Jean-Christophe In Paris — THE MARKET-PLACE, I, part 7

* * * * * But Sylvain Kohn was no safer as a guide in that world than in the world of books, and, thanks to him, Christophe's first impression was almost as repulsive as that of his first essay in literature.

It seemed that there was everywhere the same spirit of mental prostitution.

The pleasure-mongers were divided into two schools.

On the one hand there was the good old way, the national way, of providing a coarse and unclean pleasure, quite frankly; a delight in ugliness, strong meat, physical deformities, a show of drawers, barrack-room jests, risky stories, red pepper, high game, private rooms--"a manly frankness," as those people say who try to reconcile looseness and morality by pointing out that, after four acts of dubious fun, order is restored and the Code triumphs by the fact that the wife is really with the husband whom she thinks she is deceiving--(so long as the law is observed, then virtue is all right):--that vicious sort of virtue which defends marriage by endowing it with all the charm of lewdness:--the Gallic way.

The other school was in the modern style.

It was much more subtle and much more disgusting.

The Parisianized Jews and the Judaicized Christians who frequented the theater had introduced into it the usual hash of sentiment which is the distinctive feature of a degenerate cosmopolitanism.

Those sons who blushed for their fathers set themselves to abnegate their racial conscience: and they succeeded only too well.

Having plucked out the soul that was their birthright, all that was left them was a mixture of the moral and intellectual values of other races: they made a _macédoine_ of them, an _olla podrida_: it was their way of taking possession of them.

The men who who were at that time in control of the theaters in Paris were extraordinarily skilful at beating up filth and sentiment, and giving virtue a flavoring of vice, vice a flavoring of virtue, and turning upside down every human relation of age, sex, the family, and the affections.

Their art, therefore, had an odor _sui generis_, which smelt both good and bad at once--that is to say, it smelled very bad indeed: they called it "amoralism."

One of their favorite heroes at that time was the amorous old man.

Their theaters presented a rich gallery of portraits of the type: and in painting it they introduced a thousand pretty touches.

Sometimes the sexagenarian hero would take his daughter into his confidence, and talk to her about his mistress: and she would talk about her lovers: and they would give each other friendly advice: the kindly father would aid his daughter in her indiscretions: and the precious daughter would intervene with the unfaithful mistress, beg her to return, and bring her back to the fold.

Sometimes the good old man would listen to the confidences of his mistress: he would talk to her about her lovers, or, if nothing better was forthcoming, he would listen to the tale of her gallantries, and even take a delight in them.

And there were portraits of lovers, distinguished gentlemen, who presided in the houses of their former mistresses, and helped them in their nefarious business.

Society women were thieves.

The men were bawds, the girls were Lesbian.

And all these things happened in the highest society: the society of rich people--the only society that mattered.

For that made it possible to offer the patrons of the theater damaged goods under cover of the delights of luxury.

So tricked out, it was displayed in the market, to the joy of old gentlemen and young women.

And it all reeked of death and the seraglio.

Their style was not less mixed than their sentiments.

They had invented a composite jargon of expressions from all classes of society and every country under the sun--pedantic, slangy, classical, lyrical, precious, prurient, and low--a mixture of bawdy jests, affectations, coarseness, and wit, all of which seemed to have a foreign accent.

Ironical, and gifted with a certain clownish humor, they had not much natural wit: but they were clever enough, and they manufactured their goods in imitation of Paris.

If the stone was not always of the first water, and if the setting was always strange and overdone, at least it shone in artificial light, and that was all it was meant to do.

They were intelligent, keen, though short-sighted observers--their eyes had been dulled by centuries of the life of the counting-house--turning the magnifying-glass on human sentiments, enlarging small things, not seeing big things.

With a marked predilection for finery, they were incapable of depicting anything but what seemed to their upstart snobbishness the ideal of polite society: a little group of worn-out rakes and adventurers, who quarreled among themselves for the possession of certain stolen moneys and a few virtueless females.

And yet upon occasion the real nature of these Jewish writers would suddenly awake, come to the surface from the depths of their being, in response to some mysterious echo called forth by some vivid word or sensation.

Then there appeared a strange hotch-potch of ages and races, a breath of wind from the Desert, bringing over the seas to their Parisian rooms the musty smell of a Turkish bazaar, the dazzling shimmer of the sands, the mirage, blind sensuality, savage invective, nervous disorder only a hair's-breadth away from epilepsy, a destructive frenzy--Samson, suddenly rising like a lion--after ages of squatting in the shade--and savagely tearing down the columns of the Temple, which comes crashing down on himself and on his enemies.

