Administration
Rectification
Charles Péguy
I have received from Gérault-Richard the following letter:
25th Year — LA PETITE RÉPUBLIQUE — Socialiste 111, Rue Réaumur — Telephone 101.92 — 4, Rue Paul-Lelong, 4 — Editorial Offices Paris, 6 December 1900 My dear Péguy, Your zeal for telling comrades a few home truths exposes you to dangerous liberties with the one and indivisible truth, as well as to serious personal disappointments. You have just, in fact, been abominably mystified by the correspondent who accuses the Petite République of having, in order to manifest its ministerial zeal, concealed the extent of the sentences pronounced against the strikers of Chalon-sur-Saône (twelfth and last cahier of the first series). This accusation is false — as false as can be: the issue of the Petite République dated the 11th of June published on the front page a fairly long dispatch relating the incidents of the trial hearing, the names of the citizens prosecuted, and their sentences. Verify the accuracy of this correction. Nothing easier. The newspaper’s back issues are at your disposal. Conduct the investigation yourself, this time. It is never too late to return to the scientific search for truth, when one has given oneself over to the impulses of nationalist polemics, which consist of putting lice in other people’s heads so as to be sure of finding some. You would be very kind to publish this letter and to believe in my devotion. Gérault-Richard
I have at home, for the making of these cahiers, several complete runs of newspapers, in particular that of the Petite République. I turned to the Petite République dated Monday the 11th of June: THE MILITARY CRIME OF CHALON In the correctional court. — Sentences of the demonstrators (From our correspondent) Chalon-sur-Saône, 9 June It is today that the court has judged the citizens who were victims of the gendarmes’ brutalities. Naturally it distributed sentences with prodigality, without regard for the contradictions and extravagances of certain depositions. Thus Brigadier Renaud recounts in these terms — which we commend to lovers of contortion — the misdeeds committed upon his person by the citizen Marius Gros, locksmith: “The accused seized me by the edge of my tunic, squeezed me hard by the throat, and gave me a punch in the back. Arrested, he cried out several times to his comrades: ‘Help! Set me free!’ “At this signal, several individuals hurled a hail of stones at me.” I defy any acrobat, even the president of the court, to seize a man by the throat and give him a punch in the back while holding the edge of his tunic. And if Gros’s comrades hurled stones at the brigadier, they risked hitting Gros, who was in front of him… Oh, the logic of Pandore! But the judges do not pause at such details; they sentence: Marinier, to one month in prison; Lanacq, to two months; Bonnardot, to three months; Genty, to four months; Denis Gros, to six months; Marius Gros, to six months; Caillet, to three months; Bague, to two months; Matron, to six days; Merle is acquitted. Several of the sentenced receive the benefit of the Bérenger law.
I replied more or less as follows to Gérault-Richard — I did not keep a copy of my letter: My dear Gérault, I shall communicate to Louzon the correction you have sent me. The first cahier of the second series has gone out; I shall not have the floor in the second; the correction will appear in the third. I remain, at bottom, one of your best friends.
