Albert Camus reviews

Albert Camus (1913 to 1960) was a French philosopher, novelist, author, dramatist, journalist and political activist. He was awarded the 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature at the age of 44, the second-youngest recipient in its history, and the first literature laureate born in Africa (he was born in Algeria).

Camus is often bracketed with his sometime friend and rival, Jean-Paul Sartre, but although they both wrote about the angst, absurdity and the alienation of existence, they are essentially different. Sartre was a professional philosopher, steeped in the subtleties of the European tradition, who did creative writing on the side, while Camus was more of a literary writer and essayist who wrote about ‘deep’ themes but in a psychological, literary and impressionist way. Which is why, for example, his 1951 book about communism, ‘The Rebel’, is impressive for a creative writer but Sartre and other critics ridiculed it for its lack of philosophical depth or rigour.

Before the Second World War Camus’s style was a little tortuous and convoluted; afterwards it became clearer and plainer but was never as lucid and clear as he and his fans claimed. When I was a troubled teenager I loved the descriptions of absurdity and despair; as an adult I am more persuaded by his lyrical descriptions of Mediterranean heat and sun and sand.

But my entire view of Camus was transformed by reading Edward Said’s 1994 essay which situates him as a typical late-imperial writer, born into a French colony which began fighting for its independence after the war, and torn between sympathy for the nationalists and nostalgia for the good old days of European supremacy.

Albert Camus works

  • Caligula (1939) An early play which Camus described as part of the ‘Cycle of the Absurd’, along with the short novel ‘The Outsider’ (1942) and the long essay, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) – a series of scenes depicting the Roman emperor Caligula’s madness as a quest to achieve Total Freedom, which turns out to be close to complete madness.
  • L’Étranger (The Outsider) (1942) A short philosophical novel following Meursault, an emotionally blank young French Algerian who, for no reason, shoots an Algerian man on a beach and is brought to a trial which reveals the blank meaninglessness and absurdity of his life.
  • Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus ) (1942) Long philosophical essay addressing the issue: if we live in a godless meaningless universe, why not commit suicide? Camus’s answer is based on the idea that people must revolt against their condition and embrace the absurdity, making it meaningful and even joyous.
  • Essays from The Myth of Sisyphus Notes on the five other essays published alongside the Myth, all of them featuring lyrical descriptions of the hot Mediterranean landscape of Algeria.
  • Le Malentendu (The Misunderstanding, or Cross Purpose) (1944) Play about a man who has been living overseas for many years, who returns home to find his sister and widowed mother are making a living by taking in lodgers and murdering them.
  • La Peste (The Plague) (1947) Camus’s longest creative work, a philosophical novel detailing the (fictional) outbreak of plague in the Algerian city of Oran, and the struggle of characters like Dr Bernard Rieux and Jean Tarrou to cope. It is generally taken as an allegory for the French Resistance struggle against Nazi occupation, and raises extensive questions about ‘the human condition’ amid themes of absurdity, exile and solidarity.
  • Camus’s style in The Plague My critique of Camus’s often wordy and obscure prose style.
  • Les Justes (The Just Assassins) (1949) A play following the activities and impassioned arguments of a small group of revolutionary socialists in Russia, in 1905, who are planning to assassinate the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the fifth son of Tsar Alexander II.
  • L’Homme révolté (The Rebel) (1951) A long essay recapitulating the history of political violence from the French Revolution to Stalin’s show trials, designed to refute arguments for revolutionary violence or state terror, and to affirm positive, humanistic values. Widely mocked by critics, Camus never again wrote a sustained philosophical work.
  • La Chute (The Fall) (1956) Short novel set in a bar in Amsterdam where former Paris lawyer Jean-Baptiste Clamence tells the unnamed, unspeaking auditor how his once superb confidence was slowly chipped away and undermined until he realised his entire life was a sham.
  • L’exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) (1957) Six late short stories in which Camus’s early notion of the Absurd is replaced by the deeper, richer notion of ‘exile’ and the struggle to feel ‘at home’ anywhere in the world.
  • Resistance, Rebellion, and Death (1961) A selection of 23 short essays from Camus’s entire journalistic and speech-making output, chosen by the man himself in the year of his death, 1960, all addressing contemporary political issues and clustered around two big historical moments, the Second World War and the Algerian War.

Essays about Camus

  • Camus by Conor Cruise O’Brien (1970) A book-length study which anticipates Said’s critique by highlighting Camus’s erasure of native Algerians from his fiction and essays.
  • Edward Said on Albert Camus (1994) A chapter from Said’s 1993 book, ‘Culture and Imperialism’, a brilliant (if wordy) rethinking of Camus’s position as a child of French imperialism, trapped between his liberal sympathy with 1950s Algerians calling for independence, and his boyhood memories of an Algeria untroubled by politics or violence.

Camus and Sartre

Algerian war of independence

Jean-Paul Sartre reviews

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 to 1980) was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, literary critic and, eventually, cultural icon. He was a defining figure in the Continental philosophy of existentialism and is widely considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism.

At school we studied ‘Les Mains Sales’ for French A-level so I read all the other Sartre books I could get my hands on for context, and they had a profound and very negative effect on me. Forty years later I’m able to revisit his works with a much more objective and dispassionate eye.

Jean-Paul Sartre reviews

  • The Flies (1943) A play retelling the Greek myth of Orestes to dramatise Sartre’s existentialist ideas about freedom, responsibility, and guilt, written during the Nazi occupation of France.
  • Huis Clos (1944) Sartre’s most famous play: three characters are locked in a room in hell – there are no tortures, flames etc but they cannot leave the room. Gradually the character reveal the cowardly or cruel actions that led them there and realise that they are trapped not to be physically tortured, but to torment one another indefinitely through judgment, accusation, desire, and emotional dependence.
  • The Age of Reason (1945) First novel in ‘Roads To Freedom’ trilogy, a third-person narrative set in Paris in 1938 which focuses on two days in the life of Mathieu Delarue, a 34-year-old, tall, gangly philosophy teacher who spends a lot of time mooching round the streets of Paris feeling sorry for himself, worrying about his pregnant mistress and his radical friends.
  • The Reprieve (1945) Second novel in the ‘Roads To Freedom’ trilogy, a long, panoramic account of the lives of some 130 characters during the week in September 1938 of the Munich Crisis, twice as long as the first one, fragmented and experimental, a riveting read.
  • Existentialism is a Humanism (1945) Text of a public lecture Sartre gave in 1945 to explain his theory of existentialism and rebut various criticisms.
  • The Respectful Prostitute (1946) A slight play set in the American South, demonstrating that country’s appalling racism and a testament to the vitriolic anti-Americanism of 1950s French intellectuals.
  • Dirty Hands (1948) The longest and most satisfying of the Sartre plays I’ve reviewed, it’s set in a fictional Balkan country in the late stages of the war and dramatises the agonising of Hugo Barine, an idealistic communist, about whether or not to assassinate the leader of the national communist party, Hoederer, who he idolises but becomes persuaded is about to betray the movement. Just to complicate things. Hugo has an intelligent strong-willed wife, Jessica, who falls in love with the leader leading to impassioned arguments about freedom, commitment and so on.
  • Iron In The Soul (1949) Third novel in the ‘Roads To Freedom’ trilogy, covering far fewer characters than its predecessor, over four intense days at the end of the Battle of France i.e. the German invasion, in June 1940, leading up to a dramatic last-ditch battle in a French town where the central figure, Mathieu Delarue, appears to be killed.
  • The Last Chance (1) The Roads To Freedom trilogy was originally intended to comprise four novels but Sartre only published a few chapters of the fourth one before abandoning it. Only in the 1980s were these published in France in a scholarly edition with introduction and notes, and only in 2009 was this given an English translation. This first blog post is a comprehensive summary of all the apparatus surrounding the texts, including context, introductions and interviews.
  • The Last Chance (2) This second blog post is a plot summary of the two parts of the unfinished novel: in the first we meet Brunet, Schneider and thousands of other French POWs imprisoned in a German prison camp in freezing winter conditions in January 1941 (much as Sartre was himself) before they make a bid to escape. In the second fragment we are reunited with Mathieu Delarue who we thought died at the end of the third book, but turns out to have survived.

Context

At The Existentialist Café by Sarah Bakewell (2016)

A writer is a person who describes, and thus a person who is free – for a person who can exactly describe what he or she experiences can also exert some control over those events.
(At The Existentialist Café, page 104)

Brilliant

Suffice to say this is the only book I’ve ever read which not only explains what phenomenology was, but makes you understand how cool and revolutionary it felt in the 1920s.

It also provides, better than anything I’ve ever read, an intellectual biography of Martin Heidegger, explaining his initial devotion to the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, then their growing estrangement, in terms of their diverging philosophies and worldviews.

I thought the book would be mostly about Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir, and they certainly appear at the beginning and then feature in the second half – but the central achievement of At The Existentialist Café is to embed them among a) the broader strands of existentialist thought of the 1920s, 30s and 40s b) among a whole range of other thinkers who emerge as at least, if not more, interesting than the famous three, namely:

  • Husserl and Heidegger, who are worth reading about again and again
  • their disciples, like Karl Jaspers or Emmanuel Levinas
  • French colleagues, especially the fascinating figure of Maurice Merleau-Ponty
  • and related writers – there’s a section on Black American émigrés to post-war Paris such as Richard Wright and James Baldwin, which is very enlightening

Bakewell has the priceless gift of being able to weave together biography, cultural context and summaries of (sometimes very difficult) philosophical writings, to dazzling effect. She doesn’t just summarise the philosophy but – in the classic existentialist style – makes you feel the force and excitement of the ideas of Husserl or Heidegger.

Thus the chapter on Simone de Beauvoir’s feminist classic, The Second Sex, makes it sound like not just another long old dusty tome languishing on your to-do list – but an intellectually thrilling, world-changing book which is still completely relevant to our contemporary situation.

Similarly, her description of Heidegger takes full account of his personal weirdness, his obsessions and narrowness, his impenetrable home-made jargon and, of course, his notorious Nazi sympathies – but nonetheless argues strongly for the sheer beauty of many passages in his strange disorientating philosophy, and actually manages to convey this.

Her description of Richard Wright immediately made me want to run out and grab a copy of his novel, Native Son. The same for the works of Merleau-Ponty – until this book just a name I’d come across in biographical sketches of Sartre, but who now emerges as a fascinating thinker in his own right – and for Emmanuel Levinas and Karl Jaspers, and so on.

Edmund Husserl (1859 to 1938)

At the turn of the twentieth century Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) thought that philosophy had become too technocratic, too dominated by bloodless, calculating scientific attitudes, by grand theories starting from over-familiar axioms or philosophical cruxes. But it is obvious that humans – even philosophers – are already in the world, engaged in all kinds of ways with eating, drinking, sleeping, and managing innumerable encounters with other people.

Edmund Husserl

Edmund Husserl

Husserl advocated stripping away, ‘bracketing out’, all the philosophical, rational, technical and scientific terminology from our thoughts (in a move known as the ‘phenomenological reduction’) and then trying to describe what it feels like to think, to see, to perceive, to encounter others – in other words, to be. Husserl’s war cry was ‘To the things themselves!’

The word ‘phenomenon’ is used because it’s an ancient Greek word meaning appearances; generations of philosophers have got hung up on the fundamental question of whether what we (seem to) perceive reflects an actual world ‘out there’. Who cares, says Husserl. If what all of us perceive of the world is the phenomena which fill our minds, so be it: Describe them! Describe the phenomena!

Successive generations of students came to study with him in Freiburg, nicknamed by Levinas ‘the city of phenomenology’, through the 1910s and ’20s. But, unfortunately, they all tended to then go off and develop their own versions of phenomenology. Some were atheist (Heidegger), some were Christian (Jaspers), or at least spiritual – all can be interpreted as part of the anti-rational reaction between the wars which included, in the broadest perspective, movements like Surrealism or Fascism.

Martin Heidegger (1889 to 1976)

Martin Heidegger grew up in a small German village, helped out with church chores, admired traditional local craftsmen, went for long walks in the huge Black Forest. As a student he went to study under Husserl in Freiburg and for three years was his assistant, many thought he was the chosen heir and successor.

Martin Heidegger

Martin Heidegger

But Heidegger grew apart from the master, considering that phenomenology applied itself too promiscuously to all kinds of areas of mental perception and experience, while all the time missing the key, fundamental issue: the nature of existence itself.

For Heidegger all previous philosophy, since the time of Plato and Aristotle, concentrated on knowing, with two thousand years of thinkers elaborating vast superstructures and generating thousands of terms describing theories of sense perception and knowledge and so on.

Heidegger thought this was all a mistake. Every previous philosopher had been in a sense too complex, and had missed the most fundamental thing, the thing right in front of their noses – the fact that we exist at all. What is existence? What the hell is being?