Christophe blew his nose and said to Sylvain Kohn: "There's power in it: but it stinks.

That's enough!

Let's go and see something else."

"What?"

asked Sylvain Kohn.

"France."

"That's it!"

said Kohn.

"Can't be," replied Christophe.

"France isn't like that."

"It's France, and Germany, too."

"I don't believe it.

A nation that was anything like that wouldn't last for twenty years: why, it's decomposing already.

There must be something else."

"There's nothing better."

"There must be something else," insisted Christophe.

"Oh, yes," said Sylvain Kohn.

"We have fine people, of course, and theaters for them, too.

Is that what you want?

We can give you that."

He took Christophe to the Théâtre Français.

* * * * * That evening they happened to be playing a modern comedy, in prose, dealing with some legal problem.

From the very beginning Christophe was baffled to make out in what sort of world the action was taking place.

The voices of the actors were out of all reason, full, solemn, slow, formal: they rounded every syllable as though they were giving a lesson in elocution, and they seemed always to be scanning Alexandrines with tragic pauses.

Their gestures were solemn and almost hieratic.

The heroine, who wore her gown as though it were a Greek peplus, with arm uplifted, and head lowered, was nothing else but Antigone, and she smiled with a smile of eternal sacrifice, carefully modulating the lower notes of her beautiful contralto voice.

The heavy father walked about like a fencing-master, with automatic gestures, a funereal dignity,--romanticism in a frock-coat.

The juvenile lead gulped and gasped and squeezed out a sob or two.

The piece was written in the style of a tragic serial story: abstract phrases, bureaucratic epithets, academic periphrases.

No movement, not a sound unrehearsed.

From beginning to end it was clockwork, a set problem, a scenario, the skeleton of a play, with not a scrap of flesh, only literary phrases.

Timid ideas lay behind discussions that were meant to be bold: the whole spirit of the thing was hopelessly middle-class and respectable.

The heroine had divorced an unworthy husband, by whom she had had a child, and she had married a good man whom she loved.

The point was, that even in such a case as this divorce was condemned by Nature, as it is by prejudice.

Nothing could be easier than to prove it: the author contrived that the woman should be surprised, for one occasion only, into yielding to the first husband.

After that, instead of a perfectly natural remorse, perhaps a profound sense of shame, together with a greater desire to love and honor the second and good husband, the author trotted out an heroic case of conscience, altogether beyond Nature.

French writers never seem to be on good terms with virtue: they always force the note when they talk of it: they make it quite incredible.

They always seem to be dealing with the heroes of Corneille, and tragedy Kings.

And are they not Kings and Queens, these millionaire heroes, and these heroines who would not be interesting unless they had at least a mansion in Paris and two or three country-houses?

For such writers and such a public wealth itself is a beauty, and almost a virtue.

The audience was even more amazing than the play.

They were never bored by all the tiresomely repeated improbabilities.

They laughed at the good points, when the actors said things that were _meant_ to be laughed at: it was made obvious that they were coming, so that the audience could be ready to laugh.

They mopped their eyes and coughed, and were deeply moved when the puppets gasped, and gulped, and roared, and fainted away in accordance with the hallowed tragic ritual.

"And people say the French are gay!"

exclaimed Christophe as they left the theater.

"There's a time for everything," said Sylvain Kohn chaffingly.

"You wanted virtue.

You see, there's still virtue in France."

"But that's not virtue!"

cried Christophe.

"That's rhetoric!"

"In France," said Sylvain Kohn.

"Virtue in the theater is always rhetorical."

"A pretorium virtue," said Christophe, "and the prize goes to the best talker.

I hate lawyers.

Have you no poets in France?"

Sylvain Kohn took him to the poetic drama.

* * * * * There were poets in France.

There were even great poets.

But the theater was not for them.

It was for the versifiers.

The theater is to poetry what the opera is to music.

As Berlioz said: _Sicut amori lupanar.

_ Christophe saw Princesses who were virtuously promiscuous, who prostituted themselves for their honor, who were compared with Christ ascending Calvary:--friends who deceived their friends out of devotion to them:--glorified triangular relations:--heroic cuckoldry: (the cuckold, like the blessed prostitute, had become a European commodity: the example of King Mark had turned the heads of the poets: like the stag of Saint Hubert, the cuckold never appeared without a halo.

) And Christophe saw also lovely damsels torn between passion and duty: their passion bade them follow a new lover: duty bade them stay with the old one, an old man who gave them money and was deceived by them.

And in the end they plumped heroically for Duty.

Christophe could not see how Duty differed from sordid interest: but the public was satisfied.

