这就是一个值得注意的时期的结束。但另一个时代开始了。克里蒙梭成为文学家。作为一名记者，估计他的文章可以写满100多卷，每卷350页；而且这些文章都写得非常有技巧和力度。此外，作为作者，他的作品也相当丰富。从La Melée Sociale到Le Grand Pan，从Les Plus Forts到Le Voile du Bonheur，克莱蒙梭的作品充满了天才的活力--这也许是强度的另一个名称。
V
克莱蒙梭会不会像拳击手说的那样 "回来"？这也许是个疑问。他现在已经八十一岁了，虽然充满了热情，能够进行旅行和巡回演讲，但据认为他很难再一次日复一日地掌握权力的缰绳。当第一次计划美国之行时，人们认为老虎已经从他三年的沉默中走了出来，目的是扫除普恩卡雷、布里安和其他人，他们误用了条约，像坏工人一样抱怨他们的工具。
M. 安德烈-塔迪欧先生八个月前创办了一份报纸《国民回声报》，他以前的负责人的名字被附在上面。克洛茨先生是法国各部长的顽固批评者之一。曾为克莱蒙梭拉线的乔治-曼德尔先生仍在观察机会。人们认为，如果克莱蒙梭的美国之行取得了成功，他就有可能全能地回来。如果他只是一个形象代言人，他将是一个伟大的形象代言人。
Georges Clemenceau
By Sisley Huddleston
DECEMBER 1922 ISSUE
SHARE
Apple iPhone 11 64GB Factory Unlocked 4G LTE Smartphone - Very Good
Apple iPhone 11 64GB Factory Unlocked 4G LTE Smartphone - Very Good
SPONSORED VIDEO EBAY US
See More
I
IT would be difficult to name another man whose life has been so varied as that of Georges Clemenceau. We are inclined to think of him only in his last phase; but, in fact, the history of Georges Clemenceau is the history of the Third Republic. His story is wonderfully rounded off. If one ignores those early episodes of his student days, when he tasted the miseries of the Royal prison, his public life may be said to have begun with the defeat of France by Germany. At that time he was the mayor of Montmartre. Fifty years later his public career finished — if, indeed, it has yet finished — with the defeat of Germany by France, and the signing of the peace treaty in the same Galerie des Glaces at Versailles wherein, on the very date nearly half a century before, Wilhelm I was proclaimed Emperor.
There is an artistic perfection in this story which is rarely encountered in real life. But, if one reads the various chapters of his long life, one will find his biography full of vicissitudes. Clemenceau has been everything. He has had higher ‘ups’ and deeper ‘downs’ than any French statesman who could be mentioned. There have been times when he has been hissed out of politics by the almost unanimous voice of France. There have been other periods when the whole nation has clamored for him. More than once, everything seemed to be ended for him; but he merely turned to other occupations and bided his time.
Magazine Cover image
View This Story as a PDF
See this story as it appeared in the pages of The Atlantic magazine.
Open
I remember once having a long discussion with a man who held that the only complete character in history or fiction was Ulysses. Ulysses, he said, was husband, father, lover, statesman, warrior, wanderer, poet, who divined the secrets of earth and hell and was beloved of the gods. I was challenged to name another personage whose life was so comprehensive; and as I went over the great names of history and fiction, I was reminded that this man had missed much, in that he had been neither husband nor father; that man, though distinguished as philosopher, had been inactive; the other man, though both warrior and statesman, had never voyaged and so had kept the provincial mind. Perhaps I came nearest to naming the ideal all-round man when I thought of Mohammed; and since then it has occurred to me that probably Leo Tolstoi is of all men the most complete. But certainly Clemenceau must take a high and honorable place among the exceedingly few men who have tasted all experiences that life has to offer, and have revealed themselves in every capacity.
A native of La Vendée, where the house in which he was born is marked by a plaque, and a statue has been erected to him in his lifetime: after a stormy youth as student, in which already he wrote articles inspired by a high humanity, he obtained his degree of doctor. For some time he sojourned in America, living in the same chamber that had been occupied at an earlier date by Louis Bonaparte, afterward Napoleon III. He wrote for the Temps, and learned English perfectly. For four years he remained, becoming professor of history and of French literature, in a pension at Greenwich, Connecticut. It was there that he met the young pupil whom he afterward married, on the eve of the war between France and Germany.
