CHAPTER VII
?_La calomnie, Monsieur! vous ne savez gu?re ce que vous d?daignez; j?ai vu des plus honn?tes gens pr?ts d?en ?tre accabl?s. Croyez qu?il n?y a pas de pl?te m?chancet?, pas d?horreurs, pas de conte absurde, qu?on ne fa.s.se adopter aux oisifs d?une grande ville en s?y prenant bien.... D?abord un bruit l?ger rasant le sol comme hirondelle avant l?orage, +pianissimo+ murmure et file, et s?me en courant le trait empoisonn?. Telle bouche le recueille, et +piano+, +piano+, vous le glisse en l?oreille adroitement.
Le mal est fait; il germe, il rampe, il chemine et +rinforzando+ de bouche en bouche il va le diable; puis tout ? coup on ne sait comment, vous voyez la calomnie se dresser, siffler, s?enfler, grandir ? vue d?oeil. Elle s??lance, ?tend son vol, tourbillonne, enveloppe, arrache, entraine, ?clate et tonne, et devient, grace au ciel, un cri g?n?ral, un +crescendo+ public, un +chorus+ universel de haine et de proscription. Qui diable y r?sisterait??_
_?Le Barbier de S?ville,? Act II, Scene VII._
The Death of Paris Du Verney--The Lawsuit La Blache--Judgment Rendered in Favor of Beaumarchais--The Comte de La Blache-- Appeals to the New Parliament--Private Life of Beaumarchais at This Period.
As will be remembered, it was in 1760 that Beaumarchais entered into relationship with Paris du Verney. During the ten years which followed there had been considerable movement of capital between the two, very many business transactions more or less sustained by the old financier, numerous loans of money, and finally the partnership in the forest of Chinon, without their ever having arrived at a definite settlement.
Beaumarchais, always minutely careful in matters where money was concerned, realizing the advanced age of du Verney often had urged upon his friend the necessity of such a settlement. Finally in April, 1770, after several years of correspondence, an act was drawn up in duplicate by Beaumarchais, dated, signed, and sealed by du Verney.
By this act, after a long and detailed enumeration of the rights on both sides, Beaumarchais gave back to his old friend 160,000 francs of the latter?s notes and consented to the dissolution of the partnership in the Forest of Chinon.
Du Verney, on his side, declared Beaumarchais absolved from all debts against him, recognized that he owed the latter 15,000 francs and obliged himself to loan 75,000 francs without interest, for eight years.
Du Verney died before the last two clauses had been executed, so that it was to his heir, the Comte de la Blache, that Beaumarchais presented the act demanding its execution.
This was the moment for which the count had been so long waiting. Already for years he had been saying of Beaumarchais, ?I hate that man as a lover loves his mistress.?
M. de Lom?nie, after giving reasons natural enough for the hatred of an heir presumptive for a person constantly receiving benefits from an old man whose fortune he was to inherit, has said, ?The Comte de la Blache had very particular motives for hating Beaumarchais. This latter was closely united with another nephew of du Verney?s, M. Paris de Meyzieu, a man distinguished in every way, who had powerfully aided his uncle in the founding of the ?cole Militaire, but being very much less skillful in the difficult and painful matter for a man of heart, to secure to himself a succession to the property--had withdrawn from the contest allowing himself to be sacrificed to a more distant relative.?
Beaumarchais, finding this sacrifice unjust, had not ceased to combat the weakness of his old friend du Verney, and to plead for M. de Meyzieu with a frankness and a vivacity proved by his letters, of which I will only cite a fragment, but which has relation precisely to the settlement in question.
?I cannot endure,? he wrote to du Verney on the date of March 9, 1770, ?that in case of death you place me vis-?-vis with M. le Comte de la Blache, whom I honor with all my heart but who, since I have seen him familiarly at the house of Madame d?Hauteville, never has given me the honor of a salutation. You make him your heir, I have nothing to say to that, but if I must, in case of the greatest misfortune which I could imagine, be his debtor, I am your servant for the arrangement. I will not dissolve our partnership. But place me vis-?-vis with my friend Meyzieu, who is a gallant man, and to whom you owe, my good friend, reparation for debts of long standing. It is not apologies which an uncle owes to a nephew, but kindness and above all some benevolent act, when he knows that he has done him wrong. I never have hidden my opinion in this matter from you. Put me vis-?-vis with him. This is my last word; you, or in your absence Meyzieu, or else no dissolution. I have other motives in relation to this last point, which I will reserve till the time when I can give them by word of mouth. When do you wish to see me? Because I notify you that from now until then, things shall remain as they are.?
