<SPAN name="IX"></SPAN>
<h2>IX</h2>
<h2><b>VILLON: THE GENIUS OF THE TAVERN</b></h2>
<br/>
<p>It is to Stevenson's credit that he was rather sorry that he had
ever
written his essay on Villon. He explains that this was due to the fact
that he "regarded Villon as a bad fellow," but one likes to think that
his conscience was also a little troubled because through lack of
sympathy he had failed to paint a just portrait of a man of genius.
Villon was a bad fellow enough in all conscience. He was not so bad,
however, as Stevenson made him out. He was, no doubt, a thief; he had
killed a man; and it may even be (if we are to read autobiography into
one of the most shocking portions of the <i>Grand Testament</i>) that
he
lived for a time on the earnings of "la grosse Margot." But, for all
this, he was not the utterly vile person that Stevenson believed. His
poetry is not mere whining and whimpering of genius which occasionally
changes its mood and sticks its fingers to its nose. It is rather the
confession of a man who had wandered over the "crooked hills of
delicious pleasure," and had arrived in rags and filth in the famous
city of Hell. It is a map of disaster and a chronicle of lost souls.
Swinburne defined the genius of Villon more imaginatively than
Stevenson
when he addressed him in a paradoxical line as:</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Bird of the bitter bright grey golden morn,<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>and spoke of his "poor, perfect voice,"</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>That rings athwart the sea whence no man
steers,<br/>
</span><span>Like joy-bells crossed with death-bells in our ears.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>No man who has ever written has so cunningly mingled joy-bells and
death-bells in his music. Here is a realism of damned souls—damned in
their merry sins—at which the writer of <i>Ecclesiastes</i> merely
seems to
hint like a detached philosopher. Villon may never have achieved the
last faith of the penitent thief. But he was a penitent thief at least
in his disillusion. If he continues to sing <i>Carpe diem</i> when at
the age
of thirty he is already an old, diseased man, he sings it almost with a
sneer of hatred. It is from the lips of a grinning death's-head—not of
a jovial roysterer, as Henley makes it seem in his slang
translation—that the <i>Ballade de bonne Doctrine à ceux de
mauvaise Vie</i>
falls, with its refrain of destiny:</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Tout aux tavernes et aux filles.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>And the <i>Ballade de la Belle Heaulmière aux Filles de Joie</i>,
in which
Age counsels Youth to take its pleasure and its fee before the evil
days
come, expresses no more joy of living than the dismallest <i>memento
mori.</i></p>
<p>One must admit, of course, that the obsession of vice is strong in
Villon's work. In this he is prophetic of much of the greatest French
literature of the nineteenth century. He had consorted with criminals
beyond most poets. It is not only that he indulged in the sins of the
flesh. It is difficult to imagine that there exists any sin of which he
and his companions were not capable. He was apparently a member of the
famous band of thieves called the Coquillards, the sign of which was a
cockle-shell in the cap, "which was the sign of the Pilgrim." "It was a
large business," Mr. Stacpoole says of this organization in his popular
life of Villon, "with as many departments as a New York store, and, to
extend the simile, its chief aim and object was to make money. Coining,
burglary, highway robbery, selling indulgences and false jewellery,
card-sharping, and dice-playing with loaded dice, were chief among its
industries." Mr. Stacpoole goes on to tone down this catalogue of
iniquity with the explanation that the Coquillards were, after all, not
nearly such villains as our contemporary milk-adulterators and sweaters
of women. He is inclined to think they may have been good fellows, like
Robin Hood and his men or the gentlemen of the road in a later century.
