



Produced by John Bickers, and Dagny





PARISIANS IN THE COUNTRY

THE ILLUSTRIOUS GAUDISSART,

AND THE MUSE OF THE DEPARTMENT


By Honore De Balzac




INTRODUCTION

I have sometimes wondered whether it was accident or intention which
made Balzac so frequently combine early and late work in the same
volume. The question is certainly insoluble, and perhaps not worth
solving, but it presents itself once more in the present instance.
_L'Illustre Gaudissart_ is a story of 1832, the very heyday of Balzac's
creative period, when even his pen could hardly keep up with
the abundance of his fancy and the gathered stores of his minute
observation. _La Muse du Departement_ dates ten years and more later,
when, though there was plenty of both left, both sacks had been deeply
dipped into.

_L'Illustre Gaudissart_ is, of course, slight, not merely in bulk, but
in conception. Balzac's Tourangeau patriotism may have amused itself by
the idea of the villagers "rolling" the great Gaudissart; but the ending
of the tale can hardly be thought to be quite so good as the beginning.
Still, that beginning is altogether excellent. The sketch of the
_commis-voyageur_ generally smacks of that _physiologie_ style of which
Balzac was so fond; but it is good, and Gaudissart himself, as well as
the whole scene with his _epouse libre_, is delightful. The Illustrious
One was evidently a favorite character with his creator. He nowhere
plays a very great part; but it is everywhere a rather favorable
and, except in this little mishap with Margaritis (which, it must
be observed, does not turn entirely to his discomfiture), a rather
successful part. We have him in _Cesar Birotteau_ superintending the
early efforts of Popinot to launch the Huile Cephalique. He was present
at the great ball. He served as intermediary to M. de Bauvan in the
merciful scheme of buying at fancy prices the handiwork of the Count's
faithful spouse, and so providing her with a livelihood; and later as
a theatrical manager, a little spoilt by his profession, we find him
in _Le Cousin Pons_. But he is always what the French called "a good
devil," and here he is a very good devil indeed.

Although _La Muse du Departement_ is an important work, it cannot be
spoken of in quite unhesitating terms. It contains, indeed, in the
personage of Lousteau, one of the very most elaborate of Balzac's
portraits of a particular type of men of letters. The original is said
to have been Jules Janin, who is somewhat disadvantageously contrasted
here and elsewhere with Claude Vignon, said on the same rather vague
authority to be Gustave Planche. Both Janin and Planche are now too much
forgotten, but in both more or less (and in Lousteau very much "more")
Balzac cannot be said to have dealt mildly with his _bete noire_,
the critical temperament. Lousteau, indeed, though not precisely a
scoundrel, is both a rascal and a cad. Even Balzac seems a little
shocked at his _lettre de faire part_ in reference to his mistress'
child; and it is seldom possible to discern in any of his proceedings
the most remote approximation to the conduct of a gentleman. But then,
as we have seen, and shall see, Balzac's standard for the conduct of
his actual gentlemen was by no means fantastically exquisite
or discouragingly high, and in the case of his Bohemians it was
accommodating to the utmost degree. He seems to despise Lousteau, but
rather for his insouciance and neglect of his opportunities of making
himself a position than for anything else.

I have often felt disposed to ask those who would assert Balzac's
absolute infallibility as a gynaecologist to give me a reasoned
criticism of the heroine of this novel. I do not entirely "figure to
myself" Dinah de la Baudraye. It is perfectly possible that she should
have loved a "sweep" like Lousteau, there is certainly nothing extremely
unusual in a woman loving worse sweeps even than he. But would she have
done it, and having done it, have also done what she did afterwards?
These questions may be answered differently; I do not answer them in the
negative myself, but I cannot give them an affirmative answer with the
conviction which I should like to show.

Among the minor characters, the _substitut_ de Clagny has a touch of
nobility which contrasts happily enough with Lousteau's unworthiness.
Bianchon is as good as usual; Balzac always gives Bianchon a favorable
part. Madame Piedefer is