12 OCTOBER 1867, Page 18

CALT,FT VERSUS NOAILLES :—BIOGRAPHICAL INVENTION. * SOME months ago we noticed

a French book possessing claims of no slight ephemeral kind, the Memoirs of Madame de Montagu, née Noailles. It purported to be one of those deeply interesting recueils of family documents to which the first French Revolution gave rise. It appeared under the auspices of the head of one of the most illustrious families in France, and the characters and leading events were, questionless, both true and in the highest degree worthy of being read and remembered for many genera- tions. It is not without much pain, therefore, that we now make up our minds to say something of the disparaging kind respecting the compilation of this book ; but we look at the matter con- scientiously, and think that in the particulars which have since come out we see that unfortunate tendency to adopt whatever may adorn a subject in itself needing no embellishment, which is so often complained of in French life and literature. We do not stand alone in our observation in the present instance. In the number of the Edinburgh Review for April, 1867, in a note to the first article, the editor has put in his protest, and without attach- ing too much weight to the evidence of the hostile pamphlet on which he remarks, has very properly inquired why the Due de Noailles does not at least give proof that the Montagu memoirs are founded on original documents, and that a hired scribbler has not been allowed to play the fantastic tricks he asserts with them. Entirely agreeing with the writer of that note, we shall now state a few facts respecting the memoirs and their editorship, and leave the reader to draw his own inferences.

The process by which the memoir of Anne Paulo Dominique de Noailles, Marquise de Montagu, assumed its present form is at any rate highly curious; but in the first instance, let it be said that our faith in the noble character of the Noailles sisterhood remains quite unshaken, and that what we desire is simply to be guided by a few explanations as to the sources whence some of the statements are derived. At present, here is a family of high and ancient renown allowing it to be said in print that a worthless scribbler has had liberty to insert telling anecdotes of his own invention, and has even been encouraged in doing so by his employers. "These things ought not so to be." It certainly is remarkable that neither the Due de Noailles himself nor any other member of the family, should have chosen to take the trouble of editing the voluminous papers left by Madame de Montagu— papers so highly valuable—and that a mere litterateur, a M. Callet, should have been called in to help in the arrangement. His ac- count is that in 1852 he was applied to by Monsieur de in Moriciere, who married the Comtesse d'Auberville, one of the daughters of Madame de Montagu, and who appears always to have been greatly interested in the preparation of the work. It is certainly remarkable that any foreign aid should have been required at all, became connected with the family were many able writers. There was the Vicomtesse de Noailles, authoress of the Vie de in Prin- case de Poke; there was M. de Montalembert, who was a nephew of Madame de Montagu ; and there were M. de Remusat and M. F. de la Lasteyrie, also relatives ; M. Elie de Beaumont, recently deceased, married to the daughter of George Lafayette ; and yet though all these persons were living, and Madame de Montagu died in 1839, her papers remained unedited in 1852. There was already also in circulation, it may be added, a memoir of the Duchesse d'Ayen, by her daughter, Madame Lafayette ; and a life of Madame Lafayette, by her daughter, Madame de Lasteyrie.

We can readily imagine that the papers, in the course of family handling, had got into great confusion. And this was stated by M. de la Moriciere on his first application to M. Calla. Still, he said, there were ample materials, not, however, for a book (this was not then contemplated), but for an article of about sixty

• De la Proprtite Litteraire: un Proces contre M. le Dec de Noaillea, etc Per Augusto Oallet. Paris: a Ia Litreire Nouvelle, Boulevard des Italia's. pages, for some recueil or revue, and the sum of 1,000 francs was offered to the compiler for his labour, to that extent, over and

above what might be given him by the reviewer. It was certainly cominct in which neither party appears to have contemplated future property in the work produced, nor can the pecuniary recompense be thought high. Though M. Collet has proved him- self in many ways to be untrustworthy, it is fair to take his report of the materials furnished to him, as he gives them in the pamphlet he has since published, which heads this article :—

"L'ese)Sce de journal, irregolierement tenn, pendant l'exil de Madame Montagu, dtait ddtruit. On m'en avait qu'une copie,tres-imparfaite, tres-diffuse, prolixo stir des rims, laconique, enigmatique, chicoussue en tout le reste. Beaucoup d'autres pieces, propres a dclairer cotta obscure histoire, avaient disparu, notamment la plupart des lettres."

