Collected Works of Frances Trollope

by Frances Milton Trollope

“But what right have they to doubt it?... Surely he would hardly be permitted to preach at Notre Dame, where the archbishop himself sits in judgment on him, were he otherwise than orthodox?”

  “I was at school with him,” he replied: “he was a fine sharp-witted boy, and gave very early demonstrations of a mind not particularly given either to credulity, or subservience to any doctrines that he found puzzling.”

  “I should say that this was the greatest proof of his present sincerity. He doubted as a boy — but as a man he believes.”

  “That is not the way the story goes,” said he. “But hark! there is the bell: the mass is about to commence.”

  He was right: the organ pealed, the fine chant of the voices was heard above it, and in a few minutes we saw the archbishop and his splendid train escorting the Host to its ark upon the altar.

  During the interval between the conclusion of the mass and the arrival of the Abbé Lacordaire in the pulpit, my sceptical neighbour again addressed me.

  “Are you prepared to be very much enchanted by what you are going to hear?” said he.

  “I hardly know what to expect,” I replied: “I think my idea of the preacher was higher when I came here, than since I have heard you speak of him.”

  “You will find that he has a prodigious flow of words, much vehement gesticulation, and a very impassioned manner. This is quite sufficient to establish his reputation for eloquence among les jeunes gens.”

  “But I presume you do not yourself subscribe to the sentence pronounced by these young critics?”

  “Yes, I do, — as far, at least, as to acknowledge that this man has not attained his reputation without having displayed great ability. But though all the talent of Paris has long consented to receive its crown of laurels from the hands of her young men, it would be hardly reasonable to expect that their judgment should be as profound as their power is great.”

  “Your obedience to this beardless synod is certainly very extraordinary,” said I: “I cannot understand it.”

  “I suppose not,” said he, laughing; “it is quite a Paris fashion; but we all seem contented that it should be so. If a new play appears, its fate must be decided by les jeunes gens; if a picture is exhibited, its rank amidst the works of modern art can only be settled by them: does a dancer, a singer, an actor, or a preacher appear — a new member in the tribune, or a new prince upon the throne, — it is still les jeunes gens who must pass judgment on them all; and this judgment is quoted with a degree of deference utterly inconceivable to a stranger.”

  “Chut! ... chut!” ... was at this moment uttered by more than one voice near us: “le voilà!” I glanced my eye towards the pulpit, but it was still empty; and on looking round me, I perceived that all eyes were turned in the direction of a small door in the north aisle, almost immediately behind us. “Il est entré là!” said a young woman near us, in a tone that seemed to indicate a feeling deeper than respect, and, in truth, not far removed from adoration. Her eyes were still earnestly fixed upon the door, and continued to be so, as well as those of many others, till it reopened and a slight young man in the dress of a priest prepared for the chaire appeared at it. A verger made way for him through the crowd, which, thick and closely wedged as it was, fell back on each side of him, as he proceeded to the pulpit, with much more docility than I ever saw produced by the clearing a passage through the intervention of a troop of horse.

  Silence the most profound accompanied his progress; I never witnessed more striking demonstrations of respect: and yet it is said that three-fourths of Paris believe this man to be a hypocrite.

  As soon as he had reached the pulpit, and while preparing himself by silent prayer for the duty he was about to perform, a movement became perceptible at the upper part of the choir; and presently the archbishop and his splendid retinue of clergy were seen moving in a body towards that part of the nave which is immediately in front of the preacher. On arriving at the space reserved for them, each noiselessly dropped into his allotted seat according to his place and dignity, while the whole congregation respectfully stood to watch the ceremony, and seemed to

  “Admirer un si bel ordre, et reconnaître l’église.”

  It is easier to describe to you everything which preceded the sermon, than the sermon itself. This was such a rush of words, such a burst and pouring out of passionate declamation, that even before I had heard enough to judge of the matter, I felt disposed to prejudge the preacher, and to suspect that his discourse would have more of the flourish and furbelow of human rhetoric than of the simplicity of divine truth in it.