RECOMMENDED READING
An auto-da-fé for condemned heretics during the Spanish Inquisition
The Genetic Legacy of the Spanish Inquisition
SARAH ZHANG
The End of Minimalism
AMANDA MULL
SPONSOR CONTENT
Powering Progress toward a Cleaner Energy Future
SHELL
He has thus always had a penchant for America, and, indeed, during the War of Secession, allowed his sympathies with Abraham Lincoln to manifest themselves. For England, too, he has always had a special affection, from the days when he visited John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer.
Of his part in the war, by the side of Gambetta, it is unnecessary to speak at length. Clemenceau was one of those who pronounced against the conclusion of a peace which was a defeat. For revolutionaries of noble character, in spite of their faults, Clemenceau always had profound esteem, and he did not disguise his affection for Blanqui and Louise Michel. The protest against the seizure of Alsace-Lorraine was signed by Victor Hugo, Gambetta, and Clemenceau, besides the deputies of these provinces.
II
There followed seventeen years of Parliamentary life, filled with the most incessant action. Even during this period, he found time to devote his attention to the arts, and to him Édouard Manet owed something in the shape of support in his fight against the Philistines. He contributed copiously to journals such as La Justice. But, finally, the movement of General Boulanger found him a target for the most malicious attacks, and he was involved in the notorious Panama affair. He was accused, too, of receiving money from England. Fortified by forged documents, his enemies raised such a storm that he was driven out of public life.
This was the end of a notable period. But another epoch opened. Clemenceau became the man of letters. As a journalist, it is estimated that his articles would fill more than a hundred volumes, each of 350 pages; and they are all written with extraordinary skill and force. In addition, his output as author is considerable. From La Melée Sociale to Le Grand Pan, from Les Plus Forts to Le Voile du Bonheur, the works of Clemenceau are alive with genius — which is, perhaps, another name for intensity.
Magazine Cover image
Explore the December 1922 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
View More
Let it be remembered that Clemenceau, who is generally regarded purely as a politician, was the friend of most of the great artists of his time — Alphonse Daudet, Edmond de Goncourt, Claude Monet, Rodin, Carrière, Cézanne, Octave Mirbeau. Some of his writings on art are among the finest appreciations that I know. One may mention that magnificent article on the series of paintings by Claude Monet, ‘Les Cathédrales de Rouen.’ One may mention his appreciation of the sculptor Constantin Meunier. One recalls his fine homage to de Goncourt.
But essentially, perhaps, Clemenceau became the great polemist. There has been nothing like it in our time or, indeed, any time. His defense of Dreyfus is wonderful. The articles that came daily from his pen have been brought together in seven volumes and, although they deal with day-by-day developments, it is impossible to read them without being stirred to indignation. There is one article which begins ‘C’est dommage.’ Every short paragraph repeats these words as a refrain — ‘C’est dommage!’ It is quivering with passion, but one also feels the cold flame of irony.
One may criticize some of the later acts of Clemenceau, — the writer is bound to confess that certain measures, such as the arrest of Caillaux, appear to be shocking, and will assuredly be regarded by posterity as inexcusable blemishes on his career, — but those years which Clemenceau spent battling against the wild reactionaries who persecuted Dreyfus, who prosecuted Zola, who stooped to all iniquities, and whose hatred and fanaticism were sharpened like blades, is a glorious passage, which no subsequent blunders can efface.
Clemenceau showed himself to be courageous, indefatigable, fiery, a lover of truth and of justice, an enemy of corruption and of sham. His eloquence, his logic, his piercing satire, his social passion, have never been surpassed. Often it was at the risk of their lives that Zola and Clemenceau left the Palais de Justice, forcing their way through the excited crowd.
Gustave Geffroy says that these seven volumes of Clemenceau can be compared only to the Lettres Provinciales of Pascal, denouncing the Jesuits, and the Correspondence of Voltaire, aflame with the spirit of justice against the arbitrary denunciations and the condemnations of his time. These volumes are, at once, full of detail and of huge generalization.