Afterwards he tells us that he had also some voluminous MSS., furnished by Madame Parc, another of Madame Montagu's -daughters, containing nearly 2,000 pages, " pleins d'abimes, et rnaintenant il y manquait des feuilles." (p. 24.)

Among all these papers, M. Callet declares that he waded and -worked for three consecutive years, which it is fair to say he after- wards reduces to two, and in divers communications to Madame

d'Auberville he complains of his trouble, and also makes some seasonable observations on the want of collateral information. Yet, encouraged by the family to go on, he produced the required article, of sixty pages. It gave him no satisfaction, and, very unaccountably, we think, he thought proper to burn it. We can- not see why, having made use of all his legitimate material, he should not have then and there resigned his office, given up the MS., taken his pay, and made his bow to the family. But they seem to have pushed him on. He, at all events, as soon as the article was burned, began a new version of the memoir, which filled 160 pages. Now begin the damaging avowals. "I was obliged," he says, "in order to supply the insufficiency of my

(authorized] matter, to imagine, but with much caution, certain accessory circumstances. " C'etaient de paves conjectures, mak'

'd'une grande vraisemblance." (p. 27.) Now, to some extent, we suppose this gentle slip from bare, unexplained truth to imagination is often practised by biographers.

In antiquated records we must draw on collateral knowledge, and M. Calla would have been quite justified in elucidating Madame de Montagu, where deficient, by contemporary writers. His audacity increases to a startling degree as he proceeds. He indeed -declares solemnly that the family encouraged his embellishments and led him to introduce conjectures, previously confined to foot-

notes, into the text as an authorized part of the memoir. The more he "invented," he seems to say, the more he was applauded. By 1857 the second work was finished. Here, at least, one

would have thought his connection with the memoir should have -ended, but it was not to be so.

Fired by praises, perhaps becoming fond of his task, and hoping for larger reward, he began a third time. The 160 pages became a volume after eighteen months' more work. The memoir, begun in 1852, was finished on the 14th June, 1858. By that time it became obvious that a new contract must be made. The proposed 1,000 francs would be totally inadequate, and, besides, it was not now a notice for a periodical, but a book. The family had allowed him to draw 1,900 francs up to January, 1857, and

in December of that year he demanded more. It would seem that

the lengthened labour and increased expenses began to alarm his -employers, and Madame d'Auberville wrote reminding him of his receipts so far, and begging him to name the exact sum which would set them free from further demands upon the family. To this, after some consideration, M. Callet replied, naming 4,000 francs as his remuneration. This was thought too much ; we must confess we think it was too little for the labour and time, but far too much if it was the price of untruthfulness. The final -agreement, however, was made; the 4,000 francs were paid, and not a word was said by M. Callet of any further claim whatsoever. He neither stipulated for liberty of correcting proofs nor for the appearance of his own name. He certainly knew by this time that it was not for a periodical, and that the intentions of the family were, some time or other, to print it. Nothing more seems

