic thought at each incident in his stroll and drawing from each object a disagreeable moral. But how difficult it is to make nonsense when one wishes to express it in a manner at the same time impressive and light!
Joseph Delorme has arrived there quite naturally. I have taken up the reading of your poems again ab ovo. I saw with pleasure that at each turn of the page I recognised verses which are old friends. It appears that, when I was a boy, I had not such very bad taste. (The same thing happened to me in December with Lucain. “Pharsale,” always glittering, melancholy, lacerating, stoical, has consoled my neuralgia. And this pleasure has led me to think that in reality we change very little. That is to say, that there is something invariable in us.)
Since you own that it does not displease you to hear your works spoken of, I am much tempted to write you thirty pages of confidences on this subject; but I think I should do better to write them first in good French for myself, and then to send them to a paper, if there still exists a journal in which one can talk poetry.
However, here are some suggestions of the book which came to me by chance.
I have understood, much better than heretofore, the “Consolations” and the “Pensées d’août.”
I have noted as more brilliant the following pieces: “Sonnet à Mad. G...,” page 225.
Then you knew Mme. Grimblot, that tall and elegant Russian for whom the word “désinvolture” was made and who had the hoarse, or rather the deep and sympathetic voice of some Parisian comediennes? I have often had the pleasure of hearing M
me. de Mirbel lecture her and it was very comical. (After all, perhaps I am deceiving myself; perhaps it is another Mme. G.... These collections of poetry are not only of poetry and psychology, but are also annals.) “Tu te révoltes” ... “Dans ce cabriolet” ... “En revenant du Convoi” ... “La voilà.”...
Page 235, I was a little shocked to see you desiring the approbation of MM. Thiers, Berryer, Thierry, Villemain. Do these gentlemen really feel the thunderclap or the enchantment of an object of art? And are you then very much afraid of not being appreciated to have accumulated so many justificatory documents? To admire you, do I need the permission of M. de Béranger?
Good Heavens! I nearly forgot the “Joueur d’orgue,” page 242. I have grasped much better than formerly the object and the art of narratives such as “Doudun,” “Marèze,” “Ramon,” “M. Jean,” etc. The word “analytical energy” applies to you much more than to André Chénier.
There is still one piece that I find marvellous: it is the account of a watch-night, by the side of an unknown corpse, addressed to Victor Hugo at the time of the birth of one of his sons.
What I call the decoration (landscape or furniture) is always perfect.
In certain places of “Joseph Delorme” I find a little too much of lutes, lyres, harps, and Jehovahs. This is a blemish in the Parisian poems. Besides, you have come to destroy all that.
Indeed, pardon me! I ramble on! I should never have dared to talk to you so long about it.
I have found the pieces that I know by heart again. (Why should one reread, with pleasure, in printed characters, that which memory could recite?)
Collected Poetical Works of Charles Baudelaire Page 58