essays on paul bourget-第4部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


because　God　〃wanted　to　hev　it　so；〃　the　admirable　idea　fell　perfectly
flat。

As　a　literary　artist；　M。　Bourget　is　as　fresh　and　striking　as　he　is　as　a
scientific　one。　　He　says；　〃Above　all；　I　do　not　believe　much　in
anecdotes。〃

Why？　　〃In　history　they　are　all　false〃a　sufficiently　broad　statement
〃in　literature　all　libelous〃also　a　sufficiently　sweeping　statement；
coming　from　a　critic　who　notes　that　we　are　a　people　who　are　peculiarly
extravagant　in　our　language〃　and　when　it　is　a　matter　of　social　life；
almost　all　biased。〃　　It　seems　to　amount　to　stultification；　almost。　　He
has　built　two　or　three　breeds　of　American　coquettes　out　of　anecdotes
mainly　〃biased〃　ones；　I　suppose；　and；　as　they　occur　〃in　literature；〃
furnished　by　his　pen；　they　must　be　〃all　libelous。〃　　Or　did　he　mean　not　in
literature　or　anecdotes　about　literature　or　literary　people？　　I　am　not
able　to　answer　that。　　Perhaps　the　original　would　be　clearer；　but　I　have
only　the　translation　of　this　installment　by　me。　　I　think　the　remark　had
an　intention；　also　that　this　intention　was　booked　for　the　trip；　but　that
either　in　the　hurry　of　the　remark's　departure　it　got　left；　or　in　the
confusion　of　changing　cars　at　the　translator's　frontier　it　got　side…
tracked。

〃But　on　the　other　hand　I　believe　in　statistics；　and　those　on　divorces
appear　to　me　to　be　most　conclusive。〃　　And　he　sets　himself　the　task　of
explainingin　a　couple　of　columnsthe　process　by　which　Easy…Divorce
conceived；　invented；　originated；　developed；　and　perfected　an　empire…
embracing　condition　of　sexual　purity　in　the　States。　　IN　40　YEARS。　　No；　he
doesn't　state　the　interval。　　With　all　his　passion　for　statistics　he
forgot　to　ask　how　long　it　took　to　produce　this　gigantic　miracle。

I　have　followed　his　pleasant　but　devious　trail　through　those　columns；
but　I　was　not　able　to　get　hold　of　his　argument　and　find　out　what　it　was。
I　was　not　even　able　to　find　out　where　it　left　off。　　It　seemed　to
gradually　dissolve　and　flow　off　into　other　matters。　　I　followed　it　with
interest；　for　I　was　anxious　to　learn　how　easy…divorce　eradicated　adultery
in　America；　but　I　was　disappointed；　I　have　no　idea　yet　how　it　did　it。
I　only　know　it　didn't。　　But　that　is　not　valuable；　I　knew　it　before。

Well；　humor　is　the　great　thing；　the　saving　thing；　after　all。　　The　minute
it　crops　up；　all　our　hardnesses　yield；　all　our　irritations　and
resentments　flit　away；　and　a　sunny　spirit　takes　their　place。　　And　so；
when　M。　Bourget　said　that　bright　thing　about　our　grandfathers；　I　broke
all　up。　　I　remember　exploding　its　American　countermine　once；　under　that
grand　hero；　Napoleon。　　He　was　only　First　Consul　then；　and　I　was　Consul…
Generalfor　the　United　States；　of　course；　but　we　were　very　intimate；
notwithstanding　the　difference　in　rank；　for　I　waived　that。　　One　day
something　offered　the　opening；　and　he　said：

〃Well；　General；　I　suppose　life　can　never　get　entirely　dull　to　an
American；　because　whenever　he　can't　strike　up　any　other　way　to　put　in　his
time　he　can　always　get　away　with　a　few　years　trying　to　find　out　who　his
grandfather　was！〃

I　fairly　shouted；　for　I　had　never　heard　it　sound　better；　and　then　I　was
back　at　him　as　quick　as　a　flash〃Right；　your　Excellency！　　But　I　reckon
a　Frenchman's　got　his　little　stand…by　for　a　dull　time；　too；　because　when
all　other　interests　fail　he　can　turn　in　and　see　if　he　can't　find　out　who
his　father　was！〃

Well；　you　should　have　heard　him　just　whoop；　and　cackle；　and　carry　on！
He　reached　up　and　hit　me　one　on　the　shoulder；　and　says：

〃Land；　but　it's　good！　　It's　im…mensely　good！　　I'George；　I　never　heard　it
said　so　good　in　my　life　before！　　Say　it　again。〃

So　I　said　it　again；　and　he　said　his　again；　and　I　said　mine　again；　and
then　he　did；　and　then　I　did；　and　then　he　did；　and　we　kept　on　doing　it；
and　doing　it；　and　I　never　had　such　a　good　time；　and　he　said　the　same。
In　my　opinion　there　isn't　anything　that　is　as　killing　as　one　of　those
dear　old　ripe　pensioners　if　you　know　how　to　snatch　it　out　in　a　kind　of
a　fresh　sort　of　original　way。

But　I　wish　M。　Bourget　had　read　more　of　our　novels　before　he　came。　　It　is
the　only　way　to　thoroughly　understand　a　people。　　When　I　found　I　was
coming　to　Paris；　I　read　'La　Terre'。






A　LITTLE　NOTE　TO　M。　PAUL　BOURGET

　　　　　　　　　　＇The　preceding　squib　was　assailed　in　the　North　American　Review
　　　　　　　　　　in　an　article　entitled　〃　Mark　Twain　and　Paul　Bourget；〃　by　Max
　　　　　　　　　　O'Rell。　　The　following　little　note　is　a　Rejoinder　to　that
　　　　　　　　　　article。　　It　is　possible　that　the　position　assumed　herethat
　　　　　　　　　　M。　Bourget　dictated　the　O'Rell　article　himselfis　untenable。＇

You　have　every　right；　my　dear　M。　Bourget；　to　retort　upon　me　by　dictation；
if　you　prefer　that　method　to　writing　at　me　with　your　pen；　but　if　I　may
say　it　without　hurtand　certainly　I　mean　no　offenceI　believe　you　would
have　acquitted　yourself　better　with　the　pen。　　With　the　pen　you　are　at
home；　it　is　your　natural　weapon；　you　use　it　with　grace；　eloquence；　charm；
persuasiveness；　when　men　are　to　be　convinced；　and　with　formidable　effect
when　they　have　earned　a　castigation。　　But　I　am　sure　I　see　signs　in　the
above　article　that　you　are　either　unaccustomed　to　dictating　or　are　out　of
practice。　　If　you　will　re…read　it　you　will　notice；　yourself；　that　it
lacks　definiteness；　that　it　lacks　purpose；　that　it　lacks　coherence；　that
it　lacks　a　subject　to　talk　about；　that　it　is　loose　and　wabbly；　that　it
wanders　around；　that　it　loses　itself　early　and　does　not　find　itself　any
more。　　There　are　some　other　defects；　as　you　will　notice；　but　I　think　I
have　named　the　main　ones。　　I　feel　sure　that　they　are　all　due　to　your　lack
of　practice　in　dictating。

Inasmuch　as　you　had　not　signed　it　I　had　the　impression　at　first　that　you
had　not　dictated　it。　　But　only　for　a　moment。　　Certain　quite　simple　and
definite　facts　reminded　me　that　the　article　had　to　come　from　you；　for　the
reason　that　it　could　not　come　from　any　one　else　without　a　specific
invitation　from　you　or　from　me。　　I　mean；　it　could　not　except　as　an
intrusion；　a　transgression　of　the　law　which　forbids　strangers　to　mix　into
a　private　dispute　between　friends；　unasked。

Those　simple　and　definite　facts　were　these：　I　had　published　an　article　in
this　magazine；　with　you　for　my　subject；　just　you　yourself；　I　stuck
strictly　to　that　one　subject；　and　did　not　interlard　any　other。　　No　one；
of　course；　could　call　me　to　account　but　you　alone；　or　your　authorized
representative。　　I　asked　some　questionsasked　them　of　myself。
I　answered　them　myself。　　My　article　was　thirteen　pages　long；　and　all
devoted　to　you；　devoted　to　you；　and　divided　up　in　this　way：　one　page　of
guesses　as　to　what　subjects　you　would　instruct　us　in；　as　teacher；　one
page　of　doubts　as　to　the　effectiveness　of　your　method　of　examining　us　and
our　ways；　two　or　three　pages　of　criticism　of　your　method；　and　of　certain
results　which　it　furnished　you；　two　or　three　pages　of　attempts　to　show
the　justness　of　these　same　criticisms；　half　a　dozen　pages　made　up　of
slight　fault…findings　with　certain　minor　details　of　your　literary
workmanship；　of　extracts　from　your　'Outre…Mer'　and　comments　upon　them；
then　I　closed　with　an　anecdote。　　I　repeatfor　certain　reasonsthat　I
closed　with　an　anecdote。

When　I　was　asked　by　this　magazine　if　I　wished　to　〃answer〃　a　〃reply〃　to
that　article　of　mine；　I　said　〃yes；〃　and　waited　in　Paris　for　the　proof…
sheets　of　the　〃reply〃　to　come。　　I　already　knew；　by　the　cablegram；　that
the　〃reply〃　would　not　be　signed　by　you；　but　upon　reflection　I　knew　it
would　be　dictated　by　you；　because　no　volunteer　would　feel　himself　at
liberty　to　assume　your　championship　in　a　private　dispute；　unasked；　in
view　of　the　fact　that　you　are　quite　well　able　to　take　care　of　your
matters　of　that　sort　yourself　and　are　not　in　need　of　any　one's　help。
No；　a　volunteer　could　not　make　such　a　venture。　　It　would　be　too　immodest。
Also　too　gratuitously　generous。　　And　a　shade　too　self…sufficient。　　No；
he　could　not　venture　it。　　It　would　look　too　much　like　anxiety　to　get　in
at　a　feast　where　no　plate　had　been　provided　for　him。　　In　fact　he　could
not　get　in　at　all；　except　by　the　back　way；　and　with　a　false　key；　that　is
to　say；　a　pretexta　pretext　invented　for　the　occasion　by　putting　into　my
mouth　words　which　I　did　not　use；　and　by　wresting　sayings　of　mine　from
their　plain　and　true　meaning。　　Would　he　resort　to　methods　like　those　to
get　in？　　No；　there　are　no　people　of　that　kind。　　So　then　I　knew　for　a
certainty　that　you　dictated　the　Reply　yourself。　　I　knew　you　did　it　to
save　yourself　manual　labor。

And　you　had　the　right；　as　I　have　already　said　and　I　am　contentperfectly
content。

Yet　it　would　have　been　little　trouble　to　you；　and　a　great　kindness　to　me；
if　you　had　written　your　Reply　all　out　with　your　own　capable　hand。

Because　then　it　would　have　repliedand　that　is　really　what　a　Reply　is
for。　　Broadly　speaking；　its　function　is　to　refuteas　you　will　easily
concede。　　That　leaves　something　for　the　other　person　to　take　hold　of：
he　has　a　chance　to　reply　to　the　Reply；　he　has　a　chance　to　refute　the
refutation。　　This　would　have　happened　if　you　had　written　it　out　instead
of　dictating。　　Dictating　is　nearly　sure　to　unconcentrate　the　dictator's
mind；　when　he　is　out　of　practice；　confuse　him；　and　betray　him　into　using
one　set　of　literary　rules　when　he　ought　to　use　a　quite　different　set。
Often　it　betrays　him　into　employing　the　RULES　FOR　CONVERSATION　BETWEEN　A
SHOUTER　AND　A　DEAF　PERSONas　in　the　present　casewhen　he　ought　to
employ　the　RULES　FOR　CONDUCTING　DISCUSSION　WITH　A　FAULT…FINDER。　　The
great　foundation…rule　and　basic　principle　of　discussion　with　a　fault…
finder　is　relevancy　and　concentration　upon　the　subject；　whereas　the　great
foundation…rule　and　basic　principle　governing　conversation　between　a
shouter　and　a　deaf　person　is　irrelevancy　and　persistent　desertion　of　the
topic　in　hand。　　If　I　may　be　allowed　to　illustrate　by　quoting　example　IV。；
section　from　chapter　ix。　of　〃Revised　Rules　for　Conducting　Conversation
between　a　Shouter　and　a　Deaf　Person；〃　it　will　assist　us　in　getting　a
clear　idea　of　the　difference　between　the　two　sets　of　rules：

Shouter。　　Did　you　say　his　name　is　WETHERBY？

Deaf　Person。　　Change？　　Yes；　I　think　it　will。　　Though　if　it　should　clear
off　I

Shouter。　　It's　his　NAME　I　wanthis　NAME。

Deaf　Person。　　Maybe　so；