Where Husserl had developed the ‘phenomenological reduction’ as a manoeuvre designed to focus the area of study, Heidegger spoke of the ontological difference. This is the distinction between beings of which there are, of course, an almost infinite number and a vast number of ways of studying – and Being itself, the fundamental bedrock of all lesser beings.

‘Forgetting’ the difference between Being and beings allows traditional philosophers to ‘fall’ into well-worn habits of doing psychology or sociology or any of scores of human sciences, i.e. studying the myriad individual entities in the world: but what of Being itself, the deep ocean which underpins all of existence? What do we know of that? How do we go about understanding the most fundamental aspect of the universe – the simple fact that it exists.

Heidegger wanted to single-handedly overthrow the existing tradition and replace it with a philosophy which systematically explores the nature and consequences of Being. Since no-one else had done this, he naturally had to make up his own terminology for the rapidly proliferating series of ideas and concepts this point of view generated.

Dasein is probably the single most important new term: rather than refer to mankind, or humanity, or people, Heidegger uses Dasein (literally ‘there-be’, more loosely ‘being-there’) to denote the presence of the human in the world. Dasein can then be examined from various perspectives, in relation to other Dasein, to the inanimate world, and to death.

The scale of Heidegger’s ambition – working through a completely new way of seeing and understanding human existence – explains why his work is so often seen as a momentous revolution in philosophy and he is often credited with being the most important 20th century philosopher.

Many readers then and now are put off by his tendency to generate long portmanteau words to try and describe the slippery concepts he’s noticing and explaining. Bakewell comes up with the characteristically useful suggestion that Heidegger (whose work she knows very well, having begun a PhD on him) can sometimes be thought of as a Modernist, experimental writer. His aim is to defamiliarise the world, to constantly make us aware of the strangeness of existence. This is a generally accepted technique in a wide range of literary writers; why not in a philosopher, too?

Existentialism

According to Sartre in Being and Nothingness, there are two types of being: being-in-itself (être-en-soi) describes all inanimate objects and animals; they just persist in their pre-ordained, unthinking selfhood. And this is contrasted with being-for-itself (être-pour-soi) i.e. human beings.

We can think and, above all, choose. We are thrown into the world, interacting with objects and other people, from earliest consciousness and, at countless moments, can choose what to do. We may well be constrained by biology, culture, history and so on, but – deep down and fundamentally – human beings are free as no other entities in the universe are. Free to choose and, when you reflect on it for a moment, this means that the accumulation of all our choices amounts to who we are.

Thus, human beings are unique in that we are continually inventing and creating ourselves through our choices, as no other entities in the world seem to.

Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre

This is the meaning of the catch-phrase, ‘Existence preceded essence’. We are born, thrown into the world, grow, exist and then we choose what we want to be. We exist first – and then we create our essence. There is (on this reading) no pre-existing human nature, or not enough to interfere with the radical uniqueness each of us possesses.

This explains existentialism’s thrilling sense of liberation and freedom for a whole generation of young people after the war.

For sure, Sartre also emphasises the weight of responsibility anyone who really acknowledges their freedom must consequently feel; he bandies around words like anguish and angst quite freely. But the reward for fully acknowledging your freedom and responsibility, is a sense that you are living an ‘authentic’ life, true to yourself, making conscious choices to be what you want to be.

This idea – whether the life you’re living is ‘authentic’ or ‘inauthentic’ – in popular phraseology whether you’re being true to yourself or are a ‘phoney’ – became a dominant idea in pop culture for decades. ‘Phoniness’ is a central issue in the classic teen novel of angst and alienation, Catcher in the Rye (1951).

In fact all these key terms – existentialism, essence, freedom, anguish, authenticity – were widely popularised through newspapers, magazines, radio and so on to become key ideas, feelings, subjects of debate and rules for living among young people in the decades after the war.

Levinas, Merleau-Ponty et al

Bakewell explains how this radical new way of thinking about philosophy (and the drastic new ideas it threw up about human beings, life, society and ethics) opened up all sorts of new perspectives, which were followed up and worked out by slightly more peripheral figures such as Karl Jaspers, Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and many others.

Thus Bakewell paints a really broad and deep and engaging picture of the philosophical tides surging around between-the-wars Western Europe into which keen young, clever young intellectuals like Jean-Paul Sartre and Simon de Beauvoir arrived. Her accounts of their early works make sooooo much sense because she locates them as dialogues and divergences from the writings of these other, earlier, figures who she has spent the first half of the book so thoroughly explaining.

Weil, Arendt, de Beauvoir

Bakewell’s book embodies, for me, the best kind of feminism, which is that she doesn’t nag and complain about all the men being sexists or misogynists (as they probably were); instead she accentuates the positive and devotes a lot of space to showing how many women thinkers of the time more than held their own against the men, and made valuable contributions in their own right.

Simone de Beauvoir is mentioned throughout, as she reacted to the developments in phenomenology and developed her own brand of existentialist thought. She emerges as more nuanced, subtle and life-affirming than Sartre with his queasy hallucinations of being. Bakewell’s passage summarising The Second Sex not only places it among, but makes it sound just as exciting as, the masterworks of Darwin, Freud and Einstein.

Simone de Beauvoir

Simone de Beauvoir

But Bakewell also devotes a long, sympathetic section to the strange, passionate, mystical figure of Simone Weil who achieved a staggering amount in her short life (she died from self-induced starvation Emmanuel presumably some form of anorexia Emmanuel aged just 34).

And she spends some time explicating the biography and changing ideas of Hannah Arendt (1906-75) who, in the 1920s, studied with all three of Heidegger, Husserl and Jaspers, before pursuing her own, definitive, explorations of power and violence.

Her book made me realise how pitifully ignorant I am of the writing of all three of these women, but then it made me realise how ignorant I am of the entire Continental tradition she’s describing. Must try harder.

Summary

If you’re at all interested in the intellectual life of mid-twentieth-century Europe, this book is absolutely vital. It is one of the best, most thorough, capable, calm and lucid, but exciting and motivating books of intellectual history I’ve ever read.


Related link

Related reviews

Ubu Enchained by Alfred Jarry

Executive summary of the Ubu plays

Alfred Jarry’s trilogy of absurdist, scatological plays about the grotesque cartoon figure, Père or Father or Pa Ubu, scandalised theatre-goers at the time (the later 1890s) but were to be revived and lionised by the Surrealists in the 1920s and ’30s, and to become a reference point for the Theatre of the Absurd long after Jarry’s premature death in 1907 at the age of just 34

Introduction

In his introduction to the 1968 Methuen edition of the three Ubu plays, translator Simon Watson Taylor makes the point that, whereas the first two Ubu plays (Ubu Roi and Ubu Cocu) derived from the stories Alfred Jarry and his friends wrote at school, Ubu enchaîné (‘Ubu Enchained’) was the product of a more experienced 26-year-old playwright and so feels like a more detached and consciously controlled exposition of his ‘ideas’. By this time Jarry had had the experience of having two plays staged so had a much better feel for the shape and design of a stage play. In other words, there’s more structure and shape to the nonsense.

What Taylor doesn’t mention but I noticed is that the characters now have a history to live up to and this changes the vibe completely. When you’re just making characters up and inventing preposterous things to happen to them, you can do anything. But when you’ve established some characters, their appearance, their catchphrases, even their tendency to behave madly becomes predictable. Although the ostensible events of ‘Ubu Enchained’ are new, the characters’ general behaviour, mannerisms and multiple catchphrases (‘By my green candle!’) have become formulaic.

This fact is acknowledged in the very first scene of ‘Ubu Enchained’ which has Ubu giving a recap of his and Ma’s adventures in the preceding plays as if by invoking them Jarry can free himself from them. But the effect is the opposite.

Act 1

Scene 1: After the sea voyage at the end of Ubi Cocu they ended up safe and sound here in Paris. Ma Ubu says that if he’s just say the word, Pa would be appointed Minister of Phynances. But Pa Ubu points out that ‘just saying the word’ didn’t prevent…and then launches into a long recap of all their misadventures in Ubu Roi. If he won’t say the word how are they going to survive? He’ll become a slave.

Scene 2: The parade ground with three free men. These soldiers insist that the nature of freedom means they must disobey all orders, march out of step, disobey all orders. This comprises their freedom drill.

Scene 3: Pa is looking for someone to offer his services to just as the Three Free Men pass by.

Scene 4: Ubu slips in among the free men as they do their drills using a toilet brush instead of a rifle. The corporal stops them to ask who it is who is doing the drills properly, for the first time ever. Ubu tells them his experience and that he wants to be a slave. The corporal’s name is Corporal Pissweet.

Scene 5: New characters, canteen girl Eleutheria and her uncle Pissale, who got her the job in the canteen of the Free Men. Every day he takes her to work, worried that the Free Men may take advantage of her. It is (apparently) the custom in this land for the free to go naked but uncle has managed to limit this to Eleutheria’s feet. We learn that she is engaged to the Marquis of Grandmeadow.

Scene 6: Abandoning the Free Men as possible employers Ubu approaches Eleutheria and her uncle offering free foot polishing.

Scene 7: Ubu asks Ma to fetch him his special foot polishing kit. When she points out that Eleutheria isn’t wearing shoes, he says nothing will prevent him carrying out his slavish duties, although old catchphrases keep slipping from his lips (‘Killemoff, debrain!’).

Scene 8: Eleutheria and uncle pass out and, while telling himself he is performing his slavish duty, Ubu steals their wallets. This theme of FREEDOM is belaboured in a variety of ways, for example now the coins Ubu’s stealing have a female figure on one side denoting Freedom. Eleutheria comes round and they call a horse and carriage to make their getaway in.

Act 2

Scene 1: In the coach Eleutheria regains consciousness as Ubu presses his services on her. When she says she never does anything without her uncle’s consent, Ubu pulls her uncle’s corpse out of the carriage boot and Eleutheria faints again.

Ubu considers ravishing Eleutheria but decides against as Ma Ubu is riding on the box just outside and will eviscerate him if she finds him misbehaving. Instead he will take Eleutheria home and imprison her in the confines of his undying service. ‘Hooray for slavery!’

Scene 2: In Uncle Pissale’s house Pa and Ma Ubu have made themselves at home. The bell is being rung, presumably by Eleutheria, but Ubu refuses to answer till he and Ma have eaten all the scoff they can. The ringing continues so Ma Ubu says maybe his mistress needs something to drink. Very angry Ubu stomps down to the wine cellar and comes back carrying numerous bottles. Ma is surprised since she thought she drank the wine cellar dry which Ubu confirms by saying if they scrape the last dregs form each bottle maybe there’ll be a glassfull for his mistress.

Scene 3: In the bedroom of Eleutheria who’s been locked in with the corpse of her uncle. She bewails the way Pa and Ma Ubu have moved in and taken over. She is lamenting her dead uncle when he suddenly sits up, she shrieks and faints.

When she comes round Uncle Pissale says playing dead was just an extension of his method of following her round as unobtrusively as possible. She asks him to eject the ghastly Ubu from their home but uncle says, on the contrary, he is an excellent servant which is why he’s invited Ubu to attend their big party tonight to announce all the guests.

Scene 4: In the hallway Ma points out the front doorbell is ringing. Ubu asks whether she’s balanced the vase full of poo over the front door fir anyone rude enough to want to visit.

Scene 5: The front door is smashed down and, it turns out, by Corporal Pissweet. He is surprised to discover the soldier who marched with his men earlier on. Pissweet says it is an excellent opportunity to try out his theory of indiscipline and gets out a bullwhip to thrash Ubu with. Ubu is delighted because being whipped only proves what a slave he has become!

In the event Ubu is so obese and covered by his ‘strumpot’ that Pissweet exhausts himself whipping him, then demands to be announced to his mistress. In the surreal inversion of values the play keeps harping on about, Ubu insists that in this household only slaves are free enough to give orders.

When Pissweet says that Eleutheria is his mistress, he is her slave, Ubu says that only he can be a slave in that household, in which case Eleutheria is his mistress, in which case he’s going to ravish her and Ubu runs upstairs hotly pursued by Pissweet and Ma.

Scene 6: Cut to that evening’s ball in full swing. Ubu is walzing with Eleutheria. Ma Ubu runs up and tells him he’s a fat pig who’s guzzled all the food and now is dancing with the mistress of the house under his arm. Ubu ignores her and tells Eleutheria that he saved her lots of time by not letting any other guests in, and fulfilled his slavish duties by dancing with her.

Scene 7: Pissweet and the Free Men burst in. the corporal orders them not to arrest Ubu so, to show how free they are, they arrest him and drag him off to prison with Ma Ubu running along behind, determined to share in what (with the inversion of values) she calls his good luck.

Act 3

Scene 1: Pa and Ma are in prison but, with the inversion of values, consider this a great achievement. Ubu congratulates himself on how thick and solid the walls are, how the doors are barred so they’re not subject to endless irritating visitors, and how convenient it is to be served two nourishing meals a day.

Scene 2: A travesty of a trial in the Great Hall of Justice. We learn Ma and Pa’s first names (Victorine and Francis), there’s some jokey counterpointing of the prosecuting and defence counsels who are handling Ubu’s prosecution for abducting Eleutheria.

But then Pa interrupts in order to give another recap of his career (as I said the history of the character hangs heavy by now), emphasising all his crimes and ending up by saying how much he deserves the ultimate punishment of condemnation to the galleys.

And indeed the judge condemns Pa to the galleys. He will be chained by the leg and sent off to the Sultan of Turkey. Ma and Pa go ‘Hurray for slavery!’ Pissweet delivers what could be the motto of the whole play:

PISSWEET: So there really are people who can’t stand the idea of being free! [paging Professor Sartre]

Scene 3: Enter Pa and Ma dragging the iron balls they’re attached to. Pa rejoices in wearing shackles. Ma calls him an idiot so Pa starts treading on her feet.

Scene 4: Cut to two old maids in a room at the academy (the Academie Francaise?) recapping the way a fat old gentleman (Ubu) arrived in this country (France) swearing that he intends to be everyone’s servant.

Scene 5: Brother Bung arrives in this scene to bed charity for prisoners and in particular Pa Ubu, who has barricaded himself into prison where he is enjoying manicuring his nails and eating 12 meals a day.

The two maids say they certainly won’t give any charity to such a slob but Brother Bung warns them that others are coming after him who won’t be so gentle. And indeed he is followed by policemen and wreckers who smash the room to pieces, cart away all the furniture, replace it with straw and generally turn it into a prison cell. Which is the setting for:

Scene 6: In this cell Ubu mocks Pissweet who is soon to marry Eleutheria, telling him how cosy his cell is, how he loves the ball and chain on his leg. Pissweet threatens to grab Ubu by the scruff of the neck and drag him out of the prison, but Ubu says no can do, as his shackles are glued to the wall.

Scene 7: One line, the gaoler announcing ‘Closing time’.

Scene 8: Cut to the Sultan’s palace in Istanbul where the Vizier tells the Sultan that the free Country (France) is ready to send the tribute it has long promised, namely 200 convicts, among whom is the celebrated Pa Ubu and his notorious wife.

The Sultan objects that Ubu eats pig meat and pisses standing up. The Vizier counters that he’s versed in the art of navigation. Good, says the Sultan, then he’ll row all the better in the galleys!

Act 4

Scene 1: The joke or conceit about the Free Men continues. The corporal told them not to bother turning up to parade so, to prove how free they are, they now all turn up for parade exactly on time. Similarly they’ve been told not to show up for sentry duty so they now do so like clockwork. Is this just a joke or making a more serious point that what many people call ‘freedom’ is just an obstinate or perverse inversion of slavery. It’s just as formulaic, ordered and unpredictable.

Scene 2: A caricature English milord, Lord Cornholer, and his valet Jack. They’ve arrived outside the big stone building the Free Men are guarding and ask them whether the King is in. One of the Free Men suggests that truth dictates they tell the English lord that their country has no king, but the second Free Man says I will take no orders ‘even from truth itself’ and so (lyingly) assures the milord that, yes, the king is at home. He gets his valet to knock on the door

Scene 3: The gaoler opens the door for this, it turns out, is the prison Pa Ubu is in. He tells them no entry. Lord Cornholer wonders whether the king can be persuaded to come to the door and greet him. There’s a good tip for anyone who can arrange this. One of the Free Men says, tell him we don’t have a king and the people inside aren’t allowed to come out. So the other Free Man tells Lord Cornholer the exact opposite, that the king regularly comes to the door to greet visitors.

Jolly good, says the Lord, orders his valet to rustle up some corned beef and settles down to wait. We can see the way this is going…

Scene 4: Inside the prison yard the prisoners cheer for Pa Ubu and for slavery. Ubu complains to Ma that his chains are in danger of breaking or slipping off and then he will lose the fine position he’s achieved after so much effort.

Ubu reminisces about the battle in the Ukraine which features in the first play, Ubu Roi, but then the gaolers come to take him and the other assigned convicts off on their journey to the galleys of the Sultan of Turkey. Ma Ubu bids him a fond farewell.

Scene 5: Front of the prison where Lord Cornholer, his valet and the three Free Men. The gaoler elaborately undoes all the locks and the drunkest of the Free Men begins cheering the king (there is no king) because he wants to get some of the tips Lord Cornholer has been freely mentioning.

Scene 6: Pa Ubu steps through the open prison door and is bemused to be greeted with cheers of Long live the king. It reminds him eerily of being back in Poland. Lord Cornholer approaches and asks through his valet for Ubu’s autograph. Ubu tells them all to shut up and piss off and so the other characters respectfully back away.

Scene 7: While this is happening the other convicts exit the prison and surround Ubu and start chanting Long live the king! Ubu tells them to knock it off but the leader of the convicts says his name will always be linked with kingship and they are demonstrating their love of his glorious past.

Touched, Ubu hands out a set of imaginary positions in his imaginary government, matching notorious criminals to various government offices, before appointing all the other convicts ‘gallant craptains’ in his Pshittanarmy.

Act 5

Scene 1: A bunch of the other characters led by Pissweet who makes the pseudo-philosophical speech bringing out the paradox which, as we’ve seen, underlies the whole play:

PISSWEET: We are free to do what we want, even to obey. We are free to go anywhere we choose, even to prison! Slavery is the only true freedom!

He rallies his followers to break into the prisons and ‘abolish freedom’. Is this the kind of satire on abstract philosophical concepts which only a French intellectual could make?

Scene 2: Inside the prison Pissweet and his followers find Ma Ubu in her cell. The gaoler won’t let them free her. Free Men debate whether to break her cell door down. Meanwhile, the reappearance of Eleutheria who we haven’t seen for a while and appears to be in the cell next door. She complains that she’s tugging the bell-rope but no servants have come (which she was doing in her uncle’s house when we last saw her, so this has a dreamlike and comic effect).

Eleutheria reaches through her cell bars, grabs a stone jug and bashes her Uncle Pissale on the head, splitting him in two (!) The two Pissales speak in unison and reassure her that they’ll protect her, come what may.

Ma Ubu emerges but her cell door slams shut trapping her ball and chain. Eleutheria cuts the chain with a pair of nail scissors.

Scene 3: Cut to the convoy of convicts walking across a place called Slaveonia. Ubu asks the guards to tighten his shackles.

Scene 4: The gaoler from the earlier scenes runs up and tells Pa Ubu that the Masters have revolted, the Free Men have become slaves, and Ma Ubu set free. He then brings up Ma Ubu’s iron ball in a wheelbarrow to prove it. The gaoler continues to explain that the Masters have invaded the arsenals and are fitting iron balls to their legs. All the guards cheer and announce that they, too, want to become slaves. All the convicts give in to the guards’ demands to be handed the former’s balls and chains.

A noise offstage signals the arrival of the Masters who wheel cannons onstage to surround the action.

Scene 5: Pissweet commanding the Free Men demands that Ubu throws off his chains. Ubu says ‘try and catch me’ but runs off. The Free Men try to fire their artillery but discover they have no cannonballs because they’ve attached all the balls to their legs in their ‘newly-won slavery’.

Ubu reappears and throws Ma Ubu’s ball at Pissweet, scoring a direct hit. Then he massacres the other Free Men by swinging a line of chained guards at them. The Free Men run off dragging their chains pursued by the now unencumbered convicts. From time to time Ubu amuses himself by yanking on the chain and making them all fall over.

At the back of the stage appears the Grand Sultan and his retinue.

Scene 6: In the Sultan’s Palace. The Vizier tells the Sultan he’s taken delivery of not 200 slaves, as promised by the Free Country (France) but 2,000 heads, all demanding to be sent to the galleys. Pa Ubu is furious that he’s been deprived of his ball and chain and is currently smashing up the galleys from sheer obesity.

The Sultan says he has been so impressed by Ubu’s ‘noble air and majestic presence’ that he made some enquiries and came to the astonishing revelation that Ubu is the Sultan’s long-lost brother who was kidnapped by French pirates, kept in various prisons but worked himself up to become King of Aragon and then of Poland.

The Sultan tells the Vizier to treat Ubu with respect but get him on the soonest possible ship out of the country. If he gets wind of his true identity he’ll overthrow the Sultan and gobble up all Turkey’s wealth.

Scene 7: P and Ma Ubu are being herded on board a ship. Ma points out that he wasn’t much good as a slave, nobody wanted to be his master. But Pa announces he will henceforth be slave of his own ‘strumpot’, a word which has appeared in all the plays and seems to refer to his stomach.

Scene 8: Cut to a galley slave where all the characters from the play are chained to their benches as galley slaves. Pa Ubu rhapsodises to Ma about the beautiful scenery. The galley slaves sing a song. Ma Ubu says they sound funny. The gaoler explains that he’s replaced the slaves’ muzzles with kazoos.

The gaoler asks Ubu if he’d like to give any orders. Ubu says no, he is determined to remain Ubu Enchained, Ubu the slave, and goes on, in the paradoxical manner which has characterised the whole play.

PERE UBU: I’m not giving any orders ever again. That way people will obey me all the more promptly.

Ma Ubu worries that they’re heading further away from France. Pa Ubu tells her not to worry her pretty little head as they have been granted such honour that the trireme they’re travelling in has four banks of oars not three!

And on that inconsequential notes the play, and the trilogy, ends!

Thoughts

Recap of the points I made at the start. The first two plays were schoolboy nonsense blown up to theatrical proportions. This third play is far more considered insofar as it is underpinned by a thesis, a proposition about freedom and slavery, although it’s a little difficult to say what the thesis is. Is it that there is no difference between freedom or slavery? Or that slavery is the only freedom? Certainly all this playing around with the notion of freedom kept reminding me of Jean-Paul Sartre who devoted his career to explicating notions of human freedom.

Second and more interestingly, the legacy of the preceding two plays acts to force meaning, or the appearance of meaning, onto the third play. It demonstrates how difficult it is to achieve the truly random and absurd. The human mind is constructed to find meaning in everything we say or hear or do or that happens. We blame cars, toasters, uneven paving stones, the weather for accidents and misfortunes; pretty much everything we encounter, we attribute meaning or agency to. Our minds are meaning-finding machines.

And I think that’s demonstrated in this third play. Pa and Ma Ubu were virgin figures when we first encountered them but after two long plays we now have a very good sense of what to expect from them. They have acquired a meaning, a depth and weight which I don’t think their creator intended simply by dint of having been around in our imaginations so long and having carried out so many actions and said so many things.

They have settled down to become as ‘real’ as the characters in fairy tales or nonsense poems or (as the literary scholars prefer to point out) the Renaissance classic ‘Gargantua and Pantagruel’. If impossible things happen in the narrative, the reader accommodates them by simply switching genre, by reading it as fantasy, dream fiction and fairy tale.

In other words, the Ubu plays demonstrate the near impossibility of writing genuinely random, absurdist narratives.

Ubu’s fatness

PISSWEET: That fat slab of galley-fodder, Pa Ubu…

PISSWEET: Fire on that big barrel of cowardice!

Ubu attracts top talent

Ubu has always attracted high calibre producers and associates. Jarry collaborated with the noted post-impressionist painter Pierre Bonnard on the ‘Illustrated Ubu Almanach’ which was published in 1899. You can search for Bonnard’s distinctive cartoon illustrations from this page.

A note tells us that Ubu enchaîné wasn’t performed until 1937, when the sets were designed by Max Ernst. Wow. Ernst had already created sketches and paintings of Ubu, whose absurd character suited the artist’s bizarre vision.

Ubu Imperator by Max Ernst (1923) Georges Pompidou Center, Paris, France

Exactly 30 years later, in 1967, the translation I read, by Simon Watson Taylor, was staged in Edinburgh, with Miriam Margolyes as Ma Ubu, with set design by Gerald Scarfe, and music provided by The Soft Machine. Wow again.

The Polish avant-garde composer Krzysztof Penderecki wrote a 2-hour opera based on Ubu Roi and titled ‘Ubu Rex’, which was premiered by the Bavarian State Opera on 6 July 1991, a valiant attempt to capture the play’s absurdity in music.

And rock music fans should have heard of the splendid American industrial band, Pere Ubu, formed in 1975 and highly influential in the later ’70s and ’80s. They combine fairly standard, if inventive, rock grooves with the witch-doctor madness of front man David Thomas. Remember how the first words of the first Ubu play, Ubu Roi – in effect its declaration of intent – are ‘Merdra, merdra’ – well, they’re refrain of maybe Pere Ubu’s best song.

Thus in hundreds of ways, obvious and more arcane, the influence of Jarry’s comic creation has echoed through the arts over the century since his birth.


Credit

I read ‘Ubu Enchained’ in the 1965 translation by Cyril Connolly, included in ‘The Ubu Plays’, first published by Methuen World Classics in 1968 and republished in a new paperback edition in 1993.

Related links

Related reviews

Ubu Cocu by Alfred Jarry

Executive summary of the Ubu plays

Alfred Jarry’s trilogy of absurdist, scatological plays about the grotesque cartoon figure, Père or Father or Pa Ubu, scandalised theatre-goers at the time (the late 1890s) but were to be revived and lionised by the Surrealists in the 1920s and ’30s, and to become a reference point for the Theatre of the Absurd long after Jarry’s premature death in 1907 at the age of just 34. This is the second in the trilogy.

Ubu Cocu

Ubu Cocu is French for ‘Ubu Cuckolded’.

A note says the text is restored as it was performed by the marionettes of the Théâtre des Phynances (fans will recognise ‘phynances’ as one of Jarry’s many made-up words), so it was first performed by puppets.

Another note tells us that this translation was adapted for radio by Martin Esslin and broadcast on BBC radio in December 1965.

Act 1

Scene 1: Very short speech by Achras explaining that he is a breeder of polyhedra i.e. many-sided shapes.

Scene 2: A flunkey brings in the visiting card of Ubu who now goes by the title of Professor of Pataphysics.

Scene 3: Enter Ubu complaining that Achras’s front door was too small for him to enter and then proceeds to explain that he is a famous professor of pataphysics, says that yes he will accept the invitation to move in, with his wife and children, and when Achras complains, Ubu says he is welcome to move out.

Scene 4: Ubu consults his Conscience who he carries around in an old suitcase. His Conscience emerges from the case as a tall thin man in shirt-tails. He advises Ubu not to kill Achras, the old man is defenceless and it would be a coward’s trick. Whereupon Ubu says he’ll do it, and sends his Conscience back to his suitcase.

Scene 5: Enter Achras being pushed backwards by Ubu’s three big red packing cases which he’s pushing into the room. Ubu asks him to him a favour. Ubu has become aware that his wife is having an affair with An Egyptian (who, surreally, combines the functions of a clock at dawn and a sewage truck driver at night). Ubu wants to punish this Egyptian by impaling him and politely asks Achras if he can help him out by testing out the impaling device first. When Achras refuses and says that Ubu has already stolen his house from him, Ubu relents and says it was just his little joke.

Scene 6: Out of the three red packing cases climb the Palcontents who proceed to sing a song. Their names are Crapentake, Binanjitters, Fourzears. As they sing and circle Achras, bewildering him, a stake emerge from the floor, rises under his chair and literally impales him, while the Palcontents ransack all his belongings looking for cash.

Scene 7: Pa brings Ma Ubu into the room and she politely says she’d like to meet the host whereupon Pa Ubu points to the chair on which Achras sits, impaled and unconscious, and Ma Ubu screams.

Act 2

Scene 1: Same scene with Achras impaled in his chair. Ubu’s Conscience climbs out of his suitcase and wakes Achras, who acknowledges he ought to be dead, then disempales him. They discuss how to get revenge on Ubu and Achras suggests placing the armchair on the edge of a trapdoor. The Conscience gets back into his case.

Scene 2: Enter Ubu who tells Achras he doesn’t like the way his cook prepares his dishes and plumps down in the armchair which promptly falls through the floor. Ubu gives a nonsensical description of how being wedged in the floorboards is flaying his transverse colon while Achras makes an equally ludicrous suggestion to read him some ‘characterclystic’ passages from his book about polyhedra.

Scene 3: Ubu promises his Conscience some time off if he’ll only help him out of the trapdoor. The Conscience does so but then Ubu runs up and down the room jumping for joy and his Conscience warns him he’ll fall through again. Somehow his Conscience has got into a situation where he’s hanging upside down from his feet. He begs Ubu to get him down which Ubu refuses, saying he must digest his dinner, before the Conscience wriggles about and falls on him.

Scene 4: The Palcontents stand up in their suitcases and sing a song of praise to Ubu who lights his green candle which emits music. The three Palcontents sing of their recent missions. Ubu tells them to shut up and delivers a nonsensical speech about the perfection of the sun and the sphere. The Palcontents sing more praise of Ubu who delivers a fake learned speech packed with Latin tags which leads up to the presentation of the Pschittapump. Ubu asks the Palcontent who travels to Egypt to being him back some mummy-grease.

Scene 5: The Palcontents sing while a statue of Memnon (from Egypt) is erected onstage. The song describes how Ubu wakes and bosses about his Palcontents on the parade ground.

Act 3

Scene 1: The Palcontents sing how they walk among pedestrians till they spy a rentier who they proceed to beat up and load with fetters.

Scene 2: Enter Rebontier the rentier who complains how Ubu demands money from him or subjects him to the bleed-pig machine in the Place de la Concorde. Enter from the other side of the stage Achras. While trying to escape and ranting they collide with each other and start fighting. One of Ubu’s tax collectors or woolidogs enters and they talk about escaping to Egypt.

Scene 3: Dawn breaks and the statue of Memnon plays a tune on his flute. Surprisingly Memnon sings that he was a cabinet-maker who lived in the Rue du Champs de Mars and used to go every Sunday to watch the rentiers being debrained.

MEMNON: One, two, watch the wheels go round.
Snip, snap, the brains fly all around.

With the Palcontents singing the chorus: Hip-hip, arse-over-tip! Hurrah for old Ubu!

Scene 4: The Palcontents climb back into their cases and enter the cobbler Scytotomille. Rebontier asks him for some shoes and Scytotomille offers him some turd-crunchers and other similar products.

Scene 5: The Palcontents seize Achras who complains that he’s already been impaled once and Rebontier who says he’s late for an appointment with the bleed-pig. When they call Scytotomille to come to their aid, the Palcontents set him on fire. Then they throw Rebontier and Achras into the barrel base of Memnon.

Act 4

Scene 1: Memnon adjusts his hat and welcomes Ma Ubu to the stage. they hear voices and retire to the lavatory at the back.

Scene 2: Ubu heard offstage prides himself on stealing Achras’s house and is now looking for somewhere to throw up his dinner. Ma Ubu panics and says they’re lost. Is this because…is the implication that she’s having an affair with Memnon? Seems to be confirmed when Memnon says that, by looking out the window, he can see Ubu’s (cuckold)’s horns. Panicking, Memnon jumps into the toilet.

Scene 3: Memnon going in meets Ubu’s Conscience coming out. Conscience says he deserved his punishment. They hear the voices of the Palcontents coming closer and say they need to duck down again, and drag Ma Ubu into the toilet with them.

Scene 4: The Palcontents, holding green candles, light Ubu to the toilet which he sits on and which promptly collapses.

UBU: Is the pshittapump out of order? Answer me or I’ll have you all debrained?

Scene 5: Memon sticks his head up and says yes. Ubu says he’ll gouge his eyes out and pushes him back down in the toilet before locking himself into the toilet room with the Palcontents.

Act 5

Scene 1: Rebontier and Achras talking about something completely different. Rebontier says he saw the customs officers open a suitcase addressed to Ubu in which were a man and a stuffed monkey. Achras contradicts him and says he thinks they were Egyptian mummies. Rebontier contradicts him and says the mummies and the monkey jumped out of their suitcase to much consternation and caught a tram.

Scene 2: Enter Ubu who tells Achras to bugger off. The latter points out that this is his home. Ubu turns to Rebontier and accuses him of adultery with his wife, then orders the Palcontents to knock him down. He asks Rebontier whether he is a cuckold but Rebontier cannot answer as he is being beaten up. Ubu then delivers a nonsense lecture about the damage that is being done to the Broca’s area of his brain, starting by quoting an actual medical textbook but quickly degenerating into the usual rhodomontade about twisting his nose and nears, removing his tongue, having him impaled, hanged, drawn and quartered…after which he’ll let him go.

Ubu goes into the toilet to fetch his Conscience while Rebontier struggles free of the Palcontents and runs off howling chased by them, as Ubu re-enters leading his Conscience by the hand.

Scene 3: Ubu notices Achras is still there and asks him why he hasn’t buggered off, pointing out that the play has gone on too long. At which point a crocodile crosses the stage with a noise like an engine whistle.

Scene 4: Achras, Ubu and his Conscience then discuss the nature and anatomy of the crocodile with Ubu absurdly declaring it must be a whale while his Conscience insists it’s a snake. Ubu agrees that it must be a snake. Achras leans down to smell it and says one thing is certain: it ain’t no polyhedron!

Comment

Now this really is absurd – significantly weirder than the relatively realistic and relatable political plot of Ubu Roi. And it ends on a note of pure surrealism. You can see how this, more than the first play, would feed into the wartime Dada movement, and then into post-war surrealism. It’s has that genuinely unhinged randomness.


Credit

I read ‘Ubu Cocu’ in the 1965 translation by Cyril Connolly, included in ‘The Ubu Plays’, first published by Methuen World Classics in 1968 and republished in a new paperback edition in 1993.

Related links

Related reviews

Ubu Roi by Alfred Jarry (1896)

Executive summary of the Ubu plays

Alfred Jarry’s trilogy of absurdist, scatological plays about the grotesque cartoon figure, Père or Father or Pa Ubu, scandalised theatre-goers at the time (the later 1890s) but were to be revived and lionised by the Surrealists in the 1920s and ’30s, and to become a reference point for the Theatre of the Absurd long after Jarry’s premature death in 1907 at the age of just 34.

Introduction

Starting as a fairly sensible Symbolist writer when the movement was at its peak in the early 1890s, Jarry announced his own bizarre take on the movement in the 1895 play ‘Caesar Antichrist’ before departing the movement altogether, in 1896, with the work that made him immortal, Ubu Roi.

Since ‘roi’ is the French word for ‘king’ the title easily translates as ‘King Ubu’ but a lot of the rest of the play doesn’t translate easily at all. Its language is a unique mix of slang code-words, puns and near-gutter vocabulary, set to strange speech patterns. The tone is established in the very first words of the play – ‘Merdra merdra’ – which aren’t French words at all. They’re distortions of the French word ‘merdre‘ which means ‘shit’.

With its scatological language, its studied disrespect for all conventional language, and its wild absurdist plot studded with atrocities and mass murders, you can see why the first night of Ubu Roi resulted in uproar, the audience (allegedly) coming to blows between supporters and outraged opponents.

Schoolboy origins and puppet performances

Eventually the Ubu oeuvre would end up as three plays and a version with music and songs but it began as schoolboy jokes. In 1888 the 15-year-old Alfred Jarry arrived at the lycée in Rennes and became friends with another boy, Henri Morin. He discovered Henri was part of a group which took the mickey out of the heir well-meaning, but obese and incompetent physics teacher Physics teacher, Monsieur Hébert, known variously as P.H., Pére Heb, Ebé and other nicknames. Henri and his older brother had gone to the trouble of writing a short satire, ‘The Poles’, in which the cartoon figure of le Pere Ebé became King of Poland only to suffer various misfortunes and indignities.

Jarry threw himself into this fictional world and adapted it as a play for marionettes which was performed first at the Morin house then in the Jarry household. Jarry developed some of the themes and characters into a play entirely of his own, Onésime ou les Tribulations de Priou featuring ‘le PH’.

In 1891 the 18-year-old Jarry left Rennes and moved to Paris to attend the Lycée Henri IV to prepare for admission to the École Normale Supérieure. Here he carried on developing the material, rewriting the Morin brothers’ Polish play and his own Onésime, which became Ubu Roi and Ubu Cocu, respectively. These plays he performed with schoolfriends at his Paris lodgings and it was now that the chief protagonist’s name settled as ‘le Père Ubu’. But by now Jarry had his eye set on a literary career.

In 1893 young Jarry managed to get fragments of the plays published in a literary journal. Jarry was becoming known for his poems and short prose pieces. In October 1894 some of these were published in his first book, the ultra-symbolist Minutes de Sable Mémorial. At the end of the year Jarry was briefly called up for military service but his short stature caused ridicule and he was discharged for medical reasons. A year after Minutes his second book was published, César-Antéchrist (1895).

In January 1896 Jarry was introduced to the theatre director Aurélien-Marie Lugné-Poe. In June Lugné-Poe invited Jarry to become a writer-secretary at his theatre and in the same month the text of Ubu Roi was published. Then Ubu Roi had its first stage performance on 10 December 1896, to the accompaniment of shouting, screaming, cheers and jeers and fighting among the audience.

The controversy was picked up in the papers and journals and Jarry became a celebrity overnight. His friends took to jokingly calling him Père Ubu and he copied the manner and ambling walk of his character for their amusement.

As we’ve seen the plays always had a puppet version or equivalent right from their inception as a schoolboy prank. Jarry had it performed as a marionette play at his friend’s and his own house. What’s surprising that this puppet version lived on into the ‘adult’ world. In 1898 a performance by marionettes was given of Ubu Roi at a small theatre owned by none other than the artist Pierre Bonnard.

At this time Jarry finished a new version of Ubu Cocu but failed to find a publisher for it. In fact neither version of Ubu Cocu was published or performed during his lifetime. It was only half a century later, in 1944, that the second version was published. The English essayist and editor Cyril Connolly was the first to publish an English version, in his magazine Horizon in 1945 and went on to become a great promoter of Jarry’s work.

During 1899 Jarry worked on the third play, Ubu Enchaíné (‘Ubu in Chains’). Although published in 1900 this, also, wasn’t to be performed for a long time, not until 1937.

In 1899 and 1901 Jarry published the ‘Illustrated Almanac of Père Ubu’, illustrated by his friend Pierre Bonnard. He also devoted time to rewriting Ubu Roi as a two-act musical with songs. This version mutated sufficiently to be considered the fourth in the series, Ubu sur la Butte. Once again the puppet theme surface because this version was first performed by the marionettes of the Théâtre Guignol des Gueules de Bois in November 1901, although it wasn’t published until 1906, the year before his death.

As the summary shows, after the first scandal of the Roi premier wore off Jarry struggled to get his works either published or performed. He wasn’t exactly a one-hit wonder, because he did have novels, stories and a three-volume fictionalised autobiography published, and he was working all the time as a poet, journalist and literary and art critic. he was a busy bee. He also became a fixture of avant-garde circles, acting as a kind of court jester becoming increasingly reliant on alcohol to fuel his performances.

His other famous achievement was developing the nonsense science of pataphysics, which he defined as the ‘science of imaginary solutions’ which ‘will examine the laws governing exceptions and will explain the universe supplementary to this one’. References to this anti-science cropped up in various works and was given full bizarre expression in Exploits and Opinions of Dr. Faustroll, Pataphysician. But this, also, didn’t see the light of day till after his death, not being published till 1911.

King Ubu

Any prose summary can’t convey how absurd, nonsensical and caricature-like the characters and action are. The best short summary is to think of it as a kind of puppet parody of Macbeth, in which a lazy army officer is encouraged by his scheming wife to assassinate the King of Poland, usurp the throne, and then behave with appalling and wanton cruelty, butchering entire classes before declaring war on Russia.

Act 1

Scene 1: Ubu says he’s content with his position of captain of the dragoons and aide de camp to King Wenceslas while his wife (Ma Ubu) encourages him to assassinate the king and all his heirs and make himself king, plonk his bum on the throne and scoff as many bangers as he wants.

Scene 2: Dining room laid out for a feast. Ma Ubu tells him to wait till the guests arrive but greedy Ubu can’t stop himself tucking into the chicken then the veal.

Scene 3: Captain MacNure and his men arrive for the feast which, Ma Ubu explains, includes ‘Jerusalem fartichokes and cauliflower à la pschitt’. There’s not actually much to eat so Ubu exits and returns holding a toilet brush which he flings at the soldiers. Some of them taste it and collapse from poisoning (or poosening). He then forces all the soldiers out by throwing bison ribs at them.

Scene 4: After the scatological pleasantries:

PA UBU: Well, captain, how did you enjoy your dinner?
CAPTAIN MACNURE: Very much, sir, except for the pschitt.
PA UBU: Oh I didn’t think the pschitt was too bad.

Ubu asks the captain to join his conspiracy to overthrow the king. The captain enthusiastically signs up, revealing he is a mortal enemy of the king. Ubu promises to make him Duke of Lithuania.

Scene 5: A messenger arrives from the king requesting Ubu’s presence and he and Ma panic, thinking their conspiracy has been discovered. ‘Oh pschitt!’

Scene 6: Ubu at court, the king surrounded by his three sons and courtiers, in fact doesn’t suspect a thing, in fact he’s called him in to appoint him Count of Sandomir. Overwhelmed with gratitude (and relief) Ubu gives the king a fine decorated kazoo! The king gives it to his son Boggerlas and invites Ubu to the Grand Review tomorrow. As he turns to go Ubu trips and falls and the king helps him up. Won’t stop him from being ‘liquidated’ Ubu mutters.

Scene 7: A meeting of the conspirators discussing how to kill the king. Ubu suggests they lace his food with arsenic. Captain McNure suggests he cleaves the king from head to toe with his sword. Ubu is momentarily tempted to turn the conspirators in and claim a reward but they all boo so he suggests another plan. He’ll tread on the king’s foot, yell PSCHITT and that will be the signal for the conspirators to attack. Ubu makes them swear an oath.

Act 2

Scene 1: The day of the Grand Review. His queen and eldest son Boggerlas warn him against Ubu but the king insists he’s his most loyal servant. The queen describes a dream she had of the king being killed and thrown into the River Vistula. Irritated, the king says he will attend to the Grand Review without sword or breastplate to prove them wrong and sweeps out with his other sons. The queen and Boggerlas go to the chapel to pray.

Scene 2: The Grand Review. After a few preliminary comments Ubu treads on the king’s foot, shouts pschitt, and the conspirators attack him. Ubu grabs the crown and the king’s two sons flee.

Scene 3: From a balcony the queen and Boggerlas watch all the soldiers chasing the two sons and striking them dead.

Scene 4: The conspirators break into the chapel and confront the queen and Boggerlas. The latter defies them and kills quite a few of them. In face of this Ubu is a terrified coward but inches towards Boggerlas who takes a sword slash at him then escapes with the queen through a hidden passage.

Scene 5: A cave in the mountains where Boggerlas and the queen have retreated. She laments the death of her husband and sons and then collapses dead from grief. Then appear ghosts of the king, his brothers, and the founder of their dynasty (Lord Matthias of Königsberg) who tells Boggerlas to be brave and hands him an immense sword. It’s only during this scene that we’re told that Boggerlas is only 14 years old.

Scene 6: Ubu is now crowned in the king’s stateroom. He is arguing with Ma and the captain. They’re saying he must distribute largesse to the masses or they’ll overthrow him in his turn. He vehemently refuses till the captain explains that with no money the masses won’t pay their taxes. At which point Ubu orders the distribution of millions of gold pieces and the roasting of 50 oxen to feed the mob.

Scene 7: From his balcony King Ubu throws gold to the cheering mob. Captain Macnure suggests organising a race, which they promptly do, the winder winning a chest of gold pieces, the mob cheering and racing and falling over each other in their glee. Bread and circuses.

Act 3

Scene 1: In the palace Ma Ubu reminds Pa Ubu he promised to ennoble the captain. Ubu replies the captain can whistle for his dukedom and Boggerlas can go jump in a lake. Ma Ubu says he’s making a big mistake underestimating his enemies, so Ubu threatens to chop her into little pieces and chases her offstage.

Scene 2: Ubu calls together all the nobles of the land into the Great Hall of the palace and announces that he is going to liquidate them all and confiscate all their wealth. One by one they come forward, identify themselves and Ubu pushes them with a boathook through a trapdoor down into the bleed-pig chambers from where they’ll be led to the cash-room and debrained.

Ubu interrogates four or so, pushing each into the trapdoor, before having his own numerous titles proclaimed. Ma Ubu warns him he is being too brutal. Next he proposes to stop paying the judges and, when they protest, has them all pushed through the hole too, telling Ma Ubu that he will administer justice. Then he proposes a new range of taxes. When the financiers protest he has them all thrown down the hole.

MA UBU: Come, come, Lord Ubu, kings aren’t supposed to behave like that. You’re butchering the whole world.
PA UBU: So pschitt!

Scene 3: In a peasant’s house the peasants exchange the news that the old king’s been murdered, Pa Ubu is king. One of them has just come from Cracow where he saw the bodies of 300 nobles and 500 magistrates that Ubu had killed. At that moment there’s a great banging on the door and Ubu announces he’s come to collect their taxes.

Scene 4: Ubu enters the peasant’s house with ‘an army of moneygrubbers’ then orders his Lords of Phynance (a word which recurs throughout the Ubu oeuvre) to wheel in the phynancial wheelbarrow.

PA UBU: I’ve had it announced in the official gazette that all the present taxes have to be paid twice over, and all those I may think up later on will have to be paid three times over. With this system I’ll soon make a fortune, then I’ll kill everyone in the world and go away.

Goaded beyond endurance the peasants rebel but Ubu has his men massacre them all and burn the village to the ground.

Scene 5: Ubu visits Macnure who he’s had thrown in prison (specifically, ‘the casemate of Thorn’) for raising a rebellion against him. Macnure tells him that in just five days Ubu has more crimes than would damn all the saints in paradise but Ubu mocks him and warns him that the rats at night are very hungry.

Scene 6: Cut to the palace of the Tsar in Moscow. Somehow Macnure escaped the casemate of Thorn and has ridden for five days and five nights to beg the Tsar to come to the aid of the people of Poland. He offers his sword and a map of the city of Thorn. The Tsar accepts him into his service.

Scene 7: Ubu announces to his council that his plans to get rich are working. In every direction are vistas of burning villages and people suffering under his extortions. Now he is going to share a plan he’s conceived to keep rain at bay and bring good weather. Ma Ubu mutters that he’s gone mad and Ubu threatens her.

A messenger enters with a message from Macnure which announces that he is in the service of the Tsar and is going to invade Ubu’s land alongside Boggerlas. Ubu is thrown into a cowardly panic but Ma Ubu counsels war and all his advisers start chanting war war war.

Scene 8: The army camp outside Warsaw. Ubu’s soldiers cheer for him. He puts on a set of complicated armour pieces until he looks like an armour-plated pumpkin. He’s far too fat to get on a small horse and when they lead in a giant horse he keeps falling off. Ubu makes a series of bragging boasts then clatters off. Ma Ubu says that now that overstuffed dummy is out of the way she can kill Boggerlas and get her hands on the treasure herself.

Act 4

Scene 1: Ma Ubu is in the crypt of the kings of Poland in Warsaw cathedral searching for buried treasure. She eventually opens a tomb to find old bones and gold all mixed together and begins extracting it when ghostly sounds and then a voice from the dead terrifies her into running offstage.

Scene 2: In the main square in Warsaw Boggerlas has rallied the surviving nobles and the people to overthrow Ubu. Ma Ubu emerges with her guards and there’s a massive fight. During this her ‘Palcontent’, Gyron (who Jarry specified should be played by a Black man) at first wreaks havoc in the crowd and then is brought down. As the crowd makes to grab Ma Ubu she escapes.

Scene 3: Ubu at the head of his army which has been marching through the Ukraine seeking the Russian army. Ubu is so ludicrously over-armoured that even the big horse couldn’t carry him so he’s been walking and leading it by the reins. A messenger arrives to tell him that, in his absence, there’s been a rebellion in Warsaw, Gyron is killed and Ma Ubu fled to the mountains.

Now his army sights the Russians. Ubu issues fairly reasonable instructions for the order of battle based on the notion that the Polish army will remain on the hilltop and wait for the Russians to come up towards them at which point they’ll cut them down with their artillery. But, nonsensically, as it’s 11 o’clock, instructs the army to have lunch, saying the Russians won’t attack. At that moment a cannon ball goes whizzing by, crashing into the nearby windmill.

Scene 4: Confused melee of the battle in which Ubu is shot, thinks he’s dead but gets up again, while Captain Macnure enters cutting a swathe through the Polish troops till he comes face to face with Ubu. Ubu again shows his cowardice by thinking he’s been hit by another cannonball but Macnure laughs that it was just a cap pistol. Infuriated, Ubu tears him to pieces!

Encouraged by his lead general, General Laski, Ubu throws himself on the Tsar and they have a fierce hand-to-hand fight which the Tsar wins and proceeds to chase Ubu across the battlefield. There’s a trench and Ubu jumps over it while the Tsar falls in.

TSAR: Now I’m in the soup!

Ubu describes the scene of the Tsar getting massacred by Ubu’s soldiers and does it in an elaborately formal and periphrastic style quite unlike anything, deployed for comic or incongruous effect. He then admires his own eloquence. Despite this the Russian soldiers rescue their Tsar and pursue Ubu and his army off-stage.

Scene 5: Finds Ubu holed up in a cave in the mountains with a category of companions called ‘the palcontents’ and humorously named Head and Tails. They mock the way Ubu cowardly fled the battlefield while Ubu describes himself as the hero of the battle, struggling manfully against overwhelming odds.

Scene 6: A bear comes into the cave and attacks Tails while Heads attacks the bear. Ubu, obviously, climbs up a rock out of the way but says he is high-mindedly (and absurdly) offering a prayer to him. Heads and Tails finally overcome and kill the bear as Ubu comes down from his rock delivering another long pompous speech about how he saved the day with his prayers. He sends Tails off to fetch wood and orders Heads to carve up the bear, making sure he himself remains safely distant.

Throughout all this Heads and Tails have been muttering comments about Ubu’s cowardice and now, when he demands a share of the cooked meat, they come out into the open and call him a fat pig, saying he won’t get anything to eat unless he shares in the work.

Deprived of food Ubu beds down and goes to sleep. The other two wonder whether the rumours are true that Ma Ubu was overthrown, and decide to slip off and head for home while Ubu’s asleep.

Scene 7: Ubu talks in his sleep delivering a stream-of-consciousness monologue which includes elements of everything which has happened in the play up to and including the bear fight.

Act 5

Scene 1: It’s night time in the same cave and Ma Ubu enters, not noticing her husband asleep in the corner. She delivers a long monologue recapping her adventures since Ubu left Warsaw, namely: rummaging about in the kings’ crypt; exiting to discover Boggerlas leading rebels in the main square; the resulting fight in which her lover, the Black Gyron was cut down; how she made it to the River Vistula but all the bridges were guarded so she swam across; how she barely escaped the baying mob; how she has trudged through the snow for four days and arrived, starving, at this cave.

With allowance for some of the delivery, this isn’t absurd at all but is the language of the contemporary adventure novel.

At which point Ubu stirs and starts mumbling half awake, obviously starting Ma Ubu who quickly realises who it is, and then decides to take advantage of the situation, puts on a booming voice and pretends to be the archangel Gabriel! She then embarks on the comic enterprise of having the angel Gabriel tell Ubu what a beautiful, charming woman his wife is, an ‘absolute saint’, while Ubu, predictably and to comic effect, rebuts her at every point, describing her as a sexless old hag.

Ma Ubu goes on to tell Ubu he must forgive her for stealing a little bit of his money, but this backfires as it only confirms what Ubu suspected. Moreover dawn is coming up and it’ll soon be light enough in the cave for him to see and recognise her.

And that’s what happens. Ma Ubu tries to brazen it out but Ubu realises it’s her. He asks what happened back in Warsaw and she tells him about the rebellion and how she had to run away from the Poles. Ubu counters that he had to run away from the Russians, just goes to prove what they say, that ‘great minds think alike’.

MA UBU: They can say that if they want, but my great mind thinks it’s just met a pea-brained idiot.

Enraged Ubu throws the bear’s body over her which a) makes Ma Ubu scream that she’s being attacked, and the way her movements seem to be animating the bear b) makes Ubu scream that the bear’s come back to life.

When they both realise they’re wrong she launches a tirade of abuse at him which makes him jump over, force her to her knees, list the tortures he’s about to subject her to, and then start to tear her in pieces when…there’s a loud noise at the entrance to the cave.

Scene 2: Enter Polish soldiers led by Boggerlas who orders them to surrender. Instead Ma and Pa Ubu reply with volleys of abuse and start attacking him, the Polish soldiers attack them and it’s another general melee.

At which point there’s a cry of ‘Long live Pa Ubu’ and Heads, Tails and other Ubuists run into the cave, turning it into a real free-for-all. The Ubuists get the better of it, wounding Boggerlas. Two Poles are guarding the entrance to the cave but Ubu knocks them down with the bear corpse and they escape outside.

Scene 3: Just four lines long as Ma and Pa Ubu struggle across the snow-covered landscape, concluding that Boggerlas has given up chasing them and gone back to Warsaw to be crowned.

Scene 4: Suddenly we are aboard a ship in the Baltic. Pa Ubu makes a nonsensical little speech about the ‘knots’ a ship’s speed is measured in. The sea kicks up and the ship begins leaning. the captain issues sensible orders but Ubu insists on taking over himself and issues a stream of nonsensical, garbled orders to the sailors. In fact his orders are so nonsensical that some of the sailors literally die of laughter.

Several great waves break over the ship as Ubu continues his nonsense. In the last few lines Ma and Pa, Heads and tails all illogically say how they’re looking forward to returning to their native France, Spain, Paris, Germany, only for Pa to conclude.

PA UBU: Beautiful though [Germany] may be, it’s not a patch on Poland. Ah gentlemen, there’ll always be a Poland. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any Poles!

And with this inconsequential thought, the play ends.

Literary references

To augment the mock heroic vibe and absurdity the play contains a surprising number of references to ‘serious’ works of literature. The respected general overthrowing his own king and ruling like a tyrant comes from Macbeth. The various armies traipsing back and forth are reminiscent of Hamlet, a reference which is made explicit when, in the last scene, the ship rounds the Cape of Elsinore (where Hamlet is set). The involvement of a bear could be referencing the famous bear in The Winter’s Tale.

And behind all these smaller references looms the title, which echoes the primary tragedy in all European literature, Sophocles’ play ‘Oedipus Rex’ which translates into French as ‘Œdipe Roi’. This conforms to the very common view, at the end of the nineteenth century and which also informed the first modernists, that the present day is a pathetic echo of the greatness of the past, as Ezra Pound put it, a beer bottle on a pediment.

Thoughts

Well, it’s quite funny in parts and I enjoyed the schoolboy humour but:

1. ‘Ubu Roi’ shows how difficult it is to sustain absurdity. What struck me is how unabsurd most of it is. I mean there’s lots of swearing and made-up words and Ubu is made to sound like a megalomaniacal imbecile and the scenes with the bear and Ma pretending to be the angel Gabriel are farcical enough – but the basic narrative of 1) a coup, 2) the usurper leading an army against the neighbouring country, 3) a counter-coup in the capital city in his absence… Far from being absurd this sounds like the history of too many countries during the twentieth century and of too many post-colonial nations since independence. In other words, many passages of it felt all too realistic.

2. Unfortunately, Jarry’s vision of pointless barbarism was very much overtaken by the events of the twentieth century. Assassinations and coups and the coming to power of brutal tyrants who massacre their own subjects were dwarfed by the horrific regimes of Hitler and Stalin in the mid-century. But as I read the descriptions of Ubu combining real ignorance with terrifying brutality, I couldn’t help thinking of many of the African dictators I was reading about last year, specifically the terrifyingly stupid, cunning and sadistic Idi Amin.

Compared to the real world the Ubu plays come over as what they began as, schoolboy pranks.

Ukraine

Eerie that at the centre of the play is war in Ukraine, then, as now, contested borderlands. Ukraine was destined to be the scene of unbearable suffering in the first half of the twentieth century, long before its present tragedy unfolded.

Influences

I list a few of the artists, musicians and composers who’ve engaged with the Ubu texts in my review of the third play. But here I should mention the splendid American industrial band, Pere Ubu, formed in 1975 and highly influential in the later ’70s and ’80s. They combined fairly standard, if colourful rock grooves with the witch-doctor madness of front man David Thomas. Remember that the first words of Ubu Roi are ‘Merdra, merdra’? Well, they’re refrain of what is maybe Pere Ubu’s best song, Modern Dance (1978).


Credit

I read ‘Ubu Roi’ in the 1968 translation by Cyril Connolly and Simon Watson Taylor, included in ‘The Ubu Plays’, first published by Methuen World Classics in 1968, republished in a new edition in 1993.

Related links

Related reviews

Axël by Villiers de L’Isle-Adam (1890)

Villiers de L’Isle-Adam (1838 to 1889) had a long disastrously unsuccessful career, living in poverty for much of the time, despite churning out numerous plays, novels, stories and articles. A hard core of friends and supporters relished his heavily Symbolist and Decadent stories but the general public never did, during his lifetime. Only in the last few years of his life did he enjoy some success, specifically on publication of his volume of 27 Cruel Tales in 1883 and its follow-up volumes.

Villiers began work on Axël around 1869 after a meeting with his hero, Richard Wagner, who advised him to create an ideal world rather than describe the real one. He continued to work on it for the next 20 years and, although excerpts were published in 1885, it was still unfinished when he died in 1889. After his death the play was edited by his friends, the poet Stéphane Mallarmé and the novelist Joris-Karl Huysmans, and published posthumously in 1890.

Axël is a long play, a philosophical drama designed to be read rather than staged. Villiers considered it his masterpiece although critical opinion places far higher value on his fiction. It was in 1885 and 1886 that the word ‘symbolism’ came to be used to describe the group of young writers led by Mallarme, Verlaine and Villiers and Axel came to be regarded by Villiers and his friends as a peak expression of their views, subject and methods. In the translator’s foreword, Marilyn Gaddis Rose says Axel is the Symbolist play par excellence and yet, by using every possible Symbolist theme and cranking them all up to maximum, she says Villiers defeated his object. It became so top heavy with symbols that it collapses under its own weight. Rose says it is more like an academic demonstration piece than a play.

The play is in four parts with several sub-divisions:

Part 1. The Religious World

  1. And compel them to come in
  2. The Renunciatrix

Part 2. The Tragic World

  1. Watchmen of the Sovereign Secret
  2. The Story of Herr Zacharias
  3. The Exterminator

Part 3. The Occult World

  1. At the Threshold
  2. The Renunciator

Part 4. The Passional World

  1. Trial by Gold and Love
  2. The Supreme Option

There are two central characters, representing the male and female principles, Axël and Sara.

Act 1. The Religious World (31 pages)

Act 1 (The Religious World) describes in minute detail the preparations in the darkened chapel of a Catholic convent in Flanders for the ordination of Sara, a 23-year-old foundling, her official initiation into the sorority of nuns. (Her full and highly symbolic name is Eve Sara Emmanuele, Princess of Maupers, p.27.)

Long speeches by the Abbess reveal various facts including that Sara is set to inherit much wealth which will come to the convent if she formally joins; but that she has proven difficult and obstinate. These doubts about her are fully justified when, after a vast amount of verbiage from the Abbess and ceremonial Latin from the Archdeacon, at the first point where she has to indicate her willingness to join, Sara utters the single word ‘No’ (p.31).

The entire convent is thrown into chaos, the Abbess wailing, her fellow nuns lamenting. When they’ve exited the Archdeacon unleashes long speeches about how she must renounce the flesh in order to become one with God etc and opens the vault of the founder where, he implies, she ought to be locked in to ponder her sins, but instead Sara seizes a huge axe, placed in the chapel as a votive offering and forces the old man down into the vault, then slams the stone lids shot in him. Opens the chapel windows so that wind and snow blow in, extinguishing the holy lamps. She tears a long pall into two strips, ties one end of it to a bar across the window, then climbs out, lowering herself down the pall out of sight, and so escapes the convent.

This is the rejection of religious commitment.

In Act 2. The Tragic World (77 pages)

I was expecting the ‘play’ to continue in the same overwrought, intense, religiose atmosphere of the first act, so Act 2 comes as a surprise. It opens to reveal that we are in the hall of a grand castle in Germany, somewhere in the Black Forest and introduces us to three of Axel’s loyal retainers (Gotthold, Miklaus, Hartwig who lost an arm in the wars), tall old men, some wearing old military uniforms bearing the Iron Cross. They are tidying up the grand hall, bickering, joking, reminiscing and giving us the backstory to their master, the central figure of the play.

This is that their master, the Count Axël of Auersperg, German prince, inherited the castle and estates when his father, Count Gherard of Auersperg, died just after the end of the Napoleonic wars i.e. 1815. The very day of Gherard’s death, a relative named Janus arrived and, when the will was read, it turned out that this Janus was given the baby Axel to raise (p.49). Now, 20 years have passed (so it’s about 1835) and the young Count, still supervised by the spookily unageing Janus, has recently been visited by a guest, Commander Kaspar.

At this precise moment, as Act 2 starts, Axël is out hunting, although the three retainers point out the sky clouding over and a storm blowing in. The three old men are interrupted by the arrival of Axël’s young servant, Ukko, who ought to be accompanying their lord. He says Axël is fine and has taken shelter from the storm in a cave. He’s mainly concerned to tell them that out in the woods he came across a pretty maiden, Luisa, who turns out to the daughter of Hans Glück the ranger, he wooed her, asked her father for her hand, and they are now engaged (p.53).

Barely has he finished his excitable account of all this before tall, lordly Commander Kaspar enters, very tall, very noble, about 43. The others pay their respects and exit leaving the Commander to survey the table laid for him and browse Axël’s bookshelves. He soliloquises and what emerges is that he believes his young cousin is falling into bad habits, locked up in this remote place he is taking an unhealthy interest in the occult, Hermeticism, Kabbalism and suchlike (p.56). He needs to be taken in hand, will prove malleable, will make a splash if presented at court where he’d be a hit with the ladies and ‘could win for me with the king certain influences’ (p.57).