This may well be, but a gang of Robin Hoods, infesting a hundred
taverns
in the town and quarrelling in the streets over loose women, is
dangerous company for an impressionable young man who had never been
taught the Shorter Catechism. Paris, even in the twentieth century, is
alleged to be a city of temptation. Paris, in the fifteenth century,
must have been as tumultuous with the seven deadly sins as the world
before the Flood. Joan of Arc had been burned in the year in which
Villon was born, but her death had not made saints of the students of
Paris. Living more or less beyond the reach of the civil law, they made
a duty of riot, and counted insolence and wine to themselves for
righteousness. Villon, we are reminded, had good influences in his
life,
which might have been expected to moderate the appeal of wildness and
folly. He had his dear, illiterate mother, for whom, and at whose
request, he wrote that unexpected ballade of prayer to the Mother of
God. He had, too, that good man who adopted him, Guillaume de Villon,
chaplain of Saint Benoist—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>mon plus que père<br/>
</span><span>Maistre Guillaume de Villon,<br/>
</span><span>Qui m'a esté plus doux que mère;<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>and who gave him the name that he has made immortal. That he was not
altogether unresponsive to these good influences is shown by his
references to them in his <i>Grand Testament</i>, though Stevenson was
inclined to read into the lines on Guillaume the most infernal kind of
mockery and derision. One of Villon's bequests to the old man, it will
be remembered, was the <i>Rommant du Pet au Diable</i>, which
Stevenson
refers to again and again as an "improper romance." Mr. Stacpoole has
done a service to English readers interested in Villon by showing that
the <i>Rommant</i> was nothing of the sort, but was a little
epic—possibly
witty enough—on a notorious conflict between the students and civilians
of Paris. One may accept the vindication of Villon's goodness of heart,
however, without falling in at all points with Mr. Stacpoole's tendency
to justify his hero. When, for instance, in the account of Villon's
only
known act of homicide, the fact that after he had stabbed the priest,
Sermoise, he crushed in his head with a stone, is used to prove that he
must have been acting on the defensive, because, "since the earliest
times, the stone is the weapon used by man to repel attack—chiefly the
attack of wolves and dogs"—one cannot quite repress a sceptical smile.
I admit that, in the absence of evidence, we have no right to accuse
Villon of deliberate murder. But it is the absence of evidence that
acquits him, not the fact that he killed his victim with a stone as
well
as a dagger. Nor does it seem to, me quite fair to blame, as Mr.
Stacpoole does by implication, the cold and beautiful Katherine de
Vaucelles for Villon's moral downfall. Katherine de Vaucelles—what a
poem her very name is!-may, for all one knows, have had the best of
reasons for sending her bully to beat the poet "like dirty linen on the
washing-board." We do not know, and it is better to leave the matter a
mystery than to sentimentalize like Mr. Stacpoole:—</p>
<div class="blkquot">
<p>Had he come across just now one of those creative women, one of
those women who by the alchemy that lives alone in love can bend a
man's character, even though the bending had been ever so little, she
might have saved him from the catastrophe towards which he was moving,
and which took place in the following December.</p>
</div>
<p>All we know is that the lady of miracles did not arrive, and that in
her
absence Villon and a member of companion gallows-birds occupied the
dark
of one winter's night in robbing the chapel of the College de Navarre.
This was in 1456, and not long afterwards Villon wrote his <i>Petit
Testament</i>, and skipped from Paris.</p>
<p>We know little of his wanderings in the next five years, nor do we
know
whether the greater part of them was spent in crimes or in reputable
idleness. Mr. Stacpoole writes a chapter on his visit to Charles of
Orléans, but there are few facts for a biographer to go upon
during this
period. Nothing with a date happened to Villon till the summer of 1461,
when Thibault d'Aussigny, Bishop of Orléans, for some cause or
other,
real or imaginary, had him cast into a pit so deep that he "could not
even see the lightning of a thunderstorm," and kept him there for three
months with "neither stool to sit nor bed to lie on, and nothing to eat
but bits of bread flung down to him by his gaolers." Here, during his
three months' imprisonment in the pit, he experienced all that
bitterness of life which makes his <i>Grand Testament</i> a "De
Profundis"
without parallel in scapegrace literature. Here, we may imagine with
Mr.
