from louis leverett, in paris, to harvard tremont, in boston.
september 25th.
my dear harvard—i have carried out my plan, of which i gave you a hint in my last, and i only regret that i should not have done it before. it is human nature, after all, that is the most interesting thing in the world, and it only reveals itself to the truly earnest seeker. there is a want of earnestness in that life of hotels and railroad trains, which so many of our countrymen are content to lead in this strange old world, and i was distressed to find how far i, myself; had been led along the dusty, beaten track. i had, however, constantly wanted to turn aside into more unfrequented ways; to plunge beneath the surface and see what i should discover. but the opportunity had always been missing; somehow, i never meet those opportunities that we hear about and read about—the things that happen to people in novels and biographies. and yet i am always on the watch to take advantage of any opening that may present itself; i am always looking out for experiences, for sensations—i might almost say for adventures.
the great thing is to live, you know—to feel, to be conscious of one’s possibilities; not to pass through life mechanically and insensibly, like a letter through the post-office. there are times, my dear harvard, when i feel as if i were really capable of everything—capable de tout, as they say here—of the greatest excesses as well as the greatest heroism. oh, to be able to say that one has lived—qu’on a vécu, as they say here—that idea exercises an indefinable attraction for me. you will, perhaps, reply, it is easy to say it; but the thing is to make people believe you! and, then, i don’t want any second-hand, spurious sensations; i want the knowledge that leaves a trace—that leaves strange scars and stains and reveries behind it! but i am afraid i shock you, perhaps even frighten you.
if you repeat my remarks to any of the west cedar street circle, be sure you tone them down as your discretion will suggest. for yourself; you will know that i have always had an intense desire to see something of real french life. you are acquainted with my great sympathy with the french; with my natural tendency to enter into the french way of looking at life. i sympathise with the artistic temperament; i remember you used sometimes to hint to me that you thought my own temperament too artistic. i don’t think that in boston there is any real sympathy with the artistic temperament; we tend to make everything a matter of right and wrong. and in boston one can’t live—on ne peut pas vivre, as they say here. i don’t mean one can’t reside—for a great many people manage that; but one can’t live æsthetically—i may almost venture to say, sensuously. this is why i have always been so much drawn to the french, who are so æsthetic, so sensuous. i am so sorry that théophile gautier has passed away; i should have liked so much to go and see him, and tell him all that i owe him. he was living when i was here before; but, you know, at that time i was travelling with the johnsons, who are not æsthetic, and who used to make me feel rather ashamed of my artistic temperament. if i had gone to see the great apostle of beauty, i should have had to go clandestinely—en cachette, as they say here; and that is not my nature; i like to do everything frankly, freely, naïvement, au grand jour. that is the great thing—to be free, to be frank, to be naïf. doesn’t matthew arnold say that somewhere—or is it swinburne, or pater?
when i was with the johnsons everything was superficial; and, as regards life, everything was brought down to the question of right and wrong. they were too didactic; art should never be didactic; and what is life but an art? pater has said that so well, somewhere. with the johnsons i am afraid i lost many opportunities; the tone was gray and cottony, i might almost say woolly. but now, as i tell you, i have determined to take right hold for myself; to look right into european life, and judge it without johnsonian prejudices. i have taken up my residence in a french family, in a real parisian house. you see i have the courage of my opinions; i don’t shrink from carrying out my theory that the great thing is to live.
you know i have always been intensely interested in balzac, who never shrank from the reality, and whose almost lurid pictures of parisian life have often haunted me in my wanderings through the old wicked-looking streets on the other side of the river. i am only sorry that my new friends—my french family—do not live in the old city—au coeur du vieux paris, as they say here. they live only in the boulevard haussman, which is less picturesque; but in spite of this they have a great deal of the balzac tone. madame de maisonrouge belongs to one of the oldest and proudest families in france; but she has had reverses which have compelled her to open an establishment in which a limited number of travellers, who are weary of the beaten track, who have the sense of local colour—she explains it herself; she expresses it so well—in short, to open a sort of boarding-house. i don’t see why i should not, after all, use that expression, for it is the correlative of the term pension bourgeoise, employed by balzac in the père goriot. do you remember the pension bourgeoise of madame vauquer née de conflans? but this establishment is not at all like that: and indeed it is not at all bourgeois; there is something distinguished, something aristocratic, about it. the pension vauquer was dark, brown, sordid, graisseuse; but this is in quite a different tone, with high, clear, lightly-draped windows, tender, subtle, almost morbid, colours, and furniture in elegant, studied, reed-like lines. madame de maisonrouge reminds me of madame hulot—do you remember “la belle madame hulot?”—in les barents pauvres. she has a great charm; a little artificial, a little fatigued, with a little suggestion of hidden things in her life; but i have always been sensitive to the charm of fatigue, of duplicity.
i am rather disappointed, i confess, in the society i find here; it is not so local, so characteristic, as i could have desired. indeed, to tell the truth, it is not local at all; but, on the other hand, it is cosmopolitan, and there is a great advantage in that. we are french, we are english, we are american, we are german; and, i believe, there are some russians and hungarians expected. i am much interested in the study of national types; in comparing, contrasting, seizing the strong points, the weak points, the point of view of each. it is interesting to shift one’s point of view—to enter into strange, exotic ways of looking at life.
the american types here are not, i am sorry to say, so interesting as they might be, and, excepting myself; are exclusively feminine. we are thin, my dear harvard; we are pale, we are sharp. there is something meagre about us; our line is wanting in roundness, our composition in richness. we lack temperament; we don’t know how to live; nous ne savons pas vivre, as they say here. the american temperament is represented (putting myself aside, and i often think that my temperament is not at all american) by a young girl and her mother, and another young girl without her mother—without her mother or any attendant or appendage whatever. these young girls are rather curious types; they have a certain interest, they have a certain grace, but they are disappointing too; they don’t go far; they don’t keep all they promise; they don’t satisfy the imagination. they are cold, slim, sexless; the physique is not generous, not abundant; it is only the drapery, the skirts and furbelows (that is, i mean in the young lady who has her mother) that are abundant. they are very different: one of them all elegance, all expensiveness, with an air of high fashion, from new york; the other a plain, pure, clear-eyed, straight-waisted, straight-stepping maiden from the heart of new england. and yet they are very much alike too—more alike than they would care to think themselves for they eye each other with cold, mistrustful, deprecating looks. they are both specimens of the emancipated young american girl—practical, positive, passionless, subtle, and knowing, as you please, either too much or too little. and yet, as i say, they have a certain stamp, a certain grace; i like to talk with them, to study them.
the fair new yorker is, sometimes, very amusing; she asks me if every one in boston talks like me—if every one is as “intellectual” as your poor correspondent. she is for ever throwing boston up at me; i can’t get rid of boston. the other one rubs it into me too; but in a different way; she seems to feel about it as a good mahommedan feels toward mecca, and regards it as a kind of focus of light for the whole human race. poor little boston, what nonsense is talked in thy name! but this new england maiden is, in her way, a strange type: she is travelling all over europe alone—“to see it,” she says, “for herself.” for herself! what can that stiff slim self of hers do with such sights, such visions! she looks at everything, goes everywhere, passes her way, with her clear quiet eyes wide open; skirting the edge of obscene abysses without suspecting them; pushing through brambles without tearing her robe; exciting, without knowing it, the most injurious suspicions; and always holding her course, passionless, stainless, fearless, charmless! it is a little figure in which, after all, if you can get the right point of view, there is something rather striking.
by way of contrast, there is a lovely english girl, with eyes as shy as violets, and a voice as sweet! she has a sweet gainsborough head, and a great gainsborough hat, with a mighty plume in front of it, which makes a shadow over her quiet english eyes. then she has a sage-green robe, “mystic, wonderful,” all embroidered with subtle devices and flowers, and birds of tender tint; very straight and tight in front, and adorned behind, along the spine, with large, strange, iridescent buttons. the revival of taste, of the sense of beauty, in england, interests me deeply; what is there in a simple row of spinal buttons to make one dream—to donnor à rêver, as they say here? i think that a great æsthetic renascence is at hand, and that a great light will be kindled in england, for all the world to see. there are spirits there that i should like to commune with; i think they would understand me.
this gracious english maiden, with her clinging robes, her amulets and girdles, with something quaint and angular in her step, her carriage something mediæval and gothic, in the details of her person and dress, this lovely evelyn vane (isn’t it a beautiful name?) is deeply, delightfully picturesque. she is much a woman—elle est bien femme, as they say here; simpler, softer, rounder, richer than the young girls i spoke of just now. not much talk—a great, sweet silence. then the violet eye—the very eye itself seems to blush; the great shadowy hat, making the brow so quiet; the strange, clinging, clutching, pictured raiment! as i say, it is a very gracious, tender type. she has her brother with her, who is a beautiful, fair-haired, gray-eyed young englishman. he is purely objective; and he, too, is very plastic.
