New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-24
NJ. PIERRE LOTT.
HIS RECEPTION AT THE FRENCH ACADEMY
AND HIS ATTACK ON NJ ZOLA.
London, April 10.


envy. There was another French writer who
never read, Victor Hugo In some Of his POEMS
nevertheless there display of erudition when
implied the contrary One Of the more m0dcrh
and least good, lie Pape, had lately appeared wren
q short dialogue occurred between an admlrer ana
one Of Hugo's intimate literary friends. Hugo
must have read great deal to write this poem
said the admrer "Oh, no" was the answer,
"he never reads - But the poem is full OF MS
torcal illusions, events, names. les, V. ana
/ read up all that for him. We always do. The
results in a shape he can use are all he cares
for" Then, after reverential pause, You doh I
suppose a man who can write like Hugo womb
waste his time reading what others have written
That is enc Of these remarks which put an emu
to all discussion
To NJ Lofts assertion, as probably also 70 t'''
Of Victor Hugo's friend. there are obvious eAcep
lions He had read NJ. lola for example or ne
could hardly have attacked him and ms school
before the Academy and the world. Among many
other criticisms NJ Lott has been much criuciSeu
Nor attacking NJ lola because NJ. lola iSbls riVa'
that is he was a rival candidate Tor elec-
ton to the Academy-and he has written 'he
naturalist an explanatory letter winch ne I'D"
better not have written. II WAS. neVer'hciFs>' I"
right thing to say what he did The passage is 10
follows: ,.,n,,
.Jbe condemnation Of naturalsm is TO De ioun"
;n the fact that il chooses its subjects eNcluSNcN
from amid the dregs of the people OF tloSc graz
cities where its writer's prefer 10 I'VE i'c' nv
never looked at anything but this Splash % n'""
which is peculiar 10 these cities, anu no, 0o
There vet they generaze without hrnt' from '" -.
shs.r,stions as they have made. and thus 1t Is
that they 90 so outrageousN aSor"N. i"'N -
nj. AZ the world which they try to dcplct tut Vs.
r. these reasants these laborers, all OF the ki"'
-. 10 found in the halls of Bcleville, are i"'se'
NJ, ,,tsr coarseness. this cynicism when inocN>
% overv1bip0 are morbid phenomena pecuii" ~
a.. subnrbs ~ rnrs ain sure OF it. coming as
.so from the free air beyond. mat Is ""s
o,nralsn as it is understood to-day, spite u, '','
i-.nstrons talent of some writers OF that scnooi
10 destined TO pass away when once tne un"
,some curiosity which keeps it alive is sa"a'eu'
TIN. is nothing very NV in that. Inc noNe"S
- :; &c hcine said AT the solemn reception
~ the Academy by the newest Aca'cin'c''n' 'S
him whom the Academy elected in order ho' W ee0'
NJ Zola: and in a discourse when nao .'nu' e
the censorship of the Academy Iseh oeiore i'
delivery. and received the sanction oil te A'""euS
p IS in other words not so much the opinion VI ~"
Lott rs the Judgment of the Academy upon na.u-
ralism and upon that naturalistic scnooi Oh "i'0'
M. lola is the foremost exponent
E,.ctions 70 the French Academy turn, as every
bo6v knows upon other considerations man Cnose
Of literature exclusively. When Octave Feulliet
chair became vacant. NJ Ioa pfSehteo h'n's''
es a candidate The tradition OF the ACADEMY
rsouircd or desired that novelist shou!d s"ccecu
a novelist An attempt WAS made 10 lhouce VI
do Maupaseant and NJ. Paul Bourget TO S'un"
against NJ lola. Neither of them would ~ O'ie
snnust ;mmortals fell back on NJ Pierre Lott, al
2Iac4 oh
hoard Of from literary tibunal-althouch his
rank in the navy low. If lie had been an ''"-
niral if would have been all right There were
other objections. The critics, though Always
kindly to NJ. Lott, have always held that his VIII
inc WAS rather slight; it wanted solidity wanted
substance wanted not 80 much erudltlon as tha'
quality of firm conference and fuilness which comes
Of erudition and does not come without 1t. Inc
kindliness of the critics and OF the wOrd OF rcaOerN
is explained less kindly by one OF them who has q
certain rank Of his own. NJ Lott, he tells us,
had talent and plenty of it, but talent alone is
not enough He the man whom everybody
praised in order to be disagreeahc TO more
dangerous rival. He stood in the way OF no
Partisan vanity no Partisan interest and 80 every
one helped ON his success.
But now.-now NJ. Pierre Lott has ventured TO
touch the shield of the writer who is inconestaby
ionoble Of all living Freuch authors. NJ lola IL
popular not merely among readers who like IN
decency but among critics and men of letters whc
SGT an inordinate value upon mere cleverness II
handicraft He has imposed himself and hi
books upon the literary world by his extraordinary
literary power industry force, self-confdence
and egotism He Is President OF the Frencl
Society OF Men of Letters. No fact could brint
out more strongly the degradation Of FTencl
literature but so il is. He has long been
favorite with q powerful section of tie Frcncl
press-in many respects the most powerful;
section which has the strongest hold on tlp
French public; or on the Partisan public
comes to the same thing-of the Bouevards =
with the Figaro above all So when NJ. Lot
attacks NJ lola, he attacks also those who sup
port him, and they rush TO his defence.
And defence Of NJ. lola means, Of course a,
onslaught upon his critic. These gentlemen
have discovered that NJ. Lott assails not on,
NJ. lola but NJ. dc Maupassant, who is still
greater writer NJ Paul Bourget the darling o
the Paris salons; NJ. Richepin, whose long effort
toward success seem at last TO have found thei
crown in the tremendous drama which has takei
o. permanent place in the chief theatre OF tn
French stage and of the world. OF them an
others did N. Lott speak sghungly. and be i
eulogy upon himself and the disporagement o
everybody else 1t is because he knew no better
adds his most perfdious commentator. He is al
attractive writer. says the perfdious commentato
but he has no tact, nobody ever had SO little
how could it be otherwise when he has spent hi
life On the deck of ship, and amid thos
charming harlots and sympathetic drunkard
whom his books have taught us TO love" This
the kind Of sentence which deserves the hars
adjective pcriidious.
NJ. Pierre Lofts letter 10 NJ. Emile lola il
from any point of view e mistake. ANY lette
would hsvc been a mistake this particular ette
goes far to justify his opponents remark chat
is wanting in tact When you have just told
man that he is head OF school of literature whic
subsists garbage and produces garbage. ther
il not much use in explanation. II there were
weuld not help matters TO say that you did nc