Gérault-Richard replied to me on a card: My dear Péguy, I do not reproach you for communicating my correction to M. Louzon. But I am entitled to reproach you for not having used the same procedure with me. You could have, you should have verified the mendacious assertion of your correspondent. One does not accuse militants like us of trickery without proof. — You will find it acceptable that I reserve the right to publish our correspondence if M. Louzon does not give me satisfaction. Yours truly, Gérault-Richard
Here is what had happened. The Petite République is not perfect. When M. Waldeck-Rousseau called M. Millerand to the Ministry of Commerce, the paper could have adopted toward the new ministry that happy and fruitful attitude of benevolent criticism. It preferred to manifest a great deal of benevolence more or less devoid of criticism. Not that I entirely subscribe to the accusations of ministerialism levelled at the Petite République. The political attitude of Jaurès, of Gérault-Richard, of the independents, of the newspapers, demands a long study. Today I am concerned only with the typographical attitude, so to speak, of the newspaper — and this is not the least interesting. It seems to me incontestable that the Petite République gave too vast a surface and too great an importance to Millerand, to the speeches of Millerand, to the decrees of Millerand, to the promises of Millerand, given the restricted space occupied in the newspaper by events no less interesting. It seems to me that the typography of the newspaper, almost always badly done, badly distributed, was partial. I look through the Petite République more or less regularly in the morning; I read it more or less regularly in the evening. The dispatch from Chalon relating the sentences of the strikers had more or less escaped me. At the Paris congress, several anti-Guesdist delegates who read their newspaper honestly said to me: Why did the Petite République not publish the sentences of the strikers? It was a common opinion. The delegates added: You must speak of it in your cahiers. — Then came Louzon’s letter, which I could not refuse, and which fixed this grievance for me. Louzon exists, and I have deliberately given, along with his name, his exact address. He is very young, and it is for this reason that I attach great importance to his opinions. In the company of which I spoke above, it had been understood that the young men introduced, that the newcomers would set the tone, so to speak, from year to year. We wished thus to avoid automatic ageing, encrustation, the sterile contemplation of oneself. My method has remained the same. I think that, other personal qualities being equal and with exceptions, very young men see rightly because they see freshly. I except young men who mechanically repeat the teachings of the old. I except the few citizens, rare, for whom experience furnishes more information than habit imposes blinkers. I except also, of course, the insincere. I value highly the opinion of Louzon and of his young comrades and friends, because they are young, sincere, unaccustomed. Besides, I could not refuse his communication. These cahiers can refuse communications that are superfluous, insincere, false. They cannot refuse communications that are qualified, whatever their sense. I ought to have verified it. There was a misunderstanding. Louzon had written to me in a more or less private capacity, and one will observe that it was above all the direction of the cahiers that he meant to criticise. I was anxious to insert this communication, as I insert by preference most of the criticisms addressed to the cahiers. When so many people had told and repeated to me what was in his letter, it seemed to me representative. These two reasons combining, I had him told or I wrote to him that I wished to publish his letter and asked if I could also publish his signature. No longer having a firm memory of its tenor, he replied that I could publish both the letter and the signature. On the sort of transfer, of transposition, that consists of publishing as a communication a subscriber’s warning, I ask to plead guilty. I have done it several times — as often as I could. I shall do it as often as I can, without abuse and without trickery. I know that nothing is as sincere, as fresh, as profound as certain private indications from young friends or young comrades, that nothing is as useful; and every time I can, I extend by publication this rare utility. My friend Jean Deck was kind enough to write to me, moreover, that there are not yet enough communications in the cahiers, that nothing is as advantageous as thus to take the pulse of the public without passing through the usual intermediaries. I must confess to my shame that I received Louzon’s communication as a windfall. Louzon had not verified because he trusted, for a private indication, the Temps Nouveaux, his readings as an ordinary citizen, the look of the newspaper, above all public rumour. I did not verify before publishing the communication because I trusted Louzon, the Temps Nouveaux, my readings, the look of the newspaper, the public rumour heard at the congresses. So many confirmations are not worth one good reference. As an author of cahiers, I am indefensible. I sinned through presumptuous laziness. At most an advocate could excuse me by saying that at the moment the accident occurred — and generally for the past three months — I was putting in twelve hours a day for the cahiers when I was doing administration with Bourgeois and eight hours when I was doing editorial work. And newspapers like the Petite République being badly made, the relative importance of events being neither represented nor even respected by the typographical arrangement, it is easy to verify on a given date that an article appeared, but it is costly to verify over a period whether it is true that an article never appeared. Finally, I was counting on the complete census I shall make of the newspapers when I do the cahiers from the first congress to the second. As an ordinary reader, I have much to say in my defence. To call the crime of Chalon a military crime is already to deflect attention. Gendarmes are military men if you like, but they are less military than soldiers and their officers. Now Sembat was saying at the Paris congress that the officers and the soldiers of the line had often manifested, during strikes, either human feelings or even the feelings of good citizens. The crime of Le François is far more a military crime than the crime of Chalon. But both are above all bourgeois crimes, if one wishes to qualify them in general — and if one wishes to specify, they are employer crimes, in a sense governmental crimes, or clerical crimes no less than military. And the sentencing of the strikers was a judicial crime, a crime of the civil justice. And the acquittal of the gendarmes was a crime at once judicial and military, a crime of the military justice. To each his own. To give the whole Chalon affair, as a generic title, what can only constitute a specific title, is already to deflect attention. I turn to my collection. This title, a military crime, covered the Chalon affair every day. It was badly specified. We have read and known so many military crimes that such a title drew little public attention to the crime of Chalon. In the Petite République of Wednesday the 6th of June, this title covers the following sub-headings: The strike movement at Chalon-sur-Saône. — Yesterday’s events. — Funerals of the victims. In the issue of Thursday the 7th, the title covers these sub-headings: At Chalon-sur-Saône. — Another death. — The funeral of Geoffroy. In the issue of Friday the 8th, a very large unhidden title — The Military Crime of Chalon-sur-Saône — is supported by a second title: the account of M. Simyan, deputy; the whole rests truly upon a base of sub-headings. In the issue of Saturday the 9th, the same arrangement. I come to the issue of Monday the 11th. The title is the same, although the event is, in a sense, new. This title covers scarcely visible sub-headings. The article begins at the very bottom of the third column and ends at the very top of the fourth. Not counting the lead article, I count, on this front page, along with the Échos du Jour, seven titles larger than the title of the article in question. The seven titles are, in more or less decreasing order of importance: at the Exposition, Jaurès in Lille, the coachmen of the Seine, the Grand Prix, Échos du Jour, Voulet and Chanoine, Liberté, Article 7. I count two titles of equal size: Boubou and the Socialists, For the Railway Employees. A single title is smaller: The Employers’ Syndicates in Germany. I may therefore say that the importance of the event is not represented by the typographical importance of its title. This insufficiency becomes manifest when one recalls today the old titles of the old strikes under the old ministries. The importance of the event is no more represented by the tenor of the article. I ask that the reader be kind enough to refer to the text reproduced above. Sentences of the demonstrators is not the sentencing of the strikers. A hurried reader may imagine that it is a matter of the few days in prison and the few francs in fines habitually distributed to demonstrators arrested in scuffles. The sub-heading does not lead one to expect a total of more than twenty-seven months in prison. The tone of the article does not announce the judicial and social gravity of the sentences. Finally, these sentences are lumped into a single paragraph of nine lines, without breaks. The charges are not specified. That is why so many sincere militants had read the newspaper without seeing the news of these sentences.
I cannot accept the tone of the correction that Gérault-Richard sends us. For a long time — since I began to become expressly socialist — I have been reading the Petite République. It is not perfect. But in the heroic times it rendered great services. The citizen Gérault also rendered great services. He has — or rather he had, for I fear that recent difficulties have somewhat embittered him — over and above all other qualities, that good humour which I would be tempted to make a serious virtue. In all, he has done much for the preparation of the Social Revolution. Now, the Petite République is morally badly made. I confine myself today to the business it harbours. How many times have we not said to Gérault-Richard and to Jaurès: Take care, the newspaper is becoming disgusting with commercial and financial advertisements. How many times has Herr not said before me to Jaurès: Lo— o”k! there’s the Equitable of the United States invading the front pages of the newspaper. ^(1) ^(1) I shall tell an admirable story about the advertising of the Equitable of the United States in the Petite République as soon as I have done research in the old issues of the newspaper. Now I am assured that Jaurès and that Gérault-Richard are, privately and personally, good socialists. It is even from this that the Louzon incident arose. Louzon, who is very young and who knows neither Jaurès nor Gérault, had said to me: How can they be honest, since there is this and that in their newspaper? — I had answered him: They are evidently honest; I know it from having tested it. The letter I published was Louzon’s answer to this affirmation. Louzon’s second letter, which I published in the first cahier of the second