Stacpoole, his soul grew in the grace of suffering, and the death-bells
began to bring a solemn music among the joy-bells of his earlier
follies. He is henceforth the companion of lost souls. He is the most
melancholy of cynics in the kingdom of death. He has ever before him
the
vision of men hanging on gibbets. He has all the hatreds of a man
tortured and haunted and old.</p>
<p>Not that he ever entirely resigns his carnality. His only complaint
against the flesh is that it perishes like the snows of last year. But
to recognize even this is to have begun to have a just view of life. He
knows that in the tavern is to be found no continuing city. He becomes
the servant of truth and beauty as he writes the most revealing and
tragic satires on the population of the tavern in the world's
literature. What more horrible portrait exists in poetry than that of
"la belle Heaulmière" grown old, as she contemplates her beauty
turned
to hideousness—her once fair limbs become "speckled like sausages"?
"La Grosse Margot" alone is more horrible, and her bully utters his and
her doom in the last three awful lines of the ballade which links her
name with Villon's:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Ordure amons, ordure nous affuyt;<br/>
</span><span>Nous deffuyons honneur, il nous deffuyt,<br/>
</span><span>En ce bordeau, où tenons nostre estat.<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>But there is more than the truth of ugliness in these amazing
ballads of
which the <i>Grand Testament</i> is full. Villon was by nature a
worshipper
of beauty. The lament over the defeat of his dream of fair lords and
ladies by the reality of a withered and dissatisfying world runs like a
torment through his verse. No one has ever celebrated the inevitable
passing of loveliness in lovelier verse than Villon has done in the
<i>Ballade des Dames du Temps Jadis.</i> I have heard it maintained
that
Rossetti has translated the radiant beauty of this ballade into his
<i>Ballad of Dead Ladies.</i> I cannot agree. Even his beautiful
translation
of the refrain,</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>But where are the snows of yesteryear,<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>seems to me to injure simplicity with an ornament, and to turn
natural
into artificial music. Compare the opening lines in the original and in
the translation, and you will see the difference between the sincere
expression of a vision and the beautiful writing of an exercise. Here
is
Villon's beginning:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Dictes-moy où, n'en quel pays,<br/>
</span><span class="i2">Est Flora, la belle Romaine?<br/>
</span><span>Archipiade, ne Thaïs,<br/>
</span><span class="i2">Qui fut sa cousine germaine?<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>And here is Rossetti's jaunty English:—</p>
<div class="poem">
<div class="stanza"><span>Tell me now in what hidden way is<br/>
</span><span class="i2">Lady Flora, the lovely Roman?<br/>
</span><span>Where's Hipparchia, and where is Thaïs,<br/>
</span><span class="i2">Neither of them the fairer woman?<br/>
</span></div>
</div>
<p>One sees how Rossetti is inclined to romanticize that which is
already
romantic beyond one's dreams in its naked and golden simplicity. I
would
not quarrel with Rossetti's version, however, if it had not been often
put forward as an example of a translation which was equal to the
original. It is certainly a wonderful version if we compare it with
most
of those that have been made from Villon. Mr. Stacpoole's, I fear, have
no rivulets of music running through them to make up for their want of
prose exactitude. Admittedly, however, translation of Villon is
difficult. Some of his most beautiful poems are simple as catalogues of
names, and the secret of their beauty is a secret elusive as a
fragrance
borne on the wind. Mr. Stacpoole may be congratulated on his courage in
undertaking an impossible task—a task, moreover, in which he challenges
comparison with Rossetti, Swinburne, and Andrew Lang. His book,
however,
is meant for the general public rather than for poets and scholars—at
least, for that intelligent portion of the general public which is
interested in literature without being over-critical. For its purpose
it
may be recommended as an interesting, picturesque, and judicious book.
The Villon of Stevenson is little better than a criminal monkey of
genius. The Villon of Mr. Stacpoole is at least the makings of a man.</p>
<hr style="width: 65%;" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />