yvette and other stories. translated by ada galsworthy.

to introduce maupassant to english readers with apologetic explanations as though his art were recondite and the tendency of his work immoral would be a gratuitous impertinence.

maupassant’s conception of his art is such as one would expect from a practical and resolute mind; but in the consummate simplicity of his technique it ceases to be perceptible. this is one of its greatest qualities, and like all the great virtues it is based primarily on self-denial.

to pronounce a judgment upon the general tendency of an author is a difficult task. one could not depend upon reason alone, nor yet trust solely to one’s emotions. used together, they would in many cases traverse each other, because emotions have their own unanswerable logic. our capacity for emotion is limited, and the field of our intelligence is restricted. responsiveness to every feeling, combined with the penetration of every intellectual subterfuge, would end, not in judgment, but in universal absolution. tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner. and in this benevolent neutrality towards the warring errors of human nature all light would go out from art and from life.

we are at liberty then to quarrel with maupassant’s attitude towards our world in which, like the rest of us, he has that share which his senses are able to give him. but we need not quarrel with him violently. if our feelings (which are tender) happen to be hurt because his talent is not exercised for the praise and consolation of mankind, our intelligence (which is great) should let us see that he is a very splendid sinner, like all those who in this valley of compromises err by over-devotion to the truth that is in them. his determinism, barren of praise, blame and consolation, has all the merit of his conscientious art. the worth of every conviction consists precisely in the steadfastness with which it is held.

except for his philosophy, which in the case of so consummate an artist does not matter (unless to the solemn and naive mind), maupassant of all writers of fiction demands least forgiveness from his readers. he does not require forgiveness because he is never dull.

the interest of a reader in a work of imagination is either ethical or that of simple curiosity. both are perfectly legitimate, since there is both a moral and an excitement to be found in a faithful rendering of life. and in maupassant’s work there is the interest of curiosity and the moral of a point of view consistently preserved and never obtruded for the end of personal gratification. the spectacle of this immense talent served by exceptional faculties and triumphing over the most thankless subjects by an unswerving singleness of purpose is in itself an admirable lesson in the power of artistic honesty, one may say of artistic virtue. the inherent greatness of the man consists in this, that he will let none of the fascinations that beset a writer working in loneliness turn him away from the straight path, from the vouchsafed vision of excellence. he will not be led into perdition by the seductions of sentiment, of eloquence, of humour, of pathos; of all that splendid pageant of faults that pass between the writer and his probity on the blank sheet of paper, like the glittering cortege of deadly sins before the austere anchorite in the desert air of thebaide. this is not to say that maupassant’s austerity has never faltered; but the fact remains that no tempting demon has ever succeeded in hurling him down from his high, if narrow, pedestal.

it is the austerity of his talent, of course, that is in question. let the discriminating reader, who at times may well spare a moment or two to the consideration and enjoyment of artistic excellence, be asked to reflect a little upon the texture of two stories included in this volume: “a piece of string,” and “a sale.” how many openings the last offers for the gratuitous display of the author’s wit or clever buffoonery, the first for an unmeasured display of sentiment! and both sentiment and buffoonery could have been made very good too, in a way accessible to the meanest intelligence, at the cost of truth and honesty. here it is where maupassant’s austerity comes in. he refrains from setting his cleverness against the eloquence of the facts. there is humour and pathos in these stories; but such is the greatness of his talent, the refinement of his artistic conscience, that all his high qualities appear inherent in the very things of which he speaks, as if they had been altogether independent of his presentation. facts, and again facts are his unique concern. that is why he is not always properly understood. his facts are so perfectly rendered that, like the actualities of life itself, they demand from the reader the faculty of observation which is rare, the power of appreciation which is generally wanting in most of us who are guided mainly by empty phrases requiring no effort, demanding from us no qualities except a vague susceptibility to emotion. nobody has ever gained the vast applause of a crowd by the simple and clear exposition of vital facts. words alone strung upon a convention have fascinated us as worthless glass beads strung on a thread have charmed at all times our brothers the unsophisticated savages of the islands. now, maupassant, of whom it has been said that he is the master of the mot juste, has never been a dealer in words. his wares have been, not glass beads, but polished gems; not the most rare and precious, perhaps, but of the very first water of their kind.

that he took trouble with his gems, taking them up in the rough and polishing each facet patiently, the publication of the two posthumous volumes of short stories proves abundantly. i think it proves also the assertion made here that he was by no means a dealer in words. on looking at the first feeble drafts from which so many perfect stories have been fashioned, one discovers that what has been matured, improved, brought to perfection by unwearied endeavour is not the diction of the tale, but the vision of its true shape and detail. those first attempts are not faltering or uncertain in expression. it is the conception which is at fault. the subjects have not yet been adequately seen. his proceeding was not to group expressive words, that mean nothing, around misty and mysterious shapes dear to muddled intellects and belonging neither to earth nor to heaven. his vision by a more scrupulous, prolonged and devoted attention to the aspects of the visible world discovered at last the right words as if miraculously impressed for him upon the face of things and events. this was the particular shape taken by his inspiration; it came to him directly, honestly in the light of his day, not on the tortuous, dark roads of meditation. his realities came to him from a genuine source, from this universe of vain appearances wherein we men have found everything to make us proud, sorry, exalted, and humble.

maupassant’s renown is universal, but his popularity is restricted. it is not difficult to perceive why. maupassant is an intensely national writer. he is so intensely national in his logic, in his clearness, in his aesthetic and moral conceptions, that he has been accepted by his countrymen without having had to pay the tribute of flattery either to the nation as a whole, or to any class, sphere or division of the nation. the truth of his art tells with an irresistible force; and he stands excused from the duty of patriotic posturing. he is a frenchman of frenchmen beyond question or cavil, and with that he is simple enough to be universally comprehensible. what is wanting to his universal success is the mediocrity of an obvious and appealing tenderness. he neglects to qualify his truth with the drop of facile sweetness; he forgets to strew paper roses over the tombs. the disregard of these common decencies lays him open to the charges of cruelty, cynicism, hardness. and yet it can be safely affirmed that this man wrote from the fulness of a compassionate heart. he is merciless and yet gentle with his mankind; he does not rail at their prudent fears and their small artifices; he does not despise their labours. it seems to me that he looks with an eye of profound pity upon their troubles, deceptions and misery. but he looks at them all. he sees — and does not turn away his head. as a matter of fact he is courageous.

courage and justice are not popular virtues. the practice of strict justice is shocking to the multitude who always (perhaps from an obscure sense of guilt) attach to it the meaning of mercy. in the majority of us, who want to be left alone with our illusions, courage inspires a vague alarm. this is what is felt about maupassant. his qualities, to use the charming and popular phrase, are not lovable. courage being a force will not masquerade in the robes of affected delicacy and restraint. but if his courage is not of a chivalrous stamp, it cannot be denied that it is never brutal for the sake of effect. the writer of these few reflections, inspired by a long and intimate acquaintance with the work of the man, has been struck by the appreciation of maupassant manifested by many women gifted with tenderness and intelligence. their more delicate and audacious souls are good judges of courage. their finer penetration has discovered his genuine masculinity without display, his virility without a pose. they have discerned in his faithful dealings with the world that enterprising and fearless temperament, poor in ideas but rich in power, which appeals most to the feminine mind.

it cannot be denied that he thinks very little. in him extreme energy of perception achieves great results, as in men of action the energy of force and desire. his view of intellectual problems is perhaps more simple than their nature warrants; still a man who has written yvette cannot be accused of want of subtlety. but one cannot insist enough upon this, that his subtlety, his humour, his grimness, though no doubt they are his own, are never presented otherwise but as belonging to our life, as found in nature, whose beauties and cruelties alike breathe the spirit of serene unconsciousness.

maupassant’s philosophy of life is more temperamental than rational. he expects nothing from gods or men. he trusts his senses for information and his instinct for deductions. it may seem that he has made but little use of his mind. but let me be clearly understood. his sensibility is really very great; and it is impossible to be sensible, unless one thinks vividly, unless one thinks correctly, starting from intelligible premises to an unsophisticated conclusion.

this is literary honesty. it may be remarked that it does not differ very greatly from the ideal honesty of the respectable majority, from the honesty of law-givers, of warriors, of kings, of bricklayers, of all those who express their fundamental sentiment in the ordinary course of their activities, by the work of their hands.

the work of maupassant’s hands is honest. he thinks sufficiently to concrete his fearless conclusions in illuminative instances. he renders them with that exact knowledge of the means and that absolute devotion to the aim of creating a true effect — which is art. he is the most accomplished of narrators.

it is evident that maupassant looked upon his mankind in another spirit than those writers who make haste to submerge the difficulties of our holding-place in the universe under a flood of false and sentimental assumptions. maupassant was a true and dutiful lover of our earth. he says himself in one of his descriptive passages: “nous autres que seduit la terre . . . ” it was true. the earth had for him a compelling charm. he looks upon her august and furrowed face with the fierce insight of real passion. his is the power of detecting the one immutable quality that matters in the changing aspects of nature and under the ever-shifting surface of life. to say that he could not embrace in his glance all its magnificence and all its misery is only to say that he was human. he lays claim to nothing that his matchless vision has not made his own. this creative artist has the true imagination; he never condescends to invent anything; he sets up no empty pretences. and he stoops to no littleness in his art — least of all to the miserable vanity of a catching phrase.