  His violent action, too, disgusted me exceedingly. The rapid and incessant movement of his hands, sometimes of one, sometimes of both, more resembled that of the wings of a humming-bird than anything else I can remember: but the hum proceeded from the admiring congregation. At every pause he made, and like the claptraps of a bad actor, they were frequent, and evidently faits exprès: a little gentle laudatory murmur ran through the crowd.

  I remember reading somewhere of a priest nobly born, and so anxious to keep his flock in their proper place, that they might not come “between the wind and his nobility,” that his constant address to them when preaching was, “Canaille Chrétienne!” This was bad — very bad, certainly; but I protest, I doubt if the Abbé Lacordaire’s manner of addressing his congregation as “Messieurs” was much less unlike the fitting tone of a Christian pastor. This mundane apostrophe was continually repeated throughout the whole discourse, and, I dare say, had its share in producing the disagreeable effect I experienced from his eloquence. I cannot remember having ever heard a preacher I less liked, reverenced, and admired, than this new Parisian saint. He made very pointed allusions to the reviving state of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and anathematized pretty cordially all such as should oppose it.

  In describing the two hours’ prologue to the mass, I forgot to mention that many young men — not in the reserved places of the centre aisle, but sitting near us, beguiled the tedious interval by reading. Some of the volumes they held had the appearance of novels from a circulating library, and others were evidently collections of songs, probably less spiritual than spirituels.

  The whole exhibition certainly showed me a new page in the history of Paris as it is, and I therefore do not regret the four hours it cost me: but once is enough — I certainly will never go to hear the Abbé Lacordaire again.

  LETTER XLVI.

  La Tour de Nesle.

  It is, I believe, nearly two years ago since the very extraordinary drama called “La Tour de Nesle” was sent me to read, as a specimen of the outrageous school of dramatic extravagance which had taken possession of all the theatres in Paris; but I certainly did not expect that it would keep its place as a favourite spectacle with the people of this great and enlightened capital long enough for me to see it, at this distance of time, still played before a very crowded audience.

  That this is a national disgrace, is most certain: but the fault is less attributable to the want of good taste, than to the lamentable blunder which permits every species of vice and abomination to be enacted before the eyes of the people, without any restraint or check whatever, under the notion that they are thereby permitted to enjoy a desirable privilege and a noble freedom. Yet in this same country it is illegal to sell a deleterious drug! There is no logic in this.

  It is however an undeniable fact, as I think I have before stated, that the best class of Parisian society protest against this disgusting license, and avoid — upon principle loudly proclaimed and avowed — either reading or seeing acted these detestable compositions. Thus, though the crowded audiences constantly assembled whenever they are brought forward prove but too clearly that such persons form but a small minority, their opinion is nevertheless sufficient, or ought to be so, to save the country from the disgrace of admitting that such things are good.

  We seem to pique ourselves greatly on the superiority of our taste in these matters; but let us pique ourselves rather on
our theatrical censorship. Should the clamours and shoutings of misrule lead to the abolition of this salutary restraint, the consequences would, I fear, be such as very soon to rob us of our present privilege of abusing our neighbours on this point.

  While things do remain as they are, however, we may, I think, smile a little at such a judgment as Monsieur de Saintfoix passes upon our theatrical compositions, when comparing them to those of France.

  “Les actions de nos tragédies,” says he, “sont pathétiques et terribles; celles des tragédies angloises sont atroces. On y met sous les yeux du spectateur les objets les plus horribles; un mari qui discourt avec sa femme, qui la caresse et l’étrangle.”

  Might one not think that the writer of this passage had just arrived from witnessing the famous scene in the “Monomane,” only he had mistaken it for English? But he goes on —

  “Une fille toute sanglante....” (Triboulet’s daughter Blanche, for instance.)— “Après l’avoir violée....”

  He then proceeds to reason upon the subject, and justly enough, I think — only we should read England for France, and France for England.

  “Il n’est pas douteux que les arts agréables ne réussissent chez un peuple qu’autant qu’ils en prennent le génie, et qu’un auteur dramatique ne sauroit espérer de plaire si les objets et les images qu’il présente ne sont pas analogues au caractère, au naturel, et au goût de la nation: on pourroit donc conclure de la différence des deux théâtres, que l’âme d’un ANGLAIS est sombre, féroce, sanguinaire; et que celle d’un FRANÇAIS est vive, impatiente, emportée, mais généreuse même dans sa haine; idolatrant l’honneur” — (just like Buridan in this same drama of the Tour de Nesle — this popular production of la Jeune France — la France régénérée)— “idolatrant l’honneur, et ne cessant jamais de l’apercevoir, malgré le trouble et toute la violence des passions.”

