1n6xZiV

[ Aetat. 23 ] J O Y C E 209Maupassant writes very well, of course, but I am afraid that his moralsense is rather obtuse. The Dublin papers will object to my stories as to acaricature of Dublin life. Do you think there is any truth in this? At timesthe spirit directing my pen seems to me so plainly mischievous that I amalmost prepared to let the Dublin critics have their way. All these pros andcons I must for the nonce lock up in my bosom. Of course do not thinkthat I consider contemporary Irish writing anything but ill-written, morallyobtuse formless caricature.Stanislaus wrote Joyce a meticulous criticism of the stories, concludingwith the highest praise. His brother was pleased, as he had been withStanislaus's praise of his novel, but argumentative too in his reply ofSeptember 18, 1905:I am much obliged for your careful criticism of my stories. Your comparisonof them with certain others is somewhat dazzling. The authors youmention have such immense reputations that I am afraid you may be wrong.Lermontoff says, apropos of the Confessions of Rousseau, that they werevitiated by the fact that Rousseau read them to his friends. I hardly think,arguing from the conditions in which they are written, that these storiescan be superlatively good. I wish I could talk to you fully on this as onmany other subjects. Your remark that Counterparts shows a Russian abilityin taking the reader for an intracranial journey set me thinking whaton earth people mean when they talk of'Russian.' You probably mean acertain scrupulous brute force in writing and, from the few Russians I haveread, this does not seem to be eminently Russian. The chief thing I findin nearly all Russians is a scrupulous instinct for caste. Of course, I don'tagree with you about Turgenieff. He does not seem to me to be very muchsuperior to Korolenko (have you read any of his?) or Lermontoff. He is alittle dull (not clever) and at times theatrical. I think many admire himbecause he is 'gentlemanly' just as they admire Gorky because he is 'ungentlemanly.'Talking of Gorky what do you think of him? He has a greatname with Italians. As for Tolstoy I disagree with you altogether. Tolstoyis a magnificent writer. He is never dull, never stupid, never tired, neverpedantic, never theatrical! He is head and shoulders over the others. Idon't take him very seriously as a Christian saint. I think he has a verygenuine spiritual nature but I suspect that he speaks the very best Russianwith a St Petersburg accent and remembers the Christian name of hisgreat-great-grandfather (this, I find, is at the bottom of the essentially feudalart of Russia). I see that he wrote a 13 column letter to The Times ofLondon attacking governments. Even the English 'liberal' papers are indignant.Not merely does he attack armaments, he even alludes to the Tsaras a 'weak-minded Hussar officer, standing below the intellectual level ofmost of his subjects, grossly superstitious and of coarse tastes.' The Englishliberals are shocked: they would call him vulgar but that they know he isa prince. A writer in the Illustrated London News sneers at Tolstoy for notunderstanding WAR. 'Poor dear man!' he says. Now, damn it, I'm rathergood-tempered but this is a little bit too much. Did you ever hear suchimpudence? Do they think the author of Resurrection and Anna Karenin