We should incur a great risk of deceiving ourselves， were we to conclude from this that Monseigneur Welcome was "a philosophical bishop，" or a "patriotic cure." His meeting， which may almost be designated as his union， with conventionary G——， left behind it in his mind a sort of astonishment， which rendered him still more gentle. That is all.
Although Monseigneur Bienvenu was far from being a politician， this is， perhaps， the place to indicate very briefly what his attitude was in the events of that epoch， supposing that Monseigneur Bienvenu ever dreamed of having an attitude.
Let us， then， go back a few years.
Some time after the elevation of M. Myriel to the episcopate， the Emperor had made him a baron of the Empire， in company with many other bishops. The arrest of the Pope took place， as every one knows， on the night of the 5th to the 6th of July， 1809; on this occasion， M. Myriel was summoned by Napoleon to the synod of the bishops of France and Italy convened at Paris. This synod was held at Notre-Dame， and assembled for the first time on the 15th of June， 1811， under the presidency of Cardinal Fesch. M. Myriel was one of the ninety-five bishops who attended it. But he was present only at one sitting and at three or four private conferences. Bishopof a mountain diocese， living so very close to nature， in rusticity and deprivation， it appeared that he imported among these eminent personages， ideas which altered the temperature of the assembly. He very soon returned to D—— He was interrogated as to this speedy return， and he replied: "I embarrassed them. The outside air penetrated to them through me. I produced on them the effect of an open door."
On another occasion he said， "What would you have? Those gentlemen are princes. I am only a poor peasant bishop."
The fact is that he displeased them. Among other strange things， it is said that he chanced to remark one evening， when he found himself at the house of one of his most notable colleagues: "What beautiful clocks! What beautiful carpets! What beautiful liveries! They must be a great trouble. I would not have all those superfluities， crying incessantly in my ears: `There are people who are hungry! There are people who are cold! There are poor people! There are poor people!'"
Let us remark， by the way， that the hatred of luxury is not an intelligent hatred. This hatred would involve the hatred of the arts. Nevertheless， in churchmen， luxury is wrong， except in connection with representations and ceremonies. It seems to reveal habits which have very little that is charitable about them. An opulent priest is a contradiction. The priest must keepclose to the poor. Now， can one come in contact incessantly night and day with all this distress， all these misfortunes， and this poverty， without having about one's own person a little of that misery， like the dust of labor? Is it possible to imagine a man near a brazier who is not warm? Can one imagine a workman who is working near a furnace， and who has neither a singed hair， nor blackened nails， nor a dropof sweat， nor a speck of ashes on his face? The first proof of charity in the priest， in the bishopespecially， is poverty.
This is， no doubt， what the Bishopof D—— thought.
It must not be supposed， however， that he shared what we call the "ideas of the century" on certain delicate points. He took very little part in the theological quarrels of the moment， and maintained silence on questions in which Church and State were implicated; but if he had been strongly pressed， it seems that he would have been found to be an ultramontane rather than a gallican. Since we are making a portrait， and since we do not wish to conceal anything， we are forced to add that he was glacial towards Napoleon in his decline. Beginning with 1813， he gave in his adherence to or applauded all hostile manifestations. He refused to see him， as he passed through on his return from the island of Elba， and he abstained from ordering public prayers for the Emperor in his diocese during the Hundred Days.
Besides his sister， Mademoiselle Baptistine， he had two brothers， one a general， the other a prefect. He wrote to both with tolerable frequency. He was harsh for a time towards the former， because， holding a command in Provence at the epoch of the disembarkation at Cannes， the general had put himself at the head of twelve hundred men and had pursued the Emperor as though the latter had been a person whom one is desirous of allowing to escape. His correspondence with the other brother， the ex-prefect， a fine， worthy man who lived in retirement at Paris， Rue Cassette， remained more affectionate.
Thus Monseigneur Bienvenu also had his hour of party spirit， his hour of bitterness， his cloud. The shadow of the passions of the moment traversed this grand and gentle spirit occupied with eternal things. Certainly， such a man would have done well not to entertain any political opinions. Let there be no mistake as to our meaning: we are not confounding what is called "political opinions" with the grand aspiration for progress， with the sublime faith， patriotic， democratic， humane， which in our day should be the very foundation of every generous intellect. Without going deeply into questions which are only indirectly connected with the subject of this book， we will simply say this: It would have been well if Monseigneur Bienvenu had not been a Royalist， and if his glance had never been， for a single instant， turned away from that serene contemplation in which is distinctly discernible， above the fictions and the hatreds of this world， above the stormy vicissitudes of human things， the beaming of those three pure radiances， truth， justice， and charity.