It is evident from this and similar letters that Beaumarchais had no illusions as to the difficulties of his situation. With the increasing failure of the old man?s faculties, his cunning nephew so exercised his ascendency that it was with the greatest difficulty that Beaumarchais could obtain an interview with his old friend. Du Verney, it would seem, hid, so far as possible, all connection which he had with his nephew. This state of affairs, M. de Lom?nie a.s.sures us, accounted for the absence of the duplicate acts and all letters in relation to the matter, which alone could make a lawsuit possible.
When after du Verney?s death, Beaumarchais presented the act, demanding its execution, the Comte de la Blache coolly replied that he did not recognize his uncle?s signature and that he believed it false.
The matter was taken to law. Not daring, however, directly to accuse Beaumarchais of forgery, he demanded that the act be annulled, declaring that it contained in itself proofs of fraud. Again to quote Lom?nie, ?Thus Beaumarchais found himself caught in the meshes of an odious snare, because while not daring to attack him openly for forgery, the Comte de la Blache did not cease to plead indirectly this possibility and after an infamous discussion he had the audacity to take advantage of this very act which he declared false and turned it against his adversary.
?Thus refusing to pay the 15,000 francs recognized by the act signed by du Verney, he demanded of Beaumarchais payment of 139,000 francs from which the act discharged him.?
?In this way,? said Master Caillard, a very ingenious lawyer chosen by the Comte de la Blache, ?justice will be avenged, and honest citizens will see with satisfaction a similar adversary taken in the snares which he has himself set.?
Not to enter too deeply into the tedious details of this suit, we will content ourselves with a few pages taken from the account of M. de Lom?nie as giving a sufficiently clear idea of its nature as a whole.
He says, ?Let us suppose that Beaumarchais had wished to fabricate a false act, would he have given it the form of this one? It is a great sheet of double paper, very complicated details of the settlement written by the hand of Beaumarchais fill the first two pages, at the end of the second page it is signed on the right by Beaumarchais, and on the left dated and signed by the hand of du Verney, the third page contains a r?sum? of the same settlement. What did the lawyer of the Comte de la Blache say of this? He discussed it with the facility of a lawyer. At times he insinuated that the signature of du Verney was false, then when summoned to plead the falsity of the act he declared that if it was true, that it belonged to a date earlier than 1770, ?at which time,? he said, ?the old du Verney had a trembling hand, while the one at the foot of the act is a bold writing from a hand firm and light.?
?Here the lawyer pretended not to see that just above the signature was written in the same hand these words, ?At Paris, the 1st of April, 1770,?
that is to say that du Verney had not only signed, but dated the act in question, which obliged one to suppose that the old financier had amused himself in his youth or in mature years in signing and dating in advance, blank signatures for the period of his old age. Repelled on this side the lawyer insinuates that the paper must be a blank signature signed and dated by du Verney in 1770, secured and filled by Beaumarchais.?
Feeling the weakness of his arguments, the lawyer came back to the clauses which were complicated, diffuse, and mixed with observations foreign to the settlement in question; this was true, but in favor of Beaumarchais, because had he been fabricating an act, it would have been brief, methodical, and clear, while in regulating a long account with an old man of eighty-seven this act must necessarily correspond to the prolixity, or the fantasies of, this advanced age.
But one will say, why, when he had only to contend against such feeble arguments, was it possible for Beaumarchais, after gaining his suit in the first instance to lose it in the second, as we shall presently see him do?
The story is long and involved, and many pictures are needed to convey the scene in all its intensity and intricacy.
A sentence dated February 22, 1772, rejects the demand of the Comte de la Blache, and a second dated March 4th, 1772, orders the execution of the act. Upon this the adversary appeals to the grand chamber of Parliament.
Although victorious in his struggle, Beaumarchais was vilified by the crafty Caillard to the extent of the latter?s power. The credit and influence of the Comte de la Blache excited against him a swarm of writers, and the gazettes, especially the foreign periodicals, made the most of all the atrocious calumnies which had been set going regarding his character. The sudden death of his two wives served as a pretext for the most infamous accusations. All the confusing details of this disastrous lawsuit have been fully investigated and the whole matter clearly exposed by M. de Lom?nie and we know that the final decision rendered at Aix in 1778 exonerated Beaumarchais from every semblance of fault or dishonorable action. That which concerns us at this time is to learn what effect all these infamous machinations had upon a character which we have recognized already as strong, elevated, and free.
From the bitterness of the attacks of his enemies, let us turn to the refreshing and faithful picture which his devoted friend Gudin makes of him at this time.
He writes: ?It was in the winter of 1771 that I met Madame de Miron, sister of Beaumarchais, at the home of a woman of my acquaintance. She had been invited to a reading of one of my poems. In the beginning she showed no interest, but as I read, her face became animated and at the end she was as prodigal of her praise, as at first she had been indifferent. She spoke to me of her brother. She found me without prejudice for his dramas, but naturally biased in regard to his character of which I had heard much adverse criticism.
?Satisfied with my discourse, she resolved to conquer me for her brother and accordingly invited me to dine with her at a time when the abb?
D?lille was to read some verses still unknown to the public.
?Given to study and retirement, rather reserved in my friendships, and not desiring to make new ones, I refused at first; she urged my acceptance with so much grace, however, that I could not persist in my refusal.
?I went to her home, I found the abb?, I applauded his verses as all Paris has since done, but I did not see the brother of the mistress of the house....
?At last one evening, while I was visiting Madame de Miron, he came in.
She presented him to me and begged me to recite some verses of the poem which had made her wish to interest me in him.
?He showed the same indifference as his sister had done at the beginning, but glowed with even finer interest as I proceeded. He wished to take me at once to sup with him with Madame le Comtesse de Mir.... I refused absolutely, and did not yield to any of his solicitations although they were very ardent. I did not wish that my first step should give him the idea of a frivolous man who could be disposed of lightly.
?The next morning he called on me and brought me an invitation from Madame le Comtesse de Mir ... and in the evening he came for me. Two days later he invited me to his house, presented me to his father, to the one sister who lived with him, and whom I had never met.
?I saw him as simple in his domestic circle as he was brilliant in a salon. I was very soon certain that he was a good son, good brother, good master, and good father because he had still a little son, a young child whose infantile words were often repeated to us, which charmed me all the more because it betrayed his paternal tenderness and showed how much more powerful were his sentiments than his _esprit_.
?We soon learned to esteem each other from a similar foundation of severe principles, hidden in his case under an exterior of lightness and gaiety, by a vivid and constant love of the good, the beautiful, the honest, by an equal disdain for prejudice, and for all opinions ill-founded.
?We became intimate friends through the similarities and differences of our characters, and the congeniality of our interests.
?The taste for letters, for the theatre, for the arts, the same indulgence for the weaknesses of the human heart, strengthened our union. We pa.s.sed many evenings together, now in the midst of a great number, now in more restricted circles. Poetry, music, new scientific discoveries, all were subjects of our discourse. I heard him blend witticisms, graceful stories, the best pleasantries, all the charm of an _esprit_ free, abundant, and varied with the effusions of a sensible, active, generous heart.
?He never criticised any work, on the contrary he always brought out beauties which others had not noticed, extolled talent, repelled scandal; he defended all those whose merit he heard depreciated, and never listened to slander. ?I am,? he used to say, ?an advocate of the absent.?
?I noticed that he never spoke evil of his enemies, even of those whom he knew to be the most intent on ruining him. One day when I had learned some most injurious details in regard to the conduct of the man who had brought suit against him, I expressed my astonishment that I had not learned these facts from him, but rather from a relative of the man himself.
??Eh, my friend,? he replied, ?should I lose the time which I pa.s.s with you in recalling the things which would only afflict your spirit and mine.
I try to forget the folly of those about me, and to think only of what is good and useful; we have so many things to say to each other, that such topics should never find a place in our conversation.?
?And in fact there scarcely pa.s.sed a day when we did not express our pity for the sterility of spirit and the dryness of heart of the many people who have nothing to say unless they talk scandal.
?Beaumarchais was at this time secretary to the king, lieutenant-general of the preserves of the king and enjoyed an income of from 15 to 20 thousand francs a year. He thought of nothing but to make use of his own talents, to cultivate his friends, music, and the theater. I see by a letter to the d.u.c.h.ess de ---- that he was already forming a project for enlarging the range of the drama, so as to give to the French scene more variety and interest. These objects alone occupied him when I made his acquaintance.
?The suit in which he was engaged in the first place, gave him no disquietude, he believed that he could not lose it, but this suit was to be the stumbling block which was to destroy his happiness, to tear from him the possibility of disposing of himself according to his own will, or to live as his taste dictated.
?It precipitated him into a succession of events which never permitted him for a moment to enter into the tranquil career which he had proposed for himself. His life so fitted for pleasure and the beaux-arts became a combat which never ceased. It is thus that events often dispose of men in spite of themselves.
?During the delay accorded by law and which circ.u.mstances required, Beaumarchais composed a comic opera, which he ornamented with couplets to the Spanish and Italian airs which he had brought back with him from Madrid. He read the piece to the Comedians of the so-called _Italiens_, who were in possession of the right to play this kind of production. That evening, supping with Mademoiselle M----, _femme d?esprit_, whom we shall see later, in an a.s.sembly of several men of rank, Beaumarchais told us that his piece had been refused by the theater of Souz.
?We congratulated him, we knew his piece, we a.s.sured him the comedians of the Th??tre-Fran?ais would be more sensible, that he would only lose the couplets, and that the _Barbier de S?ville_ would have more success at the theater of Moli?re than at the Harlequin.