They said in the inspecting office:  Take heed of what is to follow, and when the following number appeared, they made war on it to the syllable.  The people in the office are not obliged to read all; and when they saw that some one had written about a woman removing all her clothing, they were startled enough without going further.  It is true that, differing from our great masters, Flaubert has not taken the trouble to describe the alabaster of her bare arms, throat, etc.  He has not said, as did a poet whom we love: 

I see her alabaster limbs ardent and pure,
Smooth as ebony, like the lily, coral, roses, veins of azure,
Such indeed, as in former times thou showedst to me
Of nudity embellished and adorned;
When nights slipped by, and pillows soft
Saw thee from my kisses waking and sleeping oft.

He has said nothing like this of Andre Chenier’s.  But he finally said: 

“She abandoned herself....  Her clothing fell from her.”

She abandoned herself!  Why not?  Is all description to be prohibited?  But when one makes an incriminating charge, he should read the whole, and the Government Attorney has not read the whole.  The passage he makes the charge against does not stop where he stopped; it has a corrective, and here it is: 

“Nevertheless, there was upon this brow covered with cold drops, upon these stammering lips, in these bewildered eyes, in the clasp of these arms something extreme, something vague and lugubrious which seemed to Leon to glide between them in some subtle fashion, as if to separate them.”

In the office they did not read that.  The Government Attorney just now did not notice it.  He only saw this: 

“Then, with a single gesture, she allowed all her clothes to fall from her.”

And then he cries out:  An outrage to public morals!  Surely, it is too easy to accuse with a system like this.  God forbid that the authors of dictionaries fall under the Government Attorney’s hand!  Who could escape condemnation if, by means of cutting, not of phrases, but of words, one is to be informed of a list he has made that might offend morals or religion?

My client’s first thought, which unfortunately met with resistance, was this:  “There is only one thing to do:  print the book immediately, not with parts cut out, but the work entire as it left my hands, restoring to it the scene in the cab.”  I was of his opinion, believing that the best defense of my client would be a complete imprint of the work with special indication of some points to which we would beg to draw the Court’s attention.  I myself gave the title to this publication:  Memoir of Gustave Flaubert for the prevention of outrage to religious morals brought against him.  I had written on it with my hand:  Civil Court, Sixth Chamber, with the signature of the President and the Public Minister.  There was a preface in which was written: 

“They have indicted me with phrases taken here and there from my book; I can only defend myself with the whole book.”