While admitting that it was not for a political office that God created Monseigneur Welcome， we should have understood and admired his protest in the name of right and liberty， his proud opposition， his just but perilous resistance to the all-powerful Napoleon. But that which pleases us in people who are rising pleases us less in the case of people who are falling. We only love the fray so long as there is danger， and in any case， the combatants of the first hour have alone the right to be the exterminators of the last. He who has not been a stubborn accuser in prosperity should hold his peace in the face of ruin. The denunciator of success is the only legitimate executioner of the fall. As for us， when Providence intervenes and strikes， we let it work. 1812 commenced to disarm us. In 1813 the cowardly breach of silence of that taciturn legislative body， emboldened by catastrophe， possessed only traits which aroused indignation. And it was a crime to applaud， in 1814， in the presence of those marshals who betrayed; in the presence of that senate which passed from one dunghill to another， insulting after having deified; in the presence of that idolatry which was loosing its footing and spitting on its idol，-- it was a duty to turn aside the head. In 1815， when the supreme disasters filled the air， when France was seized with a shiver at their sinister approach， when Waterloo could be dimly discerned opening before Napoleon， the mournful acclamation of the army and the people to the condemned of destiny had nothing laughable in it， and， after making all allowance for the despot， a heart like that of the Bishopof D——， ought not perhaps to have failed to recognize the august and touching features presented by the embrace of a great nation and a great man on the brink of the abyss.
With this exception， he was in all things just， true， equitable， intelligent， humble and dignified， beneficent and kindly， which is only another sort of benevolence. He was a priest， a sage， and a man. It must be admitted， that even in the political views with which we have just reproached him， and which we are disposed to judge almost with severity， he was tolerant and easy， more so， perhaps， than we who are speaking here. The porter of the town-hall had been placed there by the Emperor. He was an old non-commissioned officer of the old guard， a member of the Legion of Honor at Austerlitz， as much of a Bonapartist as the eagle. This poor fellow occasionally let slipinconsiderate remarks， which the law then stigmatized as seditious speeches. After the imperial profile disappeared from the Legion of Honor， he never dressed himself in his regimentals， as he said， so that he should not be obliged to wear his cross. He had himself devoutly removed the imperial effigy from the cross which Napoleon had given him; this made a hole， and he would not put anything in its place. "I will die，" he said， "rather than wear the three frogs upon my heart!" He liked to scoff aloud at Louis XVIII. "The gouty old creature in English gaiters!" he said; "let him take himself off to Prussia with that queue of his." He was happy to combine in the same imprecation the two things which he most detested， Prussia and England. He did it so often that he lost his place. There he was， turned out of the house， with his wife and children， and without bread. The Bishopsent for him， reproved him gently， and appointed him beadle in the cathedral.
In the course of nine years Monseigneur Bienvenu had， by dint of holy deeds and gentle manners， filled the town of D—— with a sort of tender and filial reverence. Even his conduct towards Napoleon had been accepted and tacitly pardoned， as it were， by the people， the good and weakly flock who adored their emperor， but loved their bishop.
