Introduction.
The First Book.
Introduction.
Had
Rabelais never written his strange and marvellous romance, no one
would ever have imagined the possibility of its production. It stands
outside other things—a mixture of mad mirth and gravity, of folly
and reason, of childishness and grandeur, of the commonplace and the
out-of-the-way, of popular verve and polished humanism, of mother-wit
and learning, of baseness and nobility, of personalities and broad
generalization, of the comic and the serious, of the impossible and
the familiar. Throughout the whole there is such a force of life and
thought, such a power of good sense, a kind of assurance so
authoritative, that he takes rank with the greatest; and his peers
are not many. You may like him or not, may attack him or sing his
praises, but you cannot ignore him. He is of those that die hard. Be
as fastidious as you will; make up your mind to recognize only those
who are, without any manner of doubt, beyond and above all others;
however few the names you keep, Rabelais' will always remain.We
may know his work, may know it well, and admire it more every time we
read it. After being amused by it, after having enjoyed it, we may
return again to study it and to enter more fully into its meaning.
Yet there is no possibility of knowing his own life in the same
fashion. In spite of all the efforts, often successful, that have
been made to throw light on it, to bring forward a fresh document, or
some obscure mention in a forgotten book, to add some little fact, to
fix a date more precisely, it remains nevertheless full of
uncertainty and of gaps. Besides, it has been burdened and sullied by
all kinds of wearisome stories and foolish anecdotes, so that really
there is more to weed out than to add.This
injustice, at first wilful, had its rise in the sixteenth century, in
the furious attacks of a monk of Fontevrault, Gabriel de
Puy-Herbault, who seems to have drawn his conclusions concerning the
author from the book, and, more especially, in the regrettable
satirical epitaph of Ronsard, piqued, it is said, that the Guises had
given him only a little pavillon in the Forest of Meudon, whereas the
presbytery was close to the chateau. From that time legend has
fastened on Rabelais, has completely travestied him, till, bit by
bit, it has made of him a buffoon, a veritable clown, a vagrant, a
glutton, and a drunkard.The
likeness of his person has undergone a similar metamorphosis. He has
been credited with a full moon of a face, the rubicund nose of an
incorrigible toper, and thick coarse lips always apart because always
laughing. The picture would have surprised his friends no less than
himself. There have been portraits painted of Rabelais; I have seen
many such. They are all of the seventeenth century, and the greater
number are conceived in this jovial and popular style.As
a matter of fact there is only one portrait of him that counts, that
has more than the merest chance of being authentic, the one in the
Chronologie collee or coupee. Under this double name is known and
cited a large sheet divided by lines and cross lines into little
squares, containing about a hundred heads of illustrious Frenchmen.
This sheet was stuck on pasteboard for hanging on the wall, and was
cut in little pieces, so that the portraits might be sold separately.
The majority of the portraits are of known persons and can therefore
be verified. Now it can be seen that these have been selected with
care, and taken from the most authentic sources; from statues, busts,
medals, even stained glass, for the persons of most distinction, from
earlier engravings for the others. Moreover, those of which no other
copies exist, and which are therefore the most valuable, have each an
individuality very distinct, in the features, the hair, the beard, as
well as in the costume. Not one of them is like another. There has
been no tampering with them, no forgery. On the contrary, there is in
each a difference, a very marked personality. Leonard Gaultier, who
published this engraving towards the end of the sixteenth century,
reproduced a great many portraits besides from chalk drawings, in the
style of his master, Thomas de Leu. It must have been such drawings
that were the originals of those portraits which he alone has issued,
and which may therefore be as authentic and reliable as the others
whose correctness we are in a position to verify.