The word Duty was enough for them: they did not insist on having the thing itself; they took the author's word for it.

The summit of art was reached and the greatest pleasure was given when, most paradoxically, sexual immorality and Corneillian heroics could be combined.

In that way every need of the Parisian public was satisfied: mind, senses, rhetoric.

But it is only just to say that the public was fonder even of words than of lewdness.

Eloquence could send it into ecstasies.

It would have suffered anything for a fine tirade.

Virtue or vice, heroics hobnobbing with the basest prurience, there was no pill that it would not swallow if it were gilded with sonorous rhymes and redundant words.

Anything that came to hand was ground into couplets, antitheses, arguments: love, suffering, death.

And when that was done, they thought they had felt love, suffering, and death.

Nothing but phrases.

It was all a game.

When Hugo brought thunder on to the stage, at once (as one of his disciples said) he muted it so as not to frighten even a child.

(The disciple fancied he was paying him a compliment.

) It was never possible to feel any of the forces of Nature in their art.

They made everything polite.

Just as in music--and even more than in music, which was a younger art in France, and therefore relatively more simple--they were terrified of anything that had been "already said."

The most gifted of them coldly devoted themselves to working contrariwise.

The process was childishly simple: they pitched on some beautiful legend or fairy-story, and turned it upside down.

Thus, Bluebeard was beaten by his wives, or Polyphemus was kind enough to pluck out his eye by way of sacrificing himself to the happiness of Acis and Galatea.

And they thought of nothing but form.

And once more it seemed to Christophe (though he was not a good judge) that these masters of form were rather coxcombs and imitators than great writers creating their own style and giving breadth and depth to their work.

They played at being artists.

They played at being poets.

Nowhere was the poetic lie more insolently reared than in the heroic drama.

They put up a burlesque conception of a hero: "_The great thing is to have a soul magnificent.

An eagel's eye; broad brow like portico; present An air of strength, grave mien, most touchingly to show A heart that throbs, eyes full of dreams of worlds they know.

_" Verses like that were taken seriously.

Behind the hocus-pocus of such fine-sounding words, the bombast, the theatrical clash and clang of the swords and pasteboard helmets, there was always the incurable futility of a Sardou, the intrepid vaudevillist, playing Punch and Judy with history.

When in the world was the like of the heroism of Cyrano ever to be found?

These writers moved heaven and earth; they summoned from their tombs the Emperor and his legions, the bandits of the Ligue, the _condottieri_ of the Renaissance, called up the human cyclones that once devastated the universe:--just to display a puppet, standing unmoved through frightful massacres, surrounded by armies, soldiers, and whole hosts of captive women, dying of a silly calfish love for a woman whom he had seen ten or fifteen years before--or King Henri IV submitting to assassination because his mistress no longer loved him.

So, and no otherwise, did these good people present their parlor Kings, and _condottieri_, and heroic passion.

They were worthy scions of the illustrious nincompoops of the days of _Grand Cyrus_, those Gascons of the ideal--Scudéry, La Calprenède--an everlasting brood, the songsters of sham heroism, impossible heroism, which is the enemy of truth.

Christophe observed to his amazement that the French, who are said to be so clever, had no sense of the ridiculous.

He was lucky when religion was not dragged in to fit the fashion!

Then, during Lent, certain actors read the sermons of Bossuet at the Gaîté to the accompaniment of an organ.

Jewish authors wrote tragedies about Saint Theresa for Jewish actresses.

The _Way of the Cross_ was acted at the Bodinière, the _Child Jesus_ at the Ambigu, the _Passion_ at the Porte-Saint-Martin, _Jesus_ at the Odéon, orchestral suites on the subject of _Christ_ at the Botanical Gardens.

And a certain brilliant talker--a poet who wrote passionate love-songs--gave a lecture on the _Redemption_ at the Châtelet.

And, of course, the passages of the Gospel that were most carefully preserved by these people were those relating to Pilate and Mary Magdalene:--"_What is truth_?"

and the story of the blessed foolish virgin.

--And their boulevard Christs were horribly loquacious and well up in all the latest tricks of worldly casuistry.

Christophe said: "That is the worst yet.

It is untruth incarnate.

I'm stifling.

Let's get out."

And yet there was a great classic art that held its ground among all these modern industries, like the ruins of the splendid ancient temples among all the pretentious buildings of modern Rome.

But, outside Molière, Christophe was not yet able to appreciate it.

He was not yet familiar enough with the language, and, therefore, could not grasp the genius of the race.

Nothing baffled him so much as the tragedy of the seventeenth century--one of the least accessible provinces of French art to foreigners, precisely because it lies at the very heart of France.