如果我们就凭以上所述作出结论，认为卞福汝主教是个“有哲学头脑的主教”或是个“爱国的神甫”，我们就很可能发生错误。他和那国民公会G．代表的邂逅棗几乎可以说是他们的结合，只不过给他留下了一种使他变得更加温良的惊叹的回忆。如是而已。
卞福汝主教虽然是个政治中人，我们或许也还应当在这里极简略地谈谈他对当代的国家大事所抱的态度，假定卞福汝主教也曾想过要采取一种态度的话。
我们不妨把几年前的一些事回顾一下。
米里哀先生升任主教不久，皇上便封了他为帝国的男爵，同时也封了好几个旁的主教。我们知道，教皇是在一八○九年七月五日至六日的夜晚被拘禁的，为了这件事，米里哀先生被拿破仑召到巴黎去参加法兰西和意大利的主教会议。那次会议是在圣母院举行的，一八一一年六月十五日，在红衣主教斐许主持下，召开了第一次会议。九十五个主教参加了会议，米里哀先生是其中之一。但是他只参加过一次大会和三四次特别会。他是一个山区的主教，平时过着僻陋贫困的生活，和自然环境接近惯了，他觉得他替那些达官贵人带来了一种改变会场气氛的见解。他匆匆忙忙地回到迪涅去了。有人问他为什么回去得那样匆促，他回答：
“他们见了我不顺眼。外面的空气老跟着我钻到他们那里去。我在他们的眼里好象是一扇带不上的门。”
另外一次，他还说：
“有什么办法？那些先生们全是王子王孙。而我呢，只是一个干瘪瘪的乡下主教。”
他确是惹人嫌，不时作怪。有一晚，他在一个最有地位的同道家里，说出了这样的话，也许是脱口而出的：
“这许多漂亮的挂钟！这许多漂亮的地毯！这许多漂亮的服装！这些东西好不麻烦！我真不愿意听这些累赘的东西时常在我的耳边喊‘许多人在挨饿呢！许多人在挨冻呢！穷人多着呢！穷人多着呢！’”
我们顺便谈谈，对华贵物品的仇恨也许是不聪明的，因为这种仇恨隐藏着对艺术的敌意。不过，就教会中人来说，除了表示身份和举行仪式而外，使用华贵物品是错误的。那些东西仿佛可以揭露那种并非真心真意解囊济困的作风。教士养尊处优，就是离经叛道。教士应当接近穷人。一个人既然日日夜夜和一切灾难、苦痛、贫困相接触，难道在他自己身上竟能不象在劳动中沾上一些尘土那样，一点也不带那种圣洁的清寒味吗？我们能想象一个人站在烈火旁而不感到热吗？我们能想象一个工人经常在溶炉旁工作，而能没有一根头发被烧掉，没有一个手指被熏黑，脸上没有一滴汗珠，也没有一点灰屑吗？教士，尤其是主教，他的仁慈的最起码的保证，便是清苦。
这一定就是迪涅主教先生的见解了。
我们还不应当认为他在某些棘手问题上肯迎合那种所谓的“时代的思潮”。他很少参加当时的神学争辩，对政教的纠纷问题，他也不表示意见；但是，如果有人向他紧紧追问，他就仿佛是偏向罗马派方面而并不属于法国派①。我们既然是在描写一个人，并且不愿有所隐讳，我们就必须补充说明他对那位气焰渐衰的拿破仑，可以说是冷若冰霜的。一八一三年②以后，他曾经参与，或鼓掌赞同过各种反抗活动。拿破仑从厄尔巴岛③回来时，他拒绝到路旁去欢迎他，在“百日帝政”④期间，也不曾替皇上布置公祭。除了他的妹子巴狄斯丁姑娘以外，他还有两个亲兄弟，一个当过将军，一个当过省长。他和他们通信，相当频繁。有个时期，他对第一个兄弟颇为冷淡，因为那个兄弟原来镇守普罗旺斯⑤。戛纳登陆时那位将军统率一千二百人去截击皇上，却又有意放他走过。另外那个兄弟，当过省长，为人忠厚自持，隐居在巴黎卡塞特街，他给这个兄弟的信就比较富于手足之情。
①从一六八二年起，法国天主教以国内教士代表会议为处理宗教事务的最高权力机关，不完全接受罗马教皇的命令，是为法国派（gallican），主张完全依附教皇的称罗马派（ultramontain）。直到一八七○年，法国天主教始完全依附于罗马教皇。
②一八一三年，拿破仑政权已濒于危殆，英、俄等七国联军节节进逼，国内工商业发生危机，由于缺乏劳动力，又因增加税收，大量征兵，资产阶级开始离贰，人民纷纷逃避兵役，老贵族也乘机阴谋恢复旧王朝。③拿破仑在一八一四年四月六日被迫逊位后，即被送往厄尔巴岛。王朝复辟，执行反动政策，人民普遍不满。拿破仑乘机于一八一五年三月一日在南方港口茹安（在戛纳附近）登陆，重返巴黎。