  Though it is impossible to read this passage without a smile, at a time when it is so easy for the English to turn the tables against this patriotic author, one must sigh too, while reflecting on the lamentable change which has taken place in the moral feeling of revolutionised France since the period at which it was written.

  What would Saintfoix say to the notion that Victor Hugo had “heaved the ground from beneath the feet of Corneille and Racine”? The question, however, is answered by a short sentence in his “Essais Historiques,” where he thus expresses himself: —

  “Je croirois que la décadence de notre nation seroit prochaine, si les hommes de quarante ans n’y regardoient pas CORNEILLE comme le plus grand génie qui ait jamais été.”

  If the spirit of the historian were to revisit the earth, and float over the heads of a party of Parisian critics while pronouncing sentence on his favourite author, he might probably return to the shades unharmed, for he would only hear “Rococo! Rococo! Rococo!” uttered as by acclamation; and unskilled to comprehend the new-born eloquence, he would doubtless interpret it as a refrain to express in one pithy word all reverence, admiration, and delight.

  But to return to “La Tour de Nesle.” The story is taken from a passage in Brantôme’s history “des Femmes Galantes,” where he says, “qu’une reine de France” — whom however he does not name, but who is said to have been Marguérite de Bourgogne, wife of Louis Dix— “se tenoit là (à la Tour de Nesle) d’ordinaire, laquelle fesant le guet aux passans, et ceux qui lui revenoient et agréoient le plus, de quelque sorte de gens que ce fussent, les fesoit appeler et venir à soy, et après ... les fesoit précipiter du haut de la tour en bas, en l’eau, et les fesoit noyer. Je ne veux pas,” he continues, “assurer que cela soit vrai, mais le vulgaire, au moins la plupart de Paris, l’affirme, et n’y a si commun qu’en lui montrant la tour seulement, et en l’interrogeant, que de lui-même ne le die.”

  This story one might imagine was horrible and disgusting enough; but MM. Gaillardet et * * * * * (it is thus the authors announce themselves) thought otherwise, and accordingly they have introduced her majesty’s sisters, the ladies Jeanne and Blanche of Burgundy, who were both likewise married to sons of Philippe-le-Bel, the brothers of Louis Dix, to share her nocturnal orgies. These “imaginative and powerful” scenic historians also, according to the fashion of the day among the theatrical writers of France, add incest to increase the interest of the drama.

  This is enough, and too much, as to the plot; and for the execution of it by the authors, I can only say that it is about equal in literary merit to the translations of an Italian opera handed about at the Haymarket. It is in prose — and, to my judgment, very vulgar prose; yet it is not only constantly acted, but I am assured that the sale of it has been prodigiously great, and still continues to be so.

  That a fearful and even hateful story, dressed up in all the attractive charm of majestic poetry, and redeemed in some sort by the noble sentiments of the personages brought into the scenes of which it might be the foundation — that a drama so formed might captivate the imagination even while it revolted the feelings, is very possible, very natural, and nowise disgraceful either to the poet, or to those whom his talent may lead captive. The classic tragedies which long served as models to France abound in fables of this description. Alfieri, too, has made use of such, following with a poet’s wing the steady onward flight of remorseless destiny, yet still sublime in pathos and in dignity, though appalling in horror. In like manner, the great French dramatists have triumphed by the power of their genius, both over the disgust inspired by these awful classic mysteries, and the unbending strictness of the laws which their antique models enforced for their composition.

  If we may herein deem the taste to have been faulty, the grace, the majesty, the unswerving dignity of the tragic march throughout the whole action — the lofty sentiments, the bursts of noble passion, and the fine drapery of stately verse in which the whole was clothed, must nevertheless raise our admiration to a degree that may perhaps almost compete with what we feel for the enchanting wildness and unshackled nature of our native dramas.

