Émile ZOLA. 2 autograph manuscripts, Pro Domo mea, and discours, [1881-1897]; 13pages and a half in-8 (cut out for printing), and 7pages small in-4, all window-mounted in 24 and 7 sheets of wove paper, and bound in an in-4 volume in red morocco with triple gilt fillet framing the boards, ornate 5-rib spine, inner morocco frame with gilt lace, gilt edges. (Wallis) Collection of two texts: a vigorous response to the attacks against him, and a tribute to Arsène Houssaye. The first manuscript relates to the year-long campaign of articles Zola wrote for Le Figaro, from September 20, 1880 to September 22, 1881, at the request of editor Francis Magnard; his 53 articles were collected and published in Une campagne, 1880-1881 (G. Charpentier, 1882). Pro domo mea was published on the front page of Le Figaro on July 18, 1881, in response to Albert Wolff's "Courrier de Paris" in Le Figaro on July 12, violently criticizing Zola's article on Alexis and Maupassant, published the day before. The manuscript is written in black ink on 14 sheets of very fine blue paper, which were cut out at the newspaper for printing; the last three paragraphs, very brief, are missing. There are a few erasures and corrections. Zola begins: "I am accused of speaking too often about myself. But, in truth, my position is terrible. Attacked from all sides, and almost always in an odious manner, I naturally have only two choices: not to reply, which I do nine times out of ten, and then be seen as a man crushed under triumphant indictments; or to reply, and then be convinced of having cluttered up the press with my vain personality". This time, he has just been rudely taken to task by Albert Wolff, for talking about the young novelist Paul Alexis (who had mocked the columnist in an article). And Zola wonders: "Is it tolerable for a contributor to fall on another contributor, in connection with an article in which he is in no way mentioned, and under the pretext that talent is attributed to a writer he detests? The answer is a foregone conclusion. We enjoy a great deal of freedom at Le Figaro, a precious freedom that I may have abused myself. But I have never gone so far as to directly question one of my collaborators, to name him, to question him, to search his conscience, to demand explanations, to give him advice. An editor-in-chief wouldn't even dare to take such an attitude. He would bring the editor into his office and not let the public witness a family laundry. Albert Wolff's article is unacceptable: "I have no explanation to offer Mr. Albert Wolff, and I categorically refuse his advice. I no more grant him the right to intervene in what I write here, than I arrogate to myself the right to control what he publishes here. He does his job, I do mine. It's up to our editor to take care of these things, and it's the public alone who must judge our articles". Zola learns that his articles in Le Figaro often offend Albert Wolff: "He would find that I don't share his ideas, that I thwart him, that I share neither his friendships nor his enmities. This is certainly unfortunate. But he doesn't think about one thing: that I, for my part, could voice the same complaints. Why doesn't he have my ideas? Why doesn't he respect my friends and help me defeat my enemies?" Zola tolerates Wolff's articles "which go against everything I think and everything I write", and Wolff should have the same patience with him... "The pleasant part of the story is that M. Albert Wolff's friends, daily, drag me through the mud. Have I ever publicly invited him to stop having their names printed in Le Figaro? Do I get angry when he finds them very talented, while I find them not at all? No, I let him have his freedom, and I only allow myself to claim mine. [...] In short, we express our ideas freely here, we sign our articles, and it's up to the public alone to decide, without us having to blame one another"... Zola recalls that it was Francis Magnard who "offered to run a campaign in this paper. I didn't hide from him that I didn't share all the opinions of Le Figaro; but I undertook to express mine politely, in such a way as to spare just sensitivities [...] I am therefore here only the guest of a moment, to whom we are willing to give complete freedom of speech, knowing that he will not abuse it. When Mr. Albert Wolff advises me to return to the ranks, he is singularly mistaken.