Key fact: Kaspar has been staying at the caste for 8 days and this evening, after dinner, plans to leave, to ride 8 miles or so to a nearby village, overnight there, and catch a coach to Berlin the next morning.

The story of Herr Zacharias

He is musing how to manage Axël’s chamberlain, Herr Zacharias, when the latter enters and declares he has an important revelation to make. With a great deal of historical detail he tells the mystery of Axël’s father who, when the French invaded the German states during the Napoleonic War, was put in charge of a military convoy assigned to carry the nation’s wealth in gold ingots (‘eighty munitions wagons of the National Bank of Frankfurt, 400 casks of coin and gold bars, caissons of precious stones) to a safe place in the country. The conventional account has it that they were ambushed by the French and killed but Zacharias has a new, conspirator version, which is that the father decoyed the convoy deep into the Black Forest round this castle and buried it in a secret underground chamber. It was as he and his fellow officers were rejoining the convoy that they were ambushed and killed. But Zacharias himself was here, at the castle, when Count Gherard appeared suddenly, to visit his pregnant wife, Countess Lisvia of Auersperg, for a hurried kiss and farewell, before he rode off to his death. So somewhere near the castle is untold wealth which, due to complicated legal matters which he goes into, no longer belongs to anyone. I.e. finders keepers.

He revealed all this to his master, Lord Axël, but the latter made him and the others with him at that moment, all swear an oath of silence on the matter, and that was three years ago.

Enter Axël

Commander Kaspar is just about to enquire more when the protagonist of the play, Axël, finally makes his appearance. The servants reappear and serve Kaspar and Axël a sumptuous dinner. Over this meal (wild boar with red pepper and vanilla) Kaspar starts to make the pitch which is, as I understand it, the heart of this act, namely to persuade him to leave his self-imposed exile and return with Kaspar to the Court with its ‘merriment, luxury and love’. Kaspar goes on to describe the pleasure of having affairs at court, specifically how half the fun of ‘conquering’ a woman is knowing that her husband is driven mad with jealousy. Axël is visibly disgusted with all this.

(A notable aspect of the play is the use of asides. I’m used to this from Shakespearian and Restoration drama but it’s odd encountering it here, in a supposedly modern play. Thus the Commander is continually indicated as making asides [To himself]. I might be mistaken but I think that in one of these he implies that, as they ride together through the dark forest, he will shoot Axël and so inherit his estate and wealth. Another obvious aspect of these sometimes very long asides, is that the other characters have to hang around waiting while the character delivers their long aside, pretending they can neither near nor see them doing so. Bringing out what a very undramatic playwright Villiers was.]

So if Act 1 centred on the Archdeacon’s extended speeches using a variety of arguments to prove the value of the religious life, the servants now leave these two men alone and Kaspar embarks on a panoply of arguments to draw Axël from his reclusive life, studying esoteric knowledge under the mysterious Mater Janus, and instead:

‘Imitate me. Seize life…without illusions and without weakness,’ (p.82)

He gives a few more illustrations of how rewarding life at court is, before he decides to reveal what Herr Zacharias has revealed to him about the supposedly buried treasure. He calmly confesses that he himself is penniless but if they hire workers to dig in the castle grounds he will be happy to split the treasure when they find it 50/50.

Axël calls Herr Zacharias and very solemnly accuses him of breaking his oath and telling.

Next, to my astonishment, Axël calls his page, Ukko, and tells him to fetch the three old servants and bring two swords. Then, while Kaspar is still rambling on about h is dreams of sudden wealth and life of pleasure at court, Axël announces that Kaspar has mortally insulted him and he is challenging him to a duel. He ceases to be a guest in his home, this big hall will make a fair duelling ground, he indicates parchment and quill which he can use to write his will and that one of them will not leave the hall alive.

Kaspar is as amazed and surprised as the audience. Initially he thinks, like us, that it’s some kind of joke but it isn’t He sarcastically suggests that all guests to the castle be warned of the fatal consequences of staying there, but no jokes, pleas or expressions of outrage deter Axël and so they prepare to fight a duel. For full Gothic effect the storm has picked up again and the fight is illuminated by lightning and thunder.

BUT…some of the Commander’s words strike a chord with Axël’s servants. He sees them hesitate and so…in a move much criticised by all the play’s audiences and readers. Villiers has Axël put down his sword and launch a very long defence of his actions and the text turns into something more like a courtroom scene than an action movie.

For now Axël speaks at very great length, for well over 20 pages, to a series of accusations:

  • he refutes the Commander’s accusation that he wants to keep the gold for himself, claiming that a) he doesn’t know where it is b) he doesn’t want it or need it
  • the Commander accused him of keeping it from the State but Axël says it was the ‘State’ which sent his father to his doom and whose official histories accused his father of ineptness and dereliction of duty; he owes the Sate nothing

There is an interesting passage about language in which Axël says that the words they use are avatars or epitomes of their users and so the words Kaspar uses are gross and base like their speaker and so have nothing in common with the way Axël uses the same words. Can’t help thinking that would be fertile matter for poets like Mallarmé and Valéry.

The final 4 or 5 pages take a surprisingly martial turn for a character who is, I thought, intended to be so otherworldly and spiritual. He surprises the Commander by saying that if the State did send a force against him they would be massacred. He commands the loyalty of all the villages round and all the fit young men (20,000 foresters) who would fight for him. The rough terrain with its close-packed trees would block the advance of any army while his guerrillas picked it off. The crenellations of his castle are designed to host 48 cannon which would massacre any forces coming within two leagues. If a smaller force was sent they would be ripped to shred by his pack of psychotic Ulm hounds. He even declares the miners of the region are loyal to him and still very resentful of the forced conscription which sent them to war and so some of them would happily undertake a mission to assassinate the king. After a couple of such assassinations ‘the State’ would call off its attack on Axël.

So you can see why I was very surprised that the character I thought was going to be a mimsy aesthete and sensitive poet turns out to be a touchy, aggressive warlord who dreams of midnight attacks on the sleeping army which would result in ‘simple, thorough slaughter’ (p.114). He would set the forest on fire to roast an attacking army. In winter he would use landslides and the release of cunningly placed boulders. Survivors and deserters would be picked off one by one before they managed to escape the forest. At which point Axël’s forces would storm out of the forest and attack the nearest towns, thus triggering a civil war right across Germany. It’s an extraordinarily apocalyptic vision.

Or, they could leave this mild eccentric alone to his studies. But now he gestures to the Commander to pick up his sword. By this point, after this long rhodomontade, Kaspar, like the audience, knows that Axël isn’t kidding.

So they sword fight and Villiers describes it in some detail, the lights flashing off the blades etc, in a very cinematic style, Kaspar doing all the attacking, Axël impassively defending, till the latter sees an opening and with one quick thrust, runs Kaspar through the heart. He falls to the floor and dies without a word. Axël thanks his retainers for their faith, and orders them to take the body down to the vaults to bury.

At this moment, the mystery figure of Axël’s mentor, Master Janus, tall, 50, silver-haired, appears at the top of the steps at the back of the hall, a hieratic figure with a face like an Assyrian relief.

Comment

Axël’s very long speech which makes up the second half of this act and forms a long hiatus between the challenge to a duel and the duel itself, has led to much criticism. The translator, Marilyn Rose, describes it as possibly the most boring second act in all drama while even W.B. Yeats, a fan who tried to get the work staged in London, admitted in his preface to the 1924 translation that the second act ‘dragged greatly’.

I found this true of the first part which consists of a legalistic defence Axël’s right to the supposed treasure in which he gives various definitions of ‘the State’ and its obligations or lack thereof to him and his family – but I found his description of the castle’s defences against any form of attack, which escalates into the vision of launching a countrywide civil war, completely unexpected and surprisingly vivid. Much more practical and imaginable than the tedious religiosity of Act 1.

It’s taken quite a long time, but this act amounts to the rejection of the world, of fleshly pleasure, gold and power.

In Act 3. The Occult World (17 pages)

In line with the highly staged and schematic nature of the work, Act 3 consists entirely of a dialogue in which the Magus, Master Janus, lectures Axël on how to escape the world of Becoming into the world of Being. It follows immediately from the previous scene and starts with the voodoo idea that the vapour from Kaspar’s blood, which is still lying on a pool on the floor of the hall, has enveloped Axël, he has breathed it in along with the worldly instincts of its owner, and it has revived his worldly feelings and dragged him back to earth. He feels curious about the Gold which he hasn’t done for years.

In his ten page lecture Master Janus uses all manner of metaphors and occult language. Some of this made sense to me, some of it seemed like wordy gibberish, a few thoughts or phrases really struck home. Here’s an example of the boilerplate, stock, standard rhetoric of the mystic of all philosophies and religions, echoing the sentiments of the Stoics as summarised by Cicero or Marcus Aurelius:

‘The Law is the energy of beings! It is the living, free, substantial Notion in which the realms of the Seen and the Unseen moves, animates, immobilises or transforms the totality of all becoming…You originate in the Immemorial.’ (p.128)

Elsewhere he says something which resonated with me:

‘If what passes or changes worth remembering? What would you like to remember?’ (p.125)

I have plenty of regrets. I fantasise about the Buddhist ideal of achieving total release from all worldly ties and attachments. If only…. A little later Janus says:

‘He alone is free who has opted forever, that is, who can no longer be tempted and is no longer compelled to hesitate.’ (p.129)

At school we endlessly discussed existentialism, Catholicism, Kierkegaard, Hesse, Eastern philosophies, the leap of faith. The Sartrean idea that you are absolutely free to make your choices and your choices decide who you are, trumped by the notion of many faiths that once you have committed everything becomes clear and simple. No further agonising required. The Act is full of ideas like this.

As to the stagecraft, something pretty dramatic happens halfway through which is that the storm which has been rumbling along in the background, and intensified during the duel scene, suddenly leaps in intensity, as a bold of lightning crashes through a window and streaks across the hall as a sheet of flame, darting past the arms hanging on the old medieval wall until it strikes the fireplace and carves a furrow in it. Pretty impressive if this could be staged. As impossible as some of Wagner’s stage directions.

Anyway, this doesn’t have the shattering effect on the two protagonists as you might imagine, not least because Master Janus goes over to the shattered window, opens it and, as if by magic, the storm calms, the air clears, the night becomes serene as if ‘under a calm enchantment.’

Anyway Master Janus’s long mystical lecture reaches a climax when he asks Axël whether he accepts ‘Light, Hope and Life’ to which Axël, like Sara in the parallel moment in Act 1, replies quietly with one little word, No.

This is the rejection of the world of the occult.

Janus has half a page saying that Axël therefore commits to becoming more ensnared in earthly chains before being superseded because Gotthold enters to say that two of the other servants encountered a stagecoach on the road to the castle, found its occupant to be a young woman dressed in mourning, and that she is even now being taken to a spare bedroom.

Now, back at the start of Act 3 Janus had confided a prediction to the audience:

‘The Hour has come – she too is going to come, she who renounced ideal Divinity for the secret of the Gold…here then face to face the final duality of the two races I chose from the depths of the ages that simple and virginal humanity might conquer the twofold illusion of Gold and Love – that is, to found in a point of Becoming the virtue of a new Sign.’ (p.124)

Well, now she (Sara) has arrived and in fact is seen progressing along the back of the stage following a servant carrying a candle, while Janus closes the act with these portentous words:

‘The Veil and the Mantle, both renunciators, have intersected: the Work nears fulfilment.’ (p.139)

Ah. All is as foretold. Jolly good.

Act 4. The Passional World (32 pages)

Act four moves scene to be set in the vast castle vault, packed with statues of the family dead, with a hanging censer. The servants have buried Kaspar and are just preparing a cross for him. As at the start of Act 2, the atmosphere is lightened with some banter between the three old retainers (Gotthold, Hartwig, Miklaus) who have some respect for the dead Kaspar, and young Ukko who is so dismissive and disrespectful it makes the old men angry.

Enter Axël in travelling clothes. He tells the retainers he is leaving early the next morning and they react with incredulity and tears, especially young Ukko, who he astonishes by saying that, if he doesn’t return, the estate will be his. Tears and laments but then they slowly exit the vault leaving Axël alone and he forbids them to return. When you think about it, this is odd. Surely he should go to bed or some such. Leaving him down in the vault feels very staged to allow Axël not to leave but (in the event) to do away with himself.