④拿破仑三月一日在茹安登陆，六月二十二日第二次逊位，那一时期叫“百日帝政”。
⑤普罗旺斯（Provence），法国南部一省。
足见卞福汝主教也偶尔有过他的政见、他的苦闷、他的隐情。当年的爱憎的暗影也曾穿过他那颗温和宽厚、追求永恒事物的心。当然，象他那样的人最好是没有政治见解。请不要把我们的意思歪曲了，我们所说的“政治见解”并不是指那种对进步所抱的热望，也不是指我们今天构成各方面真诚团结的内在力量的那种卓越的爱国主义、民主主义和人道主义思想，彼此不可相混。我们不必深究那些只间接涉及本书内容的问题，我们只简单地说，假使卞福汝不是保王党，假使他的目光从来一刻也不曾离开过他那种宁静的景仰，并且能超然于人世的风云变幻之外，能在景仰中看清真理、公正、慈善等三道纯洁光辉的放射，那就更美满了。
我们尽管承认上帝之所以创造卞福汝主教，绝不是为了一种政治作用，也仍然可以了解和钦佩他为人权和自由所提出的抗议，也就是他对那位不可一世的拿破仑所抱的高傲的对立态度和公正而危险的抗拒行为。但是藐视一个失势的人究竟不如藐视一个得势的人那样足快人意。我们只爱具有危险的斗争，在任何情况下，只有最初参加斗争的战士才有最后歼灭敌人的权利。谁没有在全盛时期提出过顽强的抗议，等到垮台时，谁就不该有发言权。只有控诉过胜利的人才有权裁判失败。至于我们，在上天不佑、降以大祸时，我们只能听其自然。一八一二年开始解除我们的武装。一八一三年，那个素来默不作声的立法机构，在国难临头时居然勇气百倍，大放厥词，这样只能令人齿冷，何足鼓掌称快？一八一四年，元帅们出卖祖国，上院从一个污池进入另一污池，始则尊为神人，继乃横加侮渎，从来崇拜偶像，忽又中途变节，反唾其面，这些事理应引起我们的反感；一八一五年，最后的灾难步步进逼了，法兰西因大祸临头而危险了，滑铁卢好象也展开在拿破仑跟前隐约可辨了；那时，军士和人民对那个祚运已尽的人的壮烈欢呼绝没有什么令人发叹的，并且，先不论那个专制魔王是个怎样的人，当此千钧一发之际，这伟大的民族和这伟大的人杰间的紧密团结总是庄严动人的，象迪涅主教那样一个人的心，似乎不应当熟视无睹。
除此以外，无论对什么事，他从来总是正直、诚实、公平、聪明、谦虚、持重的，好行善事，关心别人，这也是一种品德。他是一个神甫，一个贤达之士，也是一个大丈夫。他的政治见解，我们刚才已经批评过了，我们也几乎还可以严厉地指责他，可是应当指出，他尽管抱有那种见解，和我们这些现在在此地谈话的人比较起来，也许还更加厚道，更加平易近人一些。市政府的那个门房，当初是皇上安插在那里的。他原是旧羽林军里的一名下级军官，奥斯特里茨①战役勋章的获得者，一个象鹰那样精悍的拿破仑信徒。那个倒霉鬼会时常于无意中吐出一些牢骚话，那是被当时法律认为“叛逆言论”的。自从勋章上的皇帝侧面像被取消以后，为了避免佩带他那十字勋章，他的衣着就从来不再“遵照规定”（照他的说法）。他亲自把皇上的御影从拿破仑给他的那个十字勋章上虔诚地摘下来，那样就留下了一个窟窿，他却绝不愿代以其他的饰物。他常说：“我宁死也不愿在我的胸前挂上三个癞虾蟆！”他故意大声挖苦路易十八②。他又常说：“扎英国绑腿的烂脚鬼！快带着他的辫子到普鲁士去吧！”他以能那样把他最恨的两件东西，普鲁士和英格兰，连缀在一句骂人的话里而感到得意。他骂得太起劲了，以致丢了差事。他带着妻子儿女，无衣无食，流浪街头。主教却把他招来，轻轻责备了几句，派他去充当天主堂里的持戟士。
①奥斯特里茨（Austerlitz），在捷克境内，一八○五年，拿破仑在此战胜奥俄联军。
②路易十八是路易十六的兄弟，拿破仑失败后，他在英普联军护送下回到巴黎，恢复了波旁王室的统治。
米里哀先生在他的教区里是一个名副其实的神甫，是大众的朋友。
九年以来，由于他行为圣洁，作风和蔼，卞福汝主教使迪涅城里充满一种柔顺的推崇。连他对拿破仑的态度也被人民接受，默宥了，人民原是一群善良柔弱的牛羊，他们崇拜他们的皇上，也爱戴他们的主教。
