man …” Traveler! You use only words of truth, of “objectivity,”
you make a profession of it, you make a display of it; but, beneath this self-styled
impersonality, how quickly we can recognize you, even if it’s only from this black
man, this orange, that parrot just now, who have just disembarked with you, all these
accessories you have
brought back
with you that you hurry to
slap
onto your sketch—the most variegated, I declare,and the least authentic, the least lifelike one your brush has ever struggled with.
So the black man takes an orange out of his pocket, and by doing so, he “wins esteem”!
Mr. Flaubert, I understand, means that in a crowd someone who can put himself to use
and who shows off some advantage, even an ordinary one familiar to everyone—someone
who takes out a goblet, for example, when someone else is drinking out of a bottle
next to him; or a newspaper, if he is the only one who thought to buy one—that this
person is immediately singled out, noticed and pointed out by others. But confess
that when it comes down to it you don’t mind, by risking this unusual and out of place
expression of “winning esteem,” insinuating that all esteem, even the highest and
most sought-after, is not much more than that, that it is made of envy inspired by
possessions that are at bottom without any intrinsic value. Well, we say to Mr. Flaubert,
that is not true; esteem—and we know that the example will touch you, since it is
only in literature that you belong to the school of insensitivity, of
impassivity
—is acquired by a whole life devoted to science, to humanity. Literature, once upon
a time, could procure it also, when it was only the gauge and so to speak the flower
of the mind’s urbanity, of that entirely human disposition that can indeed have its
predilections and its goals, but that allows, alongside images of vice and ridicule,
those of innocence and virtue. Without going back to the ancients (who were much more
“naturalist” than you will ever be, but who, on the painting we see in its material
frame, always make a fullydivine ray of light appear clearly, as if it were in the open air, which shines its
light on the pediment and illumines the contrast), without going back to them, whether
they go by the name of Homer or Moschus, Bion or Leonidas of Tarentum, not to mention
more deliberate portrayals, tell us if you please, is this something different from
what these same writers have always done, writers you do not fear to claim as your
own? Saint-Simon above all, next to the atrocious and slanderous portraits of a Noailles
or a Harlay, what great brushstrokes doesn’t he use to show us, in its light and its
proportion, the virtue of a Montal, a Beauvilliers, a Rancé, a Chevreuse? And even
in that “Human Comedy,” or the one so called, where Mr. de Balzac, with an almost
mocking conceit, claims to outline “scenes” (actually entirely fabulous) “of Parisian
and provincial life” (he, a man incapable of observation if ever there was one), compared
with and almost making up for the Hulots, the Philippe Bridaus, the Balthazar Claes,
as he calls them, and of whom your Narr’Havas and your Shahabarims have no reason
to be envious, I admit, hasn’t he imagined an Adeline Hulot, a Blanche de Mortsauf,
a Marguerite de Solis?
Indeed, it would have astonished, and rightly so, the Jacquemonts, the Darus, the
Mérimées, the Ampères, all those men of delicacy and scholarship who knew him so well
and who did not think there was any need, for such a trifle, to make so many bells
ring out, if someone had told them that the witty Stendhal, to whom we owe so many
clear and fruitful views, so many apposite remarks, would pass as a novelist in our
day. But finally,he is even
truer
than you are! And there is more reality in the smallest study by—I’ll say Sénac or
Meilhan, by Ramond or Althon Shée—than