See above, p no.

-151-

haa taken place "a demi a notre insu” (559)* Valery believes th- t their mistake has been to try to suppress this process. Valery blames himself more than Gide, since this dates from a time when Valery, rmed only with general analysis, was trying to grasp and, no doubt, affect Gide’s points of view. Now, Valery realises that it is only one’s own thoughts which one can discount as invalid, as the thoughts of another are inaccessible to one. Where Gide has been et fault, Valery points out, is in his lack of protest against Valery’s apparent, verbal massacre of his ideas.

Although it is true that one can now see clearly the differences between the two writers, Valery is equally correct when he writes that their revelation has been made almost unconsciously. In the correspond­ ence, it is sometimes only by carefully reading between the lines of monologue and ’’echo" that one realises the strong differences between the two and the subsequent obtaining of self-knowledge.

Valery’s use of the term "verbal massacre" in his letter is telling. Conversation with Valery is a much mere difficult medium for Gide, since, in it, Valery’s tendency towards monologue is more crushing than in the letter. Nonetheless, as regards their correspondence, Valery’s analysis is also pertinent as is the blame he places both on himself end on Gide for the lack of consciousness and systematization that has hitherto been manifest in their approach to dialogue in correspondence.

Valery might, however, have made more of Gide’s anxiety to echo which

c

has been a stumbling-block to the emergence of their differ^cej. ore- over, the accusations Valery levels against himself seem to me less revealing of his own part in lack of dialogue than of his strength ned conviction that others’ thoughts are impermeable.

Valery’s former fault, in Gide’s eyes, was that he did not even look to understand Gide. Now that he has attempted to do so, Valery himself

seems to discard his, or anyone’s ability, to enter into another’* mind. Albeit unconsciously, Valery has pointed to another difference between himself and Gide. For Valery, the other, with all his difference ,

obviously represents a problem which may well be insoluble. This explains Valery’s difficulty in echoing Gide wLu, on the contrary, is both able and willing to experience the other’s emotions and thoughts as his own.

Gide may thus echo Valery in his correspondence but, if he doe* so, it is in order to commune with a kindred response. Because Valerv. is unable to supply this, letters, where both men raise the problem of their differences, are a far more satisfying means of.dialogue and do le<-d to self-knowledge if not, ae Valery suggests, to true feeling for Gide's point of view.

Valery continues his letter by refusing to condone his contemporaries. He claims tnat Gide is about the only exception to the majority of those who can only improve on the same thing and who are moved uniquely by fear of change or lack of success. Such people, Valery is convinced, have no desire to make the necessary effort to surpass themselves or to discover. For most literary men, the same is true in Valery’s opinion.

Like Gide, Valery recognises what is most important to this exchange of letters, by leaving to the last the question of "false flowers" and

.agner. Gide’s point of view has made no impression on Valery who is still on the side of skill and "calcul" as opposed to random beauty. While Valery realises the boredom that a system of "false flowers" m y bring, he is for any system which loses no time.

;ith real flowers, "On en vienta comparer la valeur du brochet pris a celle du temps consume a l*attendre (25th October 1899» 5^1 . This mixed metaphor means that Valery has no time to waste over an in iv-

-133'

progress unilinearly and quickly towards perfect truth. Thus, he will always prefer to move "entre des manieres de penser, plus qu’entre des pensees" (3&l), since the latter will only prevent him from achieving generality. This is quite contrary to Gide whose interest is in one’s very thoughts and what is special to etwh person. The "particulier" is Gide’s stepping-stone to generality.

Gide’s reply opens with the exclamation, "Exploiton3 le filon.”' (28th October 1899» 362). This letter is intended as a preliminary clearing of the ground, in order to gain better access to the "vein" to be worked upon. Thus, Gide tackles the more personal questions raised by Valery’s letter. He expresses his acquiescence with Valery’s crit­ icisms of literary men now that he realises that he is an exception in Valery's eyes. Gide, confesses that he, too, has cause to complain of

the incomprehension of others because of his own lack of literary consis­ tency which has entailed equal lack of success. This is but a prelude to Gide's attacking Valery whose misunderstanding of Gide is much more serious since it is not due to stupidity. If others criticise, Gide feels that Valery should praise him. Instead, Valery has associated Gide with other success-mongers by saying: "*Ah ouij il y a aussi le groupe de ceux qui attendent le aucces de quarante^ans'" (362).

Gide admits that he is less irritated than he appears to be ii.ce Valery’s letter nas greatly encouraged him, not least of all, one feels, to speak his mind. Never before has Gide been so open about his feeling that Valery ought to be interested in his work,and, by implication, of more help towards its conception.

Valery's next letter1 is of extreme importance, since it is his first real explanation of himself with regard to Gide and, in it, he shows high

understanding of their relations, in spite of his own scepticis;.i as to his ability to grasp Gide's thought. Firstly, he ?.nswers Cide's’ argument that, in light of the majority's lack of understanding, it is Valery's duty to appreciate hia work. He pointe out, justly, that Gide has his partisans as well as his critics and that Gide's works re never the same. What then, Valery queries maliciously, does Gide think of people who like all his books? For Gide's own sake, Valery insists yet again, he would do better to heed the opinions of his detractors or opposites than of those who praise him.