III
At the age of sixty, Clemenceau was elected to the Senate, and once more began a new career. The years from 1902 were stormy. The separation of Church and State was one of the problems that agitated men’s minds. The Colonial movement was much discussed. The voyage of the Kaiser to Tangiers seemed already to presage the war.
Clemenceau became minister only in 1906, in the Sarrien Cabinet; and it is curious to recall the names of some of the members of this cabinet — Bourgeois, Poincaré, Briand, Leygues, Barthou, Doumergue — besides Albert Sarraut, who was Under-Secretary of State. As Minister of the Interior, Clemenceau had to suppress the strikes in the North. He has been accused of excessive vigor, but, on the contrary, the troops were given definite orders not to respond to provocations. Clemenceau himself went among the inflamed strikers, and his discourses helped to calm turbulent spirits. A large number of measures of social amelioration are due to Clemenceau.
After Sarrien resigned, President Fallières charged Clemenceau with the task of forming a new ministry. Stephen Pichon and Joseph Caillaux entered his cabinet, and so did René Viviani. Viviani took up an entirely new post, that of Ministre du Travail et de la Prévoyance Sociale. This was a reply to Jean Jaurès and his party, who were then actively preaching that only collectivism could improve the lot of the worker. He also took into his cabinet Colonel Picquart, of Dreyfus notoriety, in an attempt at conciliation.
Another reproach made against Clemenceau is his energy displayed during the wine-growers’ revolt of 1907. It should be remembered that something like civil war was feared in the four départements of Languedoc. The mayors resigned en masse. Barricades were erected at Narbonne, and blood flowed. Bridges were burned or blown up with dynamite on the Canal du Midi. There were mutinies of soldiers. Clemenceau endeavored to play the part of peacemaker and, eventually, succeeded.
Clemenceau, indeed, though he may be chiefly remembered by his striking phrase, ‘Je fais la guerre,’ made vigorous efforts for international peace when he met King Edward at Marienbad, after the interviews that the British King had had with the German and Austrian emperors.
He fell from power, after three strenuous years, through an unfortunate and impetuous word that he uttered. Delcassé had intervened in a debate, and Clemenceau, recalling the circumstances of his resignation after the events of Algeciras, practically at the bidding of Germany, told Delcassé frankly that he was responsible for the greatest humiliation France had experienced for twenty years. Now, the French start restively at the word humiliation, and it is not surprising that a snatch vote was given against Clemenceau.
IV
We have now reached the period which may be called the war period. It began with the surrender by Caillaux of a portion of the Congo, in return for a freer hand in Morocco. It was at the beginning of 1912 that Clemenceau’s quarrel with Caillaux began. He accused the Prime Minister of conducting a personal and occult diplomacy over the head of the Foreign Minister. Caillaux himself quickly fell, and was replaced by Raymond Poincaré. It may truly be said that the war became inevitable after this Moroccan clash of diplomatic arms.
The two Great Powers of Europe faced each other, France wondering when the blow would fall. Poincaré was made President of the Republic. Clemenceau had gained a reputation for breaking ministries by his attacks in Parliament and in the press, and certainly he knew the precise moment and the right phrase.
During the war which followed the passing of the three years’ military law, Clemenceau worked as an ardent patriot. He had but one thought — the safety and the victory of France. The first three years of the war saw him writing and speaking and inspiring France. As President of the Army Commission he visited the front frequently. He soon became the most popular figure in France. The poilus worshiped him. There was a demand for his services as Prime Minister long before he was called to power by the President.
No one can deny the wonderful work he did in stimulating the French people and the French army. In 1917, I well remember, there were undoubted signs of lassitude. The soldiers were actually beginning to mutiny. The people in Paris openly declared that they had had enough of the war. There was certainly weakness shown by the Minister of the Interior, Malvy, whom Clemenceau accused of betraying the interests of France. Clemenceau saw the hidden hand of Caillaux pulling these strings of défaitisme, and he fulminated against the Minister of Agadir.