  But what can we think of those who, having ransacked the pages of history to discover whatever was most revolting to the human soul, should sit down to arrange it in action, detailed at full length, with every hateful circumstance exaggerated and brought out to view for the purpose of tickling the curiosity of his countrymen and countrywomen, and by that means beguiling them into the contemplation of scenes that Virtue would turn from with loathing, and before which Innocence must perish as she gazes? No gleam of goodness throughout the whole for the heart to cling to, — no thought of remorseful penitence, — no spark of noble feeling; nothing but vice, — low, grovelling, brutal vice, — from the moment the curtain rises to display the obscene spectacle, to that which sees it fall between the fictitious infamy on one side, and the real impurity left on the other!

  As I looked on upon the hideous scene, and remembered the classic horrors of the Greek tragedians, and of the mighty imitators who have followed them, I could not help thinking that the performance of MM. Gaillardet et * * * * * was exceedingly like that of a monkey mimicking the operations of a man. He gets hold of the same tools, but turns the edges the wrong way; and instead of raising a majestic fabric in honour of human genius, he rolls the materials in mud, begrimes his own paws in the slimy cement, and then claws hold of every unwary passenger who comes within his reach, and bespatters him with the rubbish he has brought together. Such monkeys should be chained, or they will do much mischief.

  It is hardly possible that such dramas as the “Tour de Nesle” can be composed with the intention of producing a great tragic effect; which is surely the only reason which can justify bringing sin and misery before the eyes of an audience. There is in almost every human heart a strange love for scenes of terror and of woe. We love to have our sympathies awakened — our deepest feelings roused; we love to study in the magic mirror of the scene what we ourselves might feel did such awful visitations come upon us; and there is an unspeakable interest inspired by looking on, and fancying that were
it so with us, we might so act, so feel, so suffer, and so die. But is there in any land a wretch so lost, so vile, as to be capable of feeling sympathy with any sentiment or thought expressed throughout the whole progress of this “Tour de Nesle”? God forbid!

  I have heard of poets who have written under the inspiration of brandy and laudanum — the exhalations from which are certainly not likely to form themselves into images of distinctness or beauty; but the inspiration that dictated the “Tour de Nesle” must have been something viler still, though not less powerful. It must, I think, have been the cruel calculation of how many dirty francs might be expressed from the pockets of the idle, by a spectacle new from its depth of atrocity, and attractive from its newness.

  But, setting aside for a moment the sin and the scandal of producing on a public stage such a being as the woman to whom MM. Gaillardet et * * * * * have chosen to give the name of Marguérite de Bourgogne, it is an object of some curiosity to examine the literary merits of a piece which, both on the stage and in the study, has been received by so many thousands — perhaps millions — of individuals belonging to “la grande nation” as a work deserving their patronage and support — or at least as deserving their attention and attendance for years; years, too, of hourly progressive intellect — years during which the march of mind has outdone all former marches of human intelligence — years during which Young France has been labouring to throw off her ancient coat of worn-out rococoism, and to clothe herself in new-fledged brightness. During these years she has laid on one shelf her once-venerated Corneille, — on another, her almost worshipped Racine. Molière is named but as a fine antique; and Voltaire himself, spite of his strong claims upon their revolutionary affections, can hardly be forgiven for having said of the two whom Victor Hugo is declared to have overthrown, that “Ces hommes enseignèrent à la nation, à penser, à sentir, à s’exprimer; leurs auditeurs, instruits par eux seuls, devinrent enfin des juges sévères pour eux mêmes qui les avaient éclairés.” Let any one whose reason is not totally overthrown by the fever and delirium of innovation read the “Tour de Nesle,” and find out if he can any single scene, speech, or phrase deserving the suffrage which Paris has accorded to it. Has the dialogue either dignity, spirit, or truth of nature to recommend it? Is there a single sentiment throughout the five acts with which an honest man can accord? Is there even an approach to grace or beauty in the tableaux? or skill in the arrangement of the scenes? or keeping of character among the demoniacal dramatis personæ which MM. Gaillardet et * * * * * have brought together? or, in short, any one merit to recommend it — except only its superlative defiance of common decency and common sense?