;£aving reprimanded Gide, Valery returns to literary discussion. He gives what, for him, are the three aims of literature: firstly, money; secondly, the number of people to know one's name and the consequences thereof and, thirdly, for personal instruction from the general problems to which the technique and practice of art lead. Valery's rea on for writing is the last one which, he explains, entails either leaving the

domain of art completely or remaining in it in a highly specific, episodic way. In Valery's opinion, to do otherwise teaches one nothing and merely produces a sickening little pool of genius. In other words, Vslery

continues, one's way of thinking is unaffected by literary creation. After this explanation of his own attitude to literature, Valery devotes his attention to Gide's. He admits once again to not under­ standing Gide. Thio is clearly because he cannot make up hia iind

whether Gide's aims in writing come under his third or hi3 second category. ( n the one hand, Gide seems to have too much thought for his public since: ”?u sens certainement par minutes.•.le besoin brusque de rattreper une sorte de moyenne que tu oubliais heureuB>ment" (7th tovember Id- 5^4- • On the other hand, Gide is not the typical, success-seeking literary man

becausex

...tu ne fais pas cela comme on fait du sucre...ou de 1'enseignement (meme avec enthousiasme). La preuve en est que tu t’agites pour ne pas imiter (entendons-nousi ...je donne ici a ce mot une grande extension) et pour ne pas t*imiter - et que tu pref&res toujours, sans doute, inte'resser moins et t’inxeresser plus (3^4>) •

As Valery points out, this position could easily slide into his own, but, in fact, Gide’s motives remain far from those of Valery and are ever incomprehensible to him.

Valery’s powers of descriptive analysis are no nearer helping him to understand why Cide is ae he is. Quite rightly he has seen that Gide’s reasons for writing are both toward-and outward-lookin . hat he does not understand, however, is that one can look to a public for reasons other than confirmation of one’s success and with results other than self-abasement. Valelry’s understanding that Gide’s art is pIso a personal quest, which prevents mental stagnation, is only partial too, since he cannot conceive that art may be a perfectly acceptable end in itself. for Valery art is a means to an end. For Gide, his art is a means to art. In other words, the "instruction personnelle"

,(364) which may be gained from his work is self- perpetuating for Gide's literature and is not siphoned off. Giae's art necessarily includes the personal and general problems which Velery 3ees as incidental discoveries to be made from the process of creation as from any other mental activity.

Valery has little more Imderstanding of Gide's way of worn w ich he contrasts to his own which is based on the fact that: "Tout ce que j'ai fait ou pense est relie a mon existence - IMEEDlATHWfT. C'est force et faiblesse" (565). Because of this, Valery wishes to bind the^e moments of his existence by "des proprietezs additives" (365)> as diverse as possible, in order to achieve "l'etat parfait ou theoriaue de mon etre (365). Because Valery's own method is one of progressive juxtaposition.

he realises that he would have nothing to gain from "des oeuvres

contrariees" (365) which are, indeed, so alien to his own methods that he believes the purpose of such works is to delight or confound a public, Because Valery cannot understand that this is Gide’s way of presenting nis problems, he again mistakenly associates Gide with his second category of writers.'1' Valery concludes by explaining that:

Ee tous les sentiments possible^, le plus fort en moi est celui de securlte - ou, si tu veux, de defiance infinie. Je ne puis avoir aucune confiance dans ce qui va etaient. Je ne m'y fie pas, c’est pourquoi j’ai cherche des choses plus constantes (365)*

Wore than unfortunately, this exchange of letters is interrupted by a meeting. With their letters on Saul, this is the most prolonged discussion to cate between Gide and Valery. As with his comments on Saul, Valery shows unprecedented persistence in coming back to the subject of literature as a means of provoking reaction in Gide.

In these letters, appears clearly the full range of differences between Valery’s and Gide’s artistic methods and aims. If one may use the image of a ladder to describe the two men's ways of working, Valery climbs up each rung as he builds and tests it. His aim is to rerch the finite end of the top of his ladder from which point he may count it3 rungs and view them as a whole. Gide, on the contrary, may be said to have dismantled his ladder and separated its rungs into sub-groups. Gide then tests his rungs by moving from one to another. His aim is

not to reach the top of hia ladder but to reconstruct it himself <ifter examination.

The purpose and the end-result of both men’s art is also different. Literature, for Valery is but one of the tools he uses in constructing his ladder, which will lead him to his ideal self. For Gide, literature is his ladder, the rungs of whioh are formed by the many, simultaneous

-Im­

possibilities of his nature. The end-result 6f art for Valery is, if one is to take him entirely seriously, the mass-production of ladders, jor Gide, if I may shift my metaphor slightly, the end-result may be compared to the Mathematical Bridge in Cambridge which was perhaps not reconstructed as it was originally formed but which has, nonetheless, gained in individual interest because of the experiments alle edly tried out upon it.

The importance of the exchange of letters which lead to such knowledge of Valery and Gide is underlined by Gide’s evocation of them, the following year, as consolation for lack of meetings:

...je me souviens...que dans ce meme Lamalou ou

je suis pour moisir un mois,^ l’an passe je t’envoyais et recevais de toi les plus importantes des lettres, de sorte que cette correspondence reprise enfonqait plus avant notre commerce et nous expliquait mieux nos rapports (15th October 1900, 572).

Valery assures Gide that their relations are too abstract to suffer from the infrequency of their meetings and adds:

Toutes^ventures, jusqu’a cette eapece d’amitie ennemie qui a ete un instant, a ton precedent Lamalou, la notre, et fort etroite, n’ont tourne qu’a meler e normemert quelque chose et a. demeler tres heureusement tout le reste. J’espbre que tres souvent nous nous servons rautuellement de types bien definis d’un autre esprit que la notre, et aussi sympathique et aussi different

que possible! 1*ideal serait: aussi possible que

possible’ (17th October 1900, 575).

It is to be noticed that not only was Valery largely responsible for the creation of discussion on their differences but also that Valery, to a greater degree apparently than Gide, realises that this is as important a means to self-knowledge as to knowledge of the other.

The letters exchanged by Valery and Gide after the Nourritures terrestres and up to this point form the kernel of their correspo dence.

Both men have been responsible for provoking each other to intensify dialogue on their literary dissimilarities.

Valery has more than caught up on Gide’s tentative efforts to bring discussion to a head. These letters prove that Robert Mallet is doubly wrong when he compares Vlery to Gidt in the following terms: "Valery,

* X Z ' x-

lui, moins enclin a affronter son contraire, est pourtant tres interesse pair une experience qui peut enrichir la sienne." Not oj lery’s interest in Gide seem exceptional in light of their early correspondence but also Gide helps Valery to self-knowledge not by enrichment but by proving to Valery that he should never follow in Gide's steps. oreover, as the post-Nourritures terrestres letters show, Valery is more than willing to confront Gide and is stimulated by their differences perhaps even more so than Gide. Indeed, in homage to Andre Gide, Valery wrote:

Voici quelque trente-cinq ans que je le connais familierement, cependant que nos differences se

developpent a merveille, Nos sentiments sur presque toute chose sont generalement opposes, mais d’une opposition si naturelle qu’elle equivaut a une hannonie et qu’elle cree entre nous une liberte vraiment rare des echanges de penseea.2

5. The last Stages of Dialogue.

Henceforth, letters and discussion on literature become much rarer. It is to be remembered that both writers had the opportunity for meetings in laris and that Gide was, to a high degree, involved in the Nouvelle levue fran^aiae. Literature is next mentioned, therefore, when Gide writes of L*Immoraliste. It is a work, he says, which he should have written two years ago because:

...a present, le gout n’y est plus; je n’aime plus que le ’genre sec', 5 mais on ecrit toujours en retard;

l’emb£tant, e’est que ca arrete le developpement; il y a toujours en soi ou a cote quelque chose qui n’est pa3 au pair et qui tire (5th July 1901, 585).

1. G./V. Corr., p. 26.

2. Andre Gide. Ed. du Capitole, Pari3, 1928. Quoted by Gustave vanwelken- huyzen in the G./Mo. Corr., p. 281.

—

Gide’s tendency towards simultaneous conception of his works is the cause of this.

In his reply, Valery shows no interest in L*Immoraliste but writes of the conversion of his employer and hia own work A^athe. In a later letter, Gide again mentions his work in much the same terms and

inquires about /gat he. Perhaps he hopes that, by showing interest in Valery*3 work, he will prompt him into similar interest in I ' Ioraliste.

After this letter, there is a gap in their published correspondence. j.onetheless, as a letter published in the Bulletin des Amis d*Andre Cide proves, Valery must have given his opinion on L’Immoraliste either verbally or by letter. As this letter will be discussed in the next chapter, I deal only briefly with it here. Gide’s comments show that, once again, Valery has failed to comprehend his work. Contrary to his reaction to Caul, Valery believes that L’lmmorallste is almost entirely an autobiography.

Gide’s letter, where he underlines the fact that L*Immoral!ate is a critical work, is significant when compared to Gide’s comparative lack of explanation upon this point after Valery’s letters on Paludes and Le Voyage d’Urien. ho doubt because of Valery's attempts to discuss literature from their opposing standpoints, Gide feels freer to explain his work and surer of Valery’s interest.

As this letter shows, the gap in Gide’s correspondence may be due to loss of letters. More mundanely, both Gide and Valery ar<^ married and lead extremely busy lives. Indeed, when Gide sends La Porte etroite to

2 ' Valery, he urges him not to read it nor to thank him for it since