series, bears the trace of my affirmation. The situation is summed up thus: honest men are making a newspaper that is often bad. There must be some obstacle between them and their newspaper. I do not believe that this obstacle is M. Dejean pure and simple. I do not know M. Dejean at all. I have an instinctive aversion to him, because I see that he rather likes businesses that are doing well. A few indications confirm this aversion. But I shall not condemn someone on an aversion and on indications. M. Dejean can always say that a newspaper that is not doing very good business runs the risk of doing very bad business. M. Dejean must pay for his paper, his printing, and his editors. He must make money. If he did not make it, the newspaper would lose it. What lies between Gérault-Richard and his newspaper is, at bottom, the perversity of the public — a perversity at once spontaneous and cultivated. If the public did not love filth, absinthe, and horse-racing, the administrator of a newspaper would oppose putting filth, absinthe, and horse-racing in it. One must therefore act upon public opinion, upon the public spirit. These cahiers have not been instituted for the zeal or the vain pleasure of telling comrades a few home truths. We are not pedants. We are not vain polemicists. We are not lovers of scandal. Those who know a great deal would rather reproach us for not saying enough. We do risk, it is true, serious personal disappointments. We do it deliberately, in order to sanitise the employer customs of the public. Instead, then, of mistreating us, Gérault-Richard ought to rely upon us to make the reform — and, if necessary, the revolution — of his newspaper. Everyone is beginning to have had enough of certain advertisements. In the polemic recently opened in Paris between the Petite République and certain newspaper carriers — of which we shall no doubt have to give the dossier — Vaughan, intervening, said some very good things. And yet I have not conspired with Vaughan, and we have often criticised the Aurore. It is more than a month since I thought of making the front page of the cover of this third cahier as it is. In the Pages Libres of Charles Guieysse, who is big enough to think for himself, I read this conversation: — All that is very well, but do you not realise that those who will be able to read you will not be able to buy you? that all these militants you speak of already pay a host of subscriptions? that they will not find in their purses wherewith to pay for a subscription to the review? — There, Jean Prolète, is the true objection to our project. But what would you have? We cannot distribute our review free. — You ought to sell it cheaper… If you think it isn’t horribly dear, thirty-nine sous a quarter. — That is exactly what the Review costs. And we still won’t be paying those who write the articles for us! And the whole administration is handled by comrades who come to keep the registers and write the addresses after having finished their day’s work. So there is already a great deal of free labour in the Pages Libres; we cannot put money on top of it. — Yes, but the advertisements? — Oh! Jean Prolète, what are you saying? Do you think it honest to combat alcohol inside a newspaper and to announce on the cover the qualities of Absinthe Second Frères, or of the Liqueur of the Capuchins? Do you also think it proper to sell the cover of the Pages Libres to Monsiel, who will attract little working-class households into his department stores and ruin them by selling to them on credit? Do you also want, by any chance, Jean Prolète, for us to have premiums, for us to sell in our offices Comrade hats and Socialist suits, having them made by women who would work fourteen hours a day and earn two francs? Do you want us to… — All right, be quiet, you’re right. — You see, we must try to do what we are going to do. It is extremely difficult, but life does not consist of doing only what is easy.
We do not ask that tomorrow morning the Petite République resemble our cahiers. We know that one cannot make a large newspaper at present with regular monthly subscriptions and extraordinary subscriptions. We ask that the great journalists treat us not as enemies but — as I wrote to Gérault-Richard — at bottom, as their best friends. There is another published letter from Louzon where other facts are alleged. I ask that one wait for the cahiers from the first congress to the second, where all these facts will be rapidly catalogued.
At the moment we go to press, I receive a second cancellation of subscription from a second former comrade, motivated by four numbered grounds. One of these grounds is once again that I attacked M. Herr. This is becoming unbearable. M. Herr said to me textually one morning: As long as you attacked Guesde and all that in the Revue Blanche, you were going as a free-lancer, it was fine. But now that socialist unity has been achieved, you must no longer attack them. — Pardon me, is what I say about Guesde less true today than yesterday? — That is not the point. You must leave all that alone. I refused to fall in line. Everything has come from that. I refused to make the few friends I have fall in line. This insubordination has cost me enough that at least it should be respected. My situation is singular. When I let the cahiers be attacked, they suffer inevitable damage. When I defend them, I am told: You are going to talk about yourself again. We have seen enough of you.
At the moment we go to press, I am sent the latest issue of the Coopération des Idées, in which M. G. Deherme has been kind enough to send me an article of two and a half columns. This sending overwhelms me, and worries me. But I cannot leave it without reply.