It bored him horribly; he found it cold, dry, and revolting in its tricks and pedantry.

The action was thin or forced, the characters were rhetorical abstractions or as insipid as the conversation of society women.

They were caricatures of the ancient legends and heroes: a display of reason, arguments, quibbling, and antiquated psychology and archeology.

Speeches, speeches, speeches; the eternal loquacity of the French.

Christophe ironically refused to say whether it was beautiful or not: there was nothing to interest him in it: whatever the arguments put forward in turn by the orators of _Cinna_, he did not care a rap which of the talking-machines won in the end.

However, he had to admit that the French audience was not of his way of thinking, and that they did applaud these plays that bored him.

But that did not help to dissipate his confusion: he saw the plays through the audience: and he recognized in the modern French certain of the features, distorted, of the classics.

So might a critical eye see in the faded charms of an old coquette the clear, pure features of her daughter:--(such a discovery is not calculated to foster the illusion of love).

Like the members of a family who are used to seeing each other, the French could not see the resemblance.

But Christophe was struck by it, and exaggerated it: he could see nothing else.

Every work of art he saw seemed to him to be full of old-fashioned caricatures of the great ancestors of the French;

and he saw these same great ancestors also in caricature.

He could not see any difference between Corneille and the long line of his followers, those rhetorical poets whose mania it was to present nothing but sublime and ridiculous cases of conscience.

And Racine he confounded with his offspring of pretentiously introspective Parisian psychologists.

None of these people had really broken free from the classics.

The critics were for ever discussing _Tartuffe_ and _Phèdre_.

They never wearied of hearing the same plays over and over again.

They delighted in the same old words, and when they were old men they laughed at the same jokes which had been their joy when they were children.

And so it would be while the French nation endured.

No country in the world has so firmly rooted a cult of its great-great-grandfathers.

The rest of the universe did not interest them.

There were many, many men and women, even intelligent men and women, who had never read anything, and never wanted to read anything outside the works that had been written in France under the Great King!

Their theaters presented neither Goethe, nor Schiller, nor Kleist, nor Grillparzer, nor Hebbel, nor any of the great dramatists of other nations, with the exception of the ancient Greeks, whose heirs they declared themselves to be--(like every other nation in Europe).

Every now and then they felt they ought to include Shakespeare.

That was the touchstone.

There were two schools of Shakespearean interpreters: the one played _King Lear_, with a commonplace realism, like a comedy of Emile Augier: the other turned _Hamlet_ into an opera, with bravura airs and vocal exercises à la Victor Hugo.

It never occurred to them that reality could be poetic or that poetry was the spontaneous language of hearts bursting with life.

Shakespeare seemed false.

They very quickly went back to Rostand.

And yet, during the last twenty years, there had been sturdy efforts made to vitalize the theater: the narrow circle of subjects drawn from Parisian literature had been widened: the theater laid hands on everything with a show of audacity.

Two or three times even the outer world, public life, had torn down the curtain of convention.

But the theatrists made haste to piece it together again.

They lived in blinkers, and were afraid of seeing things as they are.

A sort of clannishness, a classical tradition, a routine of form and spirit, and a lack of real seriousness, held them back from pushing their audacity to its logical extremity.

They turned the acutest problems into ingenious games: and they always came back to the problem of women--women of a certain class.

And what a sorry figure did the phantoms of great men cut on their boards: the heroic Anarchy of Ibsen, the Gospel of Tolstoy, the Superman of Nietzsche!...

The literary men of Paris took a great deal of trouble to seem to be advanced thinkers.

But at heart they were all conservative.

There was no literature in Europe in which the past, the old, the "eternal yesterday," held a completer and more unconscious sway: in the great reviews, in the great newspapers, in the State-aided theaters, in the Academy, Paris was in literature what London was in Politics: the check on the mind of Europe.

The French Academy was a House of Lords.

A certain number of the institutions of the _Ancien Régime_ forced the spirit of the old days on the new society.

Every revolutionary element was rejected or promptly assimilated.

They asked nothing better.

In vain did the Government pretend to a socialistic polity.

In art it truckled under to the Academies and the Academic Schools.

Against the Academies there was no opposition save from a few coteries, and they put up a very poor fight.

For as soon as a member of a coterie could, he fell into line with an Academy, and became more academic than the rest.

And even if a writer were in the advance guard or in the van of the army, he was almost always trammeled by his group and the ideas of his group.

Some of them were hidebound by their academic _Credo_, others by their revolutionary _Credo_: and, when all was done, they both amounted to the same thing.