What happens first is that while Axël is pondering he hears footsteps, hides, and sees Sara enter the vault. She goes over to the big escutcheon at one end and applies the point of the dagger she’s holding. As in hundreds of movies about secret treasure, at the touch of the dagger in the right spot the entire wall starts to sink and reveals a long ark vault and…a huge treasure of diamonds and other jewels, along with gold coins, comes flowing and tumbling over her and into the hall.

Axël emerges from hiding and makes to approach her, but quick as a flash she pulls two pistols from her belt, Lara Croft style, and shoots at him, twice, he dodges so her bullets only graze his chest.

Axël continues on towards her, grabs her hand with the dagger and is on the verge of stabbing her when he sees her face for the first time and hesitates. Huh. I thought the play was going to be a love story of sorts but it turns out nothing like it. 1) These two characters spend most of the play apart and only meet for these last 20 pages and 2) their first reaction is to try to shoot or stab each other.

In that voodoo Liebestod manner patented by Wagner, they don’t talk about love but about death, about trying to kill each other, how only one of them can survive etc in a quite psychopathic way.

‘From now on, my senses tell me, knowing you are alive would keep me from living! That is why I crave the sight of your lifeless body. And, whether or not you understand, I am going to become your executioner…’ (p.154)

However Sara deflects this by unleashing a torrent of erotic rhetoric at which Axël melts, sits her on the ebony sofa, kneels at her feet.

‘I know the secret of infinite pleasures and delectating cries, the secret of voluptuous sensations where every hope expires.’ (p.155)

‘Beneath your night-hued hair you are like an ideal lily, blooming in tenebrae. What quiverings rise at the right of you, my love?’

Sara tells Axël she grew up in a convent where she was mistreated and miserable and he immediately vows to raze it to the ground so she has to talk him out of that.

Sara tells Axël the story of plucking a rose from a rose bush in the winter snows, a story designed to evoke the Rosicrucians, very popular at the time.

Then Sara spends 3 or 4 pages giving exotic orientalising descriptions of exotic destinations around the Mediterranean and into the Far East which they could visit together.

The windows of the vault lighten as dawn comes, at the same time they hear Axël’s retainers singing a sad song about their master leaving.

But then Axël is stricken with an insight. He startles Sara by saying none of her visions will happen because they have just fulfilled them by imagining them. How could any reality live up to the ecstatic visions of this wonderful night?

‘If we accepted life now, we would commit a sacrilege against ourselves. As for living, our servants will do that for us.’ (p.170)

So this famous quote comes in the context of Axël realising that Reality can never live up to their ecstatic imaginings of it.

‘Satiated for all eternity, let us rise from the table and in all justice let us leave to ordinary mortals whose ill-fated nature can measure the value of realities only by sensation, the task of picking up the banquet crumbs. I have thought too much to stoop to act.’

From this he goes on to ask whether they want to experience all the maladies that ordinary mortals do, growing old and disappointment, old age and boredom. Sara realises he is justifying suicide, to cease now, at their moment of highest ecstasy and anticipation.

All the wonderful exotic places she listed? In reality they are piles of rubble and paupers.

‘You have thought them? That is enough, do not look at them. The earth…is swollen like a brilliant bubble with misery and deceit…Let us get away from her, completely! Violently!’ (p.171)

Sara hesitates and gives half a dozen reasons not to die which Axël (rather unconvincingly) refutes. So the tips the poison granules from the emerald ring she wears into a jewel-encrusted goblet Axël brings her, then he takes it up to a window and (rather impractically) captures the morning dew in it.

Then, as they hear the Chorus of the Woodsmen celebrating the arrival of dawn (as in an opera). Alongside it they hear the marriage song of young Ukko marrying the ranger’s daughter and Axël asks Sara to give the young couple their blessing. Then with a last few lyrical words, the pair drink from the goblet and die in each other’s arms, as the sun finally rises and we hear:

distant murmurs of the wind in the forest vastness, vibrations of the awakening of space, the surge of the plain, the hum of life. (p.175)

Thoughts

Obviously it’s a long, wordy, undramatic, wild farrago of ideas and images. Only at a few isolated moments does it become something like a believable depiction of human beings: in some of the early exchanges between the Abbess and Archdeacon, but most of all in the banter between the three old retainers at the start of acts 2 and 4. Kaspar’s disbelief when Axël abruptly challenges him to a duel suddenly has a human dimension. And Axël’s long description of the military precautions he’d taken to defend the castle, although over the top, is at least understandable.

For the rest it is very like the hieratic, static, stagey, work of symbolic drama of legend. Axël and Sara are both allegorical figures and symbols of something. This doesn’t trouble me. At university I studied allegories such as Gawayne and the Green Knight, Piers Plowman and the Pilgrim’s Progress. From that perspective, Axël is not allegorical enough. In acts 1 and 3, I felt the presentation of Christian theology and the mystical doctrines of the occult were not presented powerfully enough. The speeches of the Archdeacon and of Master Janus were just that, speeches made up of tissues of doctrine and rhetoric, rather than actions which fully dramatised the worldviews which Sara and Axël, respectively, reject.

Similarly, I was surprised that the section devoted to Commander Kaspar talking about life at court was so short, that Axël interrupted him fairly quickly by telling him how much he had insulted him (Axël) and challenging him to a duel. Surprised because I thought there would be more, in a Decadent play, about the life of the senses, about sensual pleasure, that it would be more fully worked out and detailed, than Kaspar simply saying it’s a lot of fun to seduce people’s wives at court.

I think what I’m saying is that, although all the acts are very wordy, they somehow fail to really bring out the essence of the three worldviews Villiers is schematically depicting. He accumulates arguments into great diatribes rather than selecting the key one or two, which would have been more focused, more dramatic.

In passing, I was expecting from summaries and references to the play, that the two protagonists, Axël and Sara, engage in an extended love affair, that the play is about their love but, as you can see from my summary, this is far from being the case. Sara only has one word to say in the first 31 pages and then disappears for 118 pages, only reappearing on page 149. It’s only in the last 20 or so pages that they are together on stage.

Obviously, the way they go from cheerfully wanting to murder each other to becoming besottedly in love with each other, unable to leave each other, so saturatedly in love that Axël comes to realise the rest of their lives can only be a pitiful anticlimax after this night of intense union, is so off-the-scale unreal as to be beyond comical and into the realm of high-pitched music-drama, Wagnerian opera which there’s no point applying common sense to, which is intended to sweep you up into a world of primal emotions beyond logic or sense, and I think it successfully does this.

Lastly, looking just at the end, it is thought provoking how this entire approach – rejecting religion, worldly pleasure, sex, wealth and success, and then the lures of occult mystical philosophy – leaves the characters, in the end, with only one option, to do away with themselves and leave the world altogether. In the darkened world of the auditorium, stunned by a succession of melodramatic scenes, special effects, weeping nuns, murdered soldiers and sheets of lightning, I can imagine this working, in dramatic context i.e. under the spell of everything which came before.

But at the same time, when the play ends, you emerge out into the light of day, blinking and dazed, and realise it has nothing to do with your life, with anyone’s life. That is both its strength, as a piece of achingly contrived artifice, a deliberate rejection of every aspect of tedious everyday existence, and its obvious weakness, because a suicide pact is not really a very practical philosophy of life.

As Axël deploys his case for suicide I couldn’t help thinking of Albert Camus’s famous book-length argument against suicide, The Myth of Sisyphus, written almost exactly fifty years later (1890/1942). I don’t really know enough about the full breadth of French literature, but I wonder if you could say that Camus, in part, answering the question de L’Isle-Adam put half a century earlier.

Finally, I’ve been reading the quotation, ‘As for living, our servants will do that for us’ for 40 years or more, and have finally got round to reading it in context. For all that time I imagined it expressed the splendid confidence of an Oscar Wilde-type character, drolly, ironically, aristocratically superior. Comic. Now I see it is something quite different. It is the almost contemptuous, disdainful comment of a character arguing the case for joint suicide. Not so comically droll after all. They are the words of someone who’s become fanatically convinced that the only way forward is to kill himself. Not at all what I’ve believed all these years…

The translation

If the work is a masterpiece of French Symbolist prose that doesn’t come over one little bit in this translation, which captures the overwrought vocabulary but without the slightest trace of magic. All too often the translation has only half removed from the original French, retaining the original syntax so as to appear thoroughly foreign in word order and rhythm.

However, by what so advantageous subjects of idle conversation do you so often replace the interest which these other subjects, perhaps, encompass…

Really, however insignificant the object of my favourite studies might be in your judgement, one can hardly see in what respect I have gained in exchange this evening by listening to you. (p.91)

Whether it’s Villiers, Rose or both to blame, a lot of the translation is clunky, clumsy and, because of this, unmemorable and sometimes hard to follow.


Credit

I read ‘Axël’ in the translation by Marilyn Gaddis Rose published by the Soho Book Company in 1986.

Related links

Related reviews

A Rebours by Joris-Karl Huysmans (1884)

Artifice was considered by Des Esseintes to be the distinctive mark of human genius. Nature has had her day; she has finally and utterly exhausted the patience of sensitive observers by the revolting uniformity of her landscapes and skyscapes…with her never-ending platitudes the old crone has exhausted the good-humoured admiration of all true artists and the time has surely come for artifice to take her place whenever possible.
(À rebours, chapter 2)

It was to him that this voice, as mysterious as an incantation, was addressed; it was to him that it spoke of the feverish desire for the unknown, the unsatisfied longing for an ideal, the craving to escape from the horrible realities of life, to cross the frontiers of thought, to grope after a certainty, albeit without finding one, in the misty upper regions of art!
(Chapter 9 cf p.117)

The title, the French phrase ‘A Rebours’, translates into English as ‘Against the Grain’ or ‘Against Nature’.

Joris-Karl Huysmans, born in 1848 to a French mother and Dutch father (hence his unfrench surname) supported himself with a steady job as a minor civil servant in Paris (where his colleagues knew him as simply ‘Georges’), while he wrote novels to amuse himself.

His first three novels followed the school of Naturalism led by the great Émile Zola. But he bridled at the documentary grimness and the extensive sociological research demanded by this style and so, in his fourth novel, A rebours, struck out in a new direction.

He was as surprised as anyone when it took Paris by storm. Its depiction of a neurasthenic aristocrat who retires to a house of his own design to experiment with an exquisite life of the senses immediately struck a chord with members of the Aesthetic movement, not only in France but Britain and across Europe. The poet Paul Valéry called it his ‘Bible and his bedside book’.

In the 1890s the Aesthetic movement intensified into what came to be known as the Decadence, the conscious exploration of the darker, morbid side of life, exaggerated into fantastic visions. Literature took on the tones of melodrama in British works like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, in a consciously literary work like Heart of Darkness, even in fairly ‘straight’ works like the more melodramaticSherlock Holmes stories, and, of course, in Oscar Wilde’s ‘scandalous’ contribution to the genre, The Picture of Dorian Grey.

In France with its strong counter-revolutionary Catholic tradition, they took these things more seriously and intensely. Words like ‘blasphemy’ and ‘sin’ in the mouths of Oscar Wilde characters were little more than a style accessory; but in the minds of genuine Catholics they denoted real and soul-threatening facts. Anyway, A Rebours became a kind of handbook for the Decadent Movement, a breviary, a missal, a set of instructions.

Arguably, ‘the Decadence’ is best understood via key paintings in the parallel style of Symbolism, particularly the over-ripe paintings of Gustave Moreau and the strange works of Odilon Redon. In England, maybe the most ‘decadent’ products in any form were the amazing drawings of Aubrey Beardsley and the notorious Yellow Book (1894 to 1897).

A rebours

So what is À rebours about?

Prologue [early years and fast living in Paris] (8 pages)

Well, it starts with a brief prologue limning the personality of the central character, Jean des Esseintes. The book is going to be about him and him alone. Des Esseintes is the weak and weary, worn-out, last scion of a once-great aristocratic house, an eccentric, reclusive, ailing aesthete. His childhood was plagued with illnesses. His parents hated each other. His father was absent most of the time. His mother spent most of her time lying in a darkened bedroom, subject to nervous attacks if exposed to even the slightest light or noise. Abandoned and crushingly lonely, the young Jean spent most of his time in the library, living through books.

In fact the Prologue is unexpectedly funny in a savage satirical way, taking the mickey out of de Esseintes’ wretchedly unhappy parents, the teachers at his Jesuit school who don’t know what to do with the bright unfocused boy and then his various attempts, as an adult, to find his tribe, to find a group of people to fit in with. He tries four or five different types (his actual family, starting with tedious cousins; sensible but dull men his own age; fast-living aristos; the literary set; so-called ‘freethinkers’) and finds them all unbearably boring. He has become ‘a jaded sophisticate’ (p.111).

During his Paris years Des Esseintes:

  • wears a suit of white velvet with a gold-laced waistcoat, and a bunch of palma violