Madame Thérèse / Introduction and notes by Edward Manley

by Erckmann-Chatrian

Englewood High School, Chicago

D. C. HEATH & CO., PUBLISHERS
BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO

Copyright, 1910
By D. C. Heath & Co.

Printed in U. S. A.

INTRODUCTION

The French Revolution

Madame Thérèse is a story of the French Revolution. The events described in it occur between the summer of 1793 and the following spring. It abounds in allusions to episodes in the Revolution itself and contains many references to customs which owed their origin to the Revolution. Though it presents no difficulties to the intelligent Frenchman, still, by the constant introduction of these allusions to events and institutions of the Revolution, it refers to many things which are not clear to readers of other nations, unless they are familiar with the leading facts of French history preceding the revolutionary outbreak. The following sections contain an account of many things mentioned in Madame Thérèse.

1. The French Revolution was the culmination of the revolt of the French people against royal despotism and class privilege. The spectacular part of the Revolution began in 1789, the real revolution was complete before that date. In 1786 the king, Louis XVI, called together the ancient representative and legislative body of the nation to ascertain whether the members could suggest any means of securing the great and constantly increasing sums of money which he thought necessary for maintaining an extravagant court--and incidentally the government.

2. If the king was compelled as a last resort to summon this ancient legislative body, called the Estates General, the financial condition of the government must have been bad indeed; for the Estates General had not met for two centuries. It was unable to devise any increase in taxation which the people could bear, for the poorer classes were already taxed to the utmost and the upper classes were unwilling to tax themselves. The Estates General, therefore, was not able to plan ways and means of increasing the income of the government.

3. But in this session the non-privileged part of the people had leaders. Certain nobles and ecclesiastics, of whom Mirabeau and Abbé Sieyès are the best known, purposely became representatives, not of the upper classes but of the lower. Under their guidance representatives of the Third Estate (the three estates were the Nobility, the Clergy, and the Commons) in the Estates General now assumed power on behalf of the French people to regulate taxation. They represented ninety-six per cent of the population and took the name of National Assembly.

4. This was revolution. It stirred the king to assert his authority and he directed them to adjourn. They refused. The Assembly now proceeded to a consideration of changes in the government. The king brought soldiers to Paris. This act of intimidation won for the Assembly the support of the Parisian mob. One of the first acts of this mob was to destroy the Bastille, which was the ancient state prison and a monument of royal oppression.

5. The peasantry in France rose, and in some places demolished the castles of the nobility. The mob brought the king from the royal residence at Versailles to Paris, where he was kept practically a prisoner. Thus in a few months the people had secured control of the government, but without overthrowing the monarchy. On the fourth of August, 1789, the National Assembly "swept away all the odious privileges of the old regime and decreed in law the reign of equality in France." This was the beginning of the Republic, and the people began to call themselves Republicans. Later, income-producing church lands--perhaps one-fifth of the area of the country--were confiscated and the Church was made a department of the state.

6. But the National Assembly needed money, so it issued paper called assignats, whose value was secured by these church lands. This money was subsequently issued in such large quantities that a dollar of it came to be worth only a quarter of a cent. It was finally repudiated altogether.

7. From 1791, the history of the Revolution is a recital of factious quarrels, and of wars with the rest of Europe. These latter did not cease until the battle of Waterloo, in 1815.

8. European sovereigns watched the progress of the Revolution with anxiety. No people would have the same respect for monarchy and kingly authority, if the French were successful in overthrowing their government. Kings made common cause against the common danger and resolved to crush this uprising in France. Frederick William II, King of Prussia, Emperor Leopold II of Austria and his successor Francis II were the first to make war on the French. The French armies were so badly beaten at first that the mob in Paris believed that those around the king were giving information to the enemy. They accordingly made the king an actual prisoner to prevent further betrayals. Thereupon the Duke of Brunswick, in command of the Prussian army on the borders of France, issued a proclamation threatening destruction to Paris if harm should be done to the French king. Straightway the mob attacked the palace in which the king was prisoner and massacred the Swiss guards. This was on the tenth of August, 1792, a memorable day in the history of France.

9. On the twentieth of September the battle of Valmy was fought, in which the French defeated their enemies decisively. The next day the Republic was formally established, and on the twenty-second began Year One of the French Republic. In the January following, the king was executed. Prussia, Austria, England, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, the Holy See, and Russia now combined to crush the young republic and restore monarchy. La Vendée, one of the western districts of France, rose against the radical changes introduced by the Revolution.

10. The National Assembly was succeeded by the Convention, among whose members dissensions arose and produced the Reign of Terror, from June to October, 1793. Among the excesses of this period was the abolition of the Christian religion in France and the substitution therefor of the worship of the Goddess of Reason.

11. The causes which led the French people to rise and overthrow its oppressors are fivefold:

(a). A despotic government. Over a century before the Revolution, Louis XIV had said, "L'état, c'est moi." In his opinion the people existed merely for him to tax, and despise in exact proportion to the burdens which they bore. His successors held the same doctrine. For nearly two centuries no king had summoned the national legislative body to make laws and lay taxes. Successive kings had, by royal decree, enacted such laws as they had seen fit, and had enforced them as they pleased. They arrested, imprisoned, and executed citizens, almost as they wished. Their taxation was extravagant, for the most part unnecessary, unreasonable, and brutal. They lived scandalous lives utterly regardless of their responsibility to their people. Their courts were notorious for extravagance, frivolity and vice.

(b). Another cause was a contemptible nobility. In profligacy the nobles imitated the kings. They despised their people, and robbed them of the little left by the king's tax collectors. They had many ancient feudal privileges but were unwilling to relinquish any of them to help the people. The nobility, like the clergy, on the pretext of saving their dignity exempted themselves from the necessity of paying taxes.

(c). The clergy. It has sometimes happened that oppression of the people by religious organizations has been commensurate with the tyranny of the ruling classes. On this account the oppressors representing religion have been despised by the people, quite as much as lay tyrants. The higher clergy, who were lords over nearly one fifth of the land of France, did not treat their vassals appreciably better than did the nobility. During the violence at the outbreak of the Revolution the people in some parts of France burned castles, churches, and monasteries alike. As Erckmann and Chatrian say in another work, "The peasants were weary of monasteries and châteaux; they wished to till the fields for themselves."

(d). The condition of the people. The life, liberty, and property of the peasant were at the mercy of the king and the upper classes. Yet the condition of the peasant was not utterly bad. He seems to have been oppressed because he was not intelligent enough to better himself.

(e). Taxation. It was a recognized principle of the French government, that the people might be forced to pay taxes and to build roads at pleasure. If the peasant did not pay taxes by the time appointed, collectors went to his home and seized whatever would satisfy the claim, even taking clothes laid on bushes to dry, and sometimes going so far as to remove doors from their hinges, or to take beams and boards from the buildings and carry them away in place of taxes.

The salt tax (la gabelle) was an odious burden in its lack of uniformity. It was thirty times as high in some parts of France as it was in others. Besides, every person had to buy seven pounds a year for household use; this salt could not be devoted to any other use. A peasant needing salt for other purposes was forced to buy other salt, on which there was of course a tax. To all the nobility, however, the king made an annual free distribution of salt.

The corvée, or forced contribution to build roads, was an oppressive and tyrannical tax. Public good may have required community of labor on roads, but the later abuse by which royal officers "tore away poor peasants from their families and work, and drove them off to build roads" was not to be endured. While building roads peasants had only what food they brought along or what they begged out of working hours.

Louis Blanc makes the peasant soliloquize thus under the pre-Revolutionary taxation:

"They condemn me to work without pay. My family counts on my work in the field, but they take me away and force me to level the highway under coach wheels, under the feet of the trader or the priest or the elegant gentleman. I don't know how to surface roads; yet they take no account of my ignorance and if my work is ill-done, they will come in a few months and take my time to repair it. I am a human being, yet they treat me with a harshness which oxen and mules are spared. I pay a tax that the nobility and clergy may be exempt; and they make me break stone on the road for them, profiting by it without even being grateful to me. They make me buy salt at twelve cents a pound; they rob me on tobacco; they billet soldiers on me; and when I give them a whole week of my work, they don't pay me; if any of my animals die of fatigue while working for them, they never reimburse me. If I am maimed in their service, they brutally thrust me out on a charitable public."

Peasants were not allowed to enclose fields; and sometimes they were forbidden the necessary practice of agriculture, lest it might drive the game from the neighborhood or in some other way interfere with the lord's hunting. In seasons of bountiful crops peasants fared badly; but in years when crops failed, death and starvation walked through the land; so that the good Fénelon said to his king, "France is simply a large hospital, full of woe and empty of food." This picture is perhaps too dark and is hardly a fair presentation of the condition of French peasantry.

(f). The trend of French philosophy. Many writers in France, among them Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, d'Alembert, and Abbé Bergier, were publishing new doctrines about the rights of man and about government. Their teachings were too advanced for the France of the Bourbon kings. These philosophers did much to stimulate thought and discussion in the field of government and politics. Thus they prepared the minds of many for the steps that led to the Revolution. They did much to create the discontent which led the French people to assume and exercise the rights that were their own, though the result was the overthrow of established government and the downfall of kings.

(g). The success of the American Revolution, 1776-1783. Across the sea the Americans had resented and resisted tyranny and oppression; this fact was all the better known because of French interest, sympathy, and assistance. Thus the French found a recent precedent for their own attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government and establish a republic.

Erckmann and Chatrian

Erckmann and Chatrian, or Erckmann-Chatrian, as the French write this collaborative name, were two authors whose joint productions were at first short stories, and later a series of historical romances which made their fame. In these they confined their efforts to themes suggested by the history of their own country, France. The scenes are for the most part laid in localities which they themselves knew--especially the Alsace of their youth. Their best characters are from classes of their beloved people with whom they had lived, and whose virtues and faults were to them as open books. The chosen time of most of their romances is the period of the French Revolution, and the purpose--for they wrote with a purpose--is the glorification of peace and the universal brotherhood of man.

They had several successes in the dramatic field also, some of their plays being cordially received not only in France but in other countries. Their play called Alsace was intensely patriotic, and pleased the people, whenever a despotic government allowed it to be presented. Their Juif Polonais, or "The Bells", as it is known in English, has been on the stage for nearly forty years, and enjoys a great popularity yet. Probably no play in Sir Henry Irving's repertory was received with the same steady favor or was acted so many times by him.

Émile Erckmann was born at Phalsbourg, a fortified town of Alsace on the border between Germany and France, May 20, 1822. His father was a poor shopkeeper and as late as 1870 continued to serve his customers. The younger Erckmann received his education at the local college, but only after a hard struggle. Like the others who find the road to knowledge arduous he made good use of his opportunities, after he had once obtained them. He was at the head of every class of which he was a member and was graduated with first honors. So remarkable a student had he been--though his native ability was only fair--that for years he was mentioned by the professors as a model worthy of close imitation. Born and reared among a population which was essentially German, in spite of the most persistent efforts to denationalize it, he had German characteristics of body as well as of mind. He had a heavy frame, golden hair and beard, a rather broad face, blue eyes, fair complexion, and a meditative expression, all of which would easily cause him to be taken almost anywhere for a professor from a German university rather than for the Frenchman which he really was. He combined Alsatian-French vivacity with German method and minuteness; yet he hated the Germans, though he was German in name and characteristics.

After finishing his course at Phalsbourg he went to Paris to study law, following this work intermittently for fifteen years. Later he revisited the old college at Phalsbourg. Here he heard the president lament the fact that among the students he had only one worthy successor of Erckmann, namely a certain Alexandre Chatrian. Chatrian was sent for and the three dined together that evening. Erckmann was shown an article by Chatrian bristling with novel ideas on society and its organization. He was so well pleased by it that he immediately suggested to Chatrian the joint establishment of a democratic paper. This paper was suppressed by the police after eight issues.

Erckmann returned to Paris to study law, which at times he gave up for the pursuit of literature, from which in course of time he returned to the law. Meanwhile he and Chatrian had jointly written a play called Alsace. It was presented, was successful, but was suppressed (1848). This disappointment delayed for two years Chatrian's removal to Paris to join Erckmann. They wrote a volume of stories, of which L'illustre Docteur Mathéus was the principal one. When this volume appeared, they were on the verge of need. The capricious public bought three editions of the volume and gave the "name" that meant permanent fame for the authors.

Chatrian finally reached Paris, and the collaborators wrote on busily. In 1858-1861 they worked on subjects drawn from their usual pastoral sources, and made from them a series of longer tales which they named Romans Populaires. These were well received. Emboldened by their steady gain in popular favor the literary partners resolved in 1861 on a larger venture. They conceived the idea of writing a series of historical novels under the title of Romans Nationaux, the subjects of which were to be taken from the most dramatic episodes of modern French history after the outbreak of the first Revolution. To this happy design they became indebted for their greatest triumphs. By 1869 they had added eight volumes to the series.

In 1869 they had ready for the stage Le Juif Polonais, in which the tortures of conscience were dramatically described, and offered it to theatrical managers. It was finally put on at the Cluny Theatre in Paris, and met with immediate success.

There was nothing notable in their joint career from their assured success till the rupture of their lifelong friendship in the late eighties, an account of which is given in the next biography. After the death of Chatrian, Erckmann continued to write successfully with all the oldtime vigor that had characterized the work of the two. He died March 14, 1899.

Alexandre Chatrian was born in Soldatenthal, a village near Phalsbourg, December 18, 1826. Like Erckmann he was of an humble family, whose members had long followed the occupation of glassmaking. Chatrian's parents were intelligent and determined to educate their son. They accordingly sent him to the college at Phalsbourg, where he remained three years. Owing to business reverses his parents were unable longer to support him in school, so they set him to glassmaking in Belgium. He had here an unusually good opportunity to secure a part interest in the factory, but when he came of age, he returned home, thoroughly dissatisfied with his occupation. His parents were disappointed at his giving up such an opportunity to establish himself in business, but he had made up his mind that his career ought to be a literary one. By chance there was a vacancy at that very time in the college at Phalsbourg. The President, who had always taken an interest in him, gave him the appointment with permission to continue his studies in the college. So he was installed in charge of the study hall to supervise the work of the students and assist them in their lessons. One of his pupils has left the following account of him:--"He was of middle height and of strong but well-proportioned build. His rich auburn hair was cut short enough to bring out the outlines of a remarkably fine head. His full but closely trimmed beard framed a most intellectual face. A high forehead, large piercing eyes of brilliant black, a fine Greek nose, and a firmly set yet handsome mouth were the striking features of a countenance in which thoughtfulness, determination and nobility of purpose were reflected as from a mirror. Altogether his appearance was such that even an inexperienced observer would have pronounced him at once a more than ordinary man. The feeling of respect with which his striking exterior inspired me, as well as the other students, became warmer as I learned to know him better in the course of my private lessons.... Among the students he had the reputation of being reserved and taciturn. But I soon found out that, though not mirthful, he was really very sympathetic and communicative. In these moments he always spoke of a dear friend, Émile Erckmann, a graduate of Phalsbourg, who was then following the study of law at Paris as one who shared his ambition and who had been and would be a partner in his efforts for literary distinction. He told, with no little pride, that already the year before they had made their debut with some tales, written conjointly, in a daily published at Strasburg. One day he handed me a small volume containing the tales in question, which had attracted so much attention that a Strasburg publisher had reprinted them in a more enduring form. The tales interested me the more, in that their subjects were either incidents in rural life in Alsace and Lorraine or some of the popular saws, with which the borders of the Rhine abound. I recollect very well the fascination which the simple narrative, the charming description of scenery, the lifelike painting of characters, the quaint humor and the fanciful imagery of these first fruits of my friend's genius exercised upon my mind. I have reread the tales since and can truly say that my riper judgment does not differ much from that first impression."

Here at the college Chatrian met Erckmann, as already noted, and from here he went to join him.

In Paris, Chatrian took a position with the Eastern Railway paying him $300 a year. He held it long after the need of it had passed. During the earlier years of his stay in the metropolis this income, slender though it was, must have been a necessity to him.

In the late eighties Chatrian's health began to fail. In time he was afflicted with a stubborn and insidious ailment, which causes its victim to grow morose and suspicious. Unfortunately his suspicions directed themselves toward his old friend Erckmann, whom he suspected of cheating him in the management of their joint interests. Finally an ill-advised friend published an attack on Erckmann, accusing him of being unpatriotic. Erckmann sued the paper for libel and recovered heavy damages. The ultimate responsibility for the attack rested at Chatrian's door, and he did not long survive this melancholy incident. He died Sept. 3, 1890.

Much has been written about the wonderfully uniform style of Erckmann and Chatrian. It is true that one can hardly say of any passage in their work, "Erckmann wrote this" or "Chatrian wrote that" merely on the basis of internal evidence.

Many writers have succeeded in securing statements from one or the other of the literary partners, telling how they collaborated. But if one reads all these statements side by side, one is convinced that they had no uniform method of work; that sometimes they worked together in one way and sometimes in another. It would also appear that each was slightly jealous of the other, fearing that he would receive more than his proper share of credit for the work. These facts remain--that Chatrian was better fitted to market their wares and see them through the press than was Erckmann; and that Erckmann wrote and published both before and after his partnership with Chatrian. It may therefore be fairly accurate to say that without Chatrian Erckmann could have produced, without being able to sell the works; while Chatrian without Erckmann could have sold without being able to produce the works.

The stories of Erckmann and Chatrian are noteworthy by reason of the purity of their subject matter. There is nothing in any of them to offend the most fastidious, and their popularity in the family circle is permanent. In the matter of style the authors were not so fortunate. They began with the idea of purifying the French language, and while they may have been successful in fixing some of its forms, they have laid themselves open to criticism by monotonous repetition. But it cannot be said truthfully that their works exhibit any serious faults of style.

Madame Thérèse is one of the Romans Nationaux which lends itself readily to abridgment. It contains elaborate pictures and extensive descriptions of Anstatt life that interrupt the thread of the plot itself. Periodically the story is turned over to the "local color artist"--whichever of the two he may have been--who has carte blanche to paint for us beautiful idyllic pictures of life in the little Alsatian village. But as these pictures are apart from the growth of the cause of liberty--the main theme of the Romans Nationaux--they have frequently been omitted in this edition.

E. M.