It is not my business to judge whether Caillaux behaved wisely or foolishly; but the actual charge against him was certainly not justified by the evidence brought forward, on his trial by the High Court of the Senate, after two years’ imprisonment. Presumably Clemenceau would invoke reasons of state; and it has to be admitted that these drastic actions of Clemenceau, who became a veritable dictator, the arbitrary ruler of France, inspired fear among the pacifists and courage in the faint-hearted. Whether his methods could always be justified is a matter that I will not attempt to determine. His point of view, however, is easy to understand. Either France was to suffer defeat, or she was to pursue the war integrally against enemies at home and abroad.
Nothing was to be allowed to sap patriotism. The exigencies of war were to prevail over all considerations. Bolo, Mata-Hari, Almereyda, Duval, Lenoir, suffered death. Malvy was exiled. Caillaux was condemned. The energies of the soldiers were stimulated. Foch was chosen as Generalissimo. The Americans began to pour in their troops. Clemenceau was omnipotent and omnipresent. He was everywhere, exhorting Parliament, soldiers, people, to supreme efforts. If any one man can be said to have won the war, certainly it is Clemenceau.
His discourses are models. They vibrate. His rough pleasantries were in every mouth. The confidence in him was unbounded.
Probably he would have been well advised, had he resigned office when the war ended. This was his apotheosis. This was his triumph. Unfortunately, he decided to take a hand in framing the terms of peace. The disastrous Treaty of Versailles is largely due to him. France realized instinctively the errors that were committed, though they were not so apparent as they are to-day.
When, a little more than a year after his greatest moment, he presented himself as candidate for the Presidency of the Republic, everybody looked askance. He was defeated. The idol was overthrown. Thereupon every cur who had groveled at his feet began to bark at him; and to-day, in spite of his popularity abroad, in spite of his immense services, he is blamed at home for all the misfortunes of peace, all the disappointments, all the disillusionments, all the disasters.
V
Will Clemenceau ever ‘come back’? as the boxers say. It may perhaps be doubted. He is now eighty-one years of age and, although full of enthusiasm and capable of travels and lecture tours, could hardly, it is supposed, hold the reins of power day in and day out, once more. When the American trip was first planned, it was thought that the old Tiger had emerged from his three years’ silence, with the set purpose of sweeping aside the Poincarés, the Briands, and the rest, who had misapplied the Treaty and, like bad workmen, complained of their tools.
Great political significance was attached to these public declarations. If Clemenceau has no personal ambitions, it was argued, there exist the Clemencistes. Of no other French statesman is it possible to say that he has personal followers who constitute a party. M. Briand may have friends, M. Poincaré may have supporters; but there are in Parliament neither Briandistsnor Poincarists. The Clemencistes form a group which is not numerous, but which is solid and may be powerful.
M. André Tardieu eight months ago founded a paper, L’Écho National, to which the name of his former chief was attached. M. Klotz is one of the persistent critics of the various French ministers. M. Georges Mandel, who was the wirepuller for Clemenceau, is still watching for opportunities. It was considered likely that, if Clemenceau made a successful American tour, he would return all-powerful. If he would only be a figurehead, he would be a great figurehead.
What would be said of him and of his party would be something as follows: ‘Here is the man who, in a time of national crisis, in a grave emergency, when the Germans were winning, France was cracking, and all was nearly lost, came in to save the situation. He rallied the French people. He inspired the French army. He stimulated the friendship of England and America. He gave us unity of command. He won the war. Now another crisis, equally grave, is upon us. The French ministers have muddled things. French finances are bad. Reparations are not forthcoming. What is perhaps worse is that France has lost the friendships which Clemenceau had strengthened. Italy is gone. The entente with England has turned almost to enmity. Even Belgium is hesitating. Poland is escaping. The Little Entente plays for its own hand. Worst of all, America is turning against France. The result of three years without Clemenceau has been the disruption of alliances and the destruction of friendships. Now Clemenceau reappears on the scene, and America is won back. His voyage has had a magic effect. He is undoing the mischief that others have done. He is the only man capable of undoing the mischief.’
It will be easily seen that such a representation of the case would be irresistible. Assuming that Clemenceau traversed America triumphantly, then he would surely return to France in triumph. The probability is that no such personal calculations occurred to Clemenceau; but that they occurred to his friends is clear by the manner in which they utilized his messages to America. That they occurred to his enemies, with whom he is plentifully endowed, is clear from the savage attacks that were at once launched against him by a number of newspapers, which, during his reign, had been obsequious enough, but which have since put the blame for all France’s troubles on the former Prime Minister.
These newspapers broke out simultaneously into a torrent of criticism. They supported their accusations by documents which were more or less falsified by the omission of dates and vital paragraphs. The discussion raged about whether he had given Constantinople to the British, and prevented the French army in the East from marching toward Central Europe. Into this controversy it is unnecessary to go. I call attention to it only as demonstrating the positive fear that seized certain people at the very idea of Clemenceau’s activity. They saw in his self-imposed mission to America a political manœuvre which they desired to outwit. Time alone will show whether their estimate was right and whether a new bid for power on the part of the Clemencistes, if not on the part of Clemenceau himself, was being made.
VI
In the meantime, one should take it that, whatever use may subsequently be made of Clemenceau’s popularity in America, the predominant thought in his mind was one that was absolutely sincere. He remains the great patriot. He remains the great upholder of alliances. It may be that his vision is limited. It may be that he is wrong in attempting to divide the world into hostile camps and to preserve the antiGerman league. It may be that Germany too should come into the fellowship of nations. It may be that Clemenceau has himself shown that he is outmoded, that he cannot get beyond 1918. It may be that his mind has become stereotyped, and that he foolishly imagines that the world can be stereotyped. But at least this justice should be done to the one man of our time who will enter into history with flags flying and trumpets blowing — the supreme figure of determination, of energy, of patriotic exaltation, of true warlike qualities: that he was not thinking of petty intrigues, and was not moved by amour propre or by political designs.
Always has he been simple in his habits. When the Panama scandal drove him from politics, he did not hesitate to tell the world of his debts, of his financial struggles, of his arduous efforts to gain a mere livelihood. The millions he was alleged to have received by way of bribes, he demonstrated to be fictitious. And those who know how he has lived know that he has lived hardly. He has lived by his pen, and on the small stipend of the deputy and senator. He has shown perfect independence. In these days he dwells chiefly in the most humble of cottages in his native Vendée. His tastes have never been luxurious. He is a man who has loved fighting, one would say, for the sake of fighting, though generally he has been on the side of truth and justice — words which he has defined in beautiful language time and again, in his writings and in his speeches.
It is an unfortunate habit of the French that they find mercenary motives everywhere, and that they pronounce the word treachery far too lightly. Fiery as Clemenceau still is, there is no reason to suspect that he would leave, at his age, the quiet joys of his present life, would throw himself into the turbulence and confusion of politics for anything less than the highest motives.
One must applaud the ruling idea of solidarity which he preaches. His crusade in favor of the grouping of the three countries, France, England, and the United States, is one that deserves the warmest encomiums. There is no doctrine which requires more eloquent advocacy in these disrupted days of national egotisms than the doctrine of our interdependence. The fraternity of peoples, which was accepted during the war and for some little time after the war, has been frittered away by niggling little-minded men.
One would have thought that no truth would be so self-evident as that the malheur of one country is the malheur of another. One would have thought that the sentiments which bound together the old comrades-inarms would have outlasted the Pyramids, and that on this foundation a greater and more glorious era of peace and prosperity and mutual sympathy would have been built.
It is, alas! not so. It requires the tongues of the finest orators, the pens of the most persuasive writers, the influence of the noblest citizens of the world, to remind us of the real need of our day, when all our interests interpenetrate and interlock.
In so far as Clemenceau makes himself the apostle of this ideal of solidarity, he becomes a still more shining figure. But, although the unity of France, England, and the United States constitutes the firm foundation for the new world, there is something above and beyond even this fraternity — there remains the dream of Victor Hugo, and of kindred spirits, which is to give a fixed form and a charter to the UNITED STATES OF MANKIND.