to have passed then, but in 1859 Madame d'Auberville called on M. Callet, and he says :— M'dtonna fort en m'offrant un exemplaire inaprina‘ do la vie de sa mare. On avait fait l'imprimer l'ouvrage it Rouen, a mon insu, loin de mes yeux ; on y avait retranchd certaines minuties dont vous savez non pas tontes ; cola pres, edtait bien mon travail ; on n'y avait pas ajoutd, un mot. Mais point de nom d'auteur, et déjà presque tons les exemplaires distribuds. Ii y avait la lit manque d'dgards, et oubli des engagements. J'en Int blessd ; mais comment le temoigner? J'dtait en face d'uno femme qui se donfondait en compliments et en excuses ? 4' Votre texts," disait-elle, "qui se fat pawls d'y toucher? lea conpures ? non avez-vous pus approuvd l'utilitd ?" Bt quimt an non, ah ! c'dtait par oubli, et contres lea ordres lea plus formals, qui l'imprimeur Nor- mand l'avait omis. Madame d'Auberville s'en montrait afiligtie. "Mali nous avons r6pard eat oubli," me dit-elle, "on distribuant lea volumes. On snit quo c'est vous qui on &es l'auteur." (pp. 40-41.)

So M. Callet said no more.

Four years passed away. In the course of the last of these Madame d'Auberville again appears, and she brings another

present, a copy of a new edition of the work, printed, not at Rouen, but at Paris. -Not a word now about the non-appearance of the name. She told M. Callet that a few changes had been made,

very few ; and those chiefly because some letters had been found which it was desirable to include. The alterations, she said, had

been made by the Duo do Noailles. She added that so eager were people about her mother's life, that a third edition would probably be required. It was not quite decided, but, in this case, the book would probably be published and sold for the benefit of the poor.

It is quite plain to us that Madame d'Auberville was ill acquainted with the usual claims of an author, but also that M. Callet said nothing to set her right, and in this interview he does

not seem to have reminded her of what he says had before passed about the omission of his name. She probably considered the sum paid as the regular defrayal of a debt, and seems perfectly uncon- scious then of any cause of complaint. Also, we are bound to say that these recollections of interviews are given solely on M. Callet's own authority, and are somewhat apocryphal, at all events, they rest wholly on his statements. After this visit, however, and on looking over the exenaplaire just brought, M. Callet wrote to M.

de la Moriciere, making numerous complaints, first of sundry alterations, made with no notice to him ; next, of the withholding the proof sheets ; and, finally, of the suppression of his name.

The letter itself is given in the appendix, p. 136; it is dated

June 15, 1864. In this letter he asserts his perfect right to correct proofs, &c., "but if [says he in substance] the work is to be given to the poor, I give up to the family the full and sole property in it, and then I even give up my claim to see the proofs ; it is only

as matter of courtesy that I request to see them," &c. Now, nothing surely can be more absolute than this renunciation. No answer was returned to his letter. The proof sheets were never sent, the new edition appeared, and no copy was sent him. But (and this is surely the most serious charge against the family, or

at least against the Duo de Noailles) an article appeared in the Correspondant, edited by one of the publishers of the Montagu memoir, Douniol, ascribing the authorship of the memoir to "the

eminent historian of Madame de Maintenon," no other than the Duo de Noailles himself.

Against this high personage M. Collet thereupon brought an action before the Civil Tribunal of the Seine (7th July, 1865). The defence, which is not given in the pamphlet, though M. Callet's comments are, was entrusted to M. Berryer. Judgment was speedily given. The fact that M. Quiet had formally renounced and sold all claim to the work was established, and therefore his plea was disallowed, and he was condemned to pay costs.

So the legal part of the matter ends. Of course M. Callet has much to say, and at some stages of the business his complaints—if the facts are fairly put—appear just. He did, clearly, renounce his claim to the literary property. Yet while saying this, we can-

not in conscience forbear to add that we think he was, in the way of recompense, hardly used—that having been so long and con- fidentially employed, he had a claim to courtesy, to have his name at least mentioned in an introduction; and above all, that his share of merit should not have been for a moment permitted to rest with a wrong person. We do not overlook the tact, so often pro- claimed by M. Collet, that his work was frequently altered by the Duke. His Grace might have conceived that this revisal and correction established his own claim. Yet so it surely would not be regarded by any impartial person. The fact is clear that the family had long ago become convinced that M. Callet's name was no credit to them.

But now, as to the work itself. Though we may dismiss M. Callet's legal claims, it is truly painful to dwell upon the affair in all its stages. One party, as matters now stand, does not seem at all less morally to blame than the other. If M. Callet has, as he declares, not merely embellished, falsified, and "invented" in- cidents, if he has had the moral hardihood to proffer these to the descendants of a truthful and noble-minded woman as verities, WA guilt and audacity effectually prevent our receiving his testi- mony wherever unsupported by good evidence; but it is surelr for their own credit's -sake that the Noailles family should

disprove M. Callet's asserted " inventions " wherever it can be done. What we desire to know—what we ought to know

—is whether the parts of the narrative which he lays claim to have "invented" can be supported by other and surer testimony. We at least desire to know whether the mere supposititious cir- cumstances to which he alludes were received in good faith by the family upon his authority alone, and whether the characters drawn by him once so favourably are now only malignantly lowered and traduced ? We have said that Madame de Montagu herself, comes out unscathed. M. de Callet may possibly choose to call his portrait of her "invention," but it would be an abuse of words. You take up the records of her life ; they are by no means so strongly marked as those of her sister, Madame de Lafayette. She did not share a prison with her husband, nor plead before tyrants for his freedom. She was not summoned to the scaffold, like her mother and sister, but sustained piety and constant self-denying charity pervade every part of her history; and when M. Callet, after his long familiarity with her characteristics, draws her portrait, we cannot possibly allow that it is anything more than natural sequence. It is neither invention nor any high embellishment. He is fairly truthful in this, and no more. It is a different matter when he has to speak of her husband, he is particularly sharp upon his own portrait of M. de Montagu. He tells us (p. 82) that in the memoirs :—

"J'ai fait le type du Royalists conatitutionnel, recant en 91 une Tendde, mais nne Vend& liberale. Pure fiction cela. Le panvre hem= 6tait en 91 fort perplexe, et rien dans lea documents, pas nne ligne, pas une mot, n'explique as conduits ni pourquoi rests, ni pourquoi partit . . . . .11 restait par faasse, et partit par faiblesse. M de Montagu n'Stait qu'un lion gros garcon, sans talent, sans portie, asses sanblable par a a M. de Tense."

Possibly—but who shall assure us of the truth of M. Callet's picture as it now is, any more than as it was? Then, again, he tells us he " invented " all there is of loyalty in the book ; that there is a singular silence in all the archives of the Noailles family respecting the fate of Louis XVI. and his Queen ; that thinking this a defect, he " invented " the anecdote about the celebration of a mass at Margate by the Abbe Durand after these tragic events.

It would be a work of distressing and disgusting labour to go over all the fabrications which M. Callet declares he alone has built up, and which he now, though with a sort of pride in their erection, yet still more delights in pulling down. Some of his ex- pansions of an idea, derived undoubtedly, and by admission, from the MSS. of Madame de Montagu, are indeed so petty, so nearly approaching to the ludicrous (as in the incident at p. 112), that one feels astonished at the weak vanity which could found its claim upon anything so puerile. But it seems to us to argue a degree of moral perversity for which we can find no fit name, when we see an author glorying in and exposing his falsities (if he does not indeed " invent " the whole story of falsehood), in order to prove that the dirty work is his own, and that of no other creature.

And then the whole association is so revolting. Here we have a noble family, justly proud of the fair fame of their progenitors, yet allowing a hired scribbler to meddle with them, to embellish, to fill up with meretricious ornaments every breach which the hand of time was making in the delicate tracery of the ruins. We are not allowed even the poor comfort of condoling with them. We may determine, for ourselves, and we do determine, not to part with what we know is real in the history of this band of noble sisters, but we cannot but think that the mother who survives only in the memorials of her daughter, and the sister whose records in turn are traced only by the hands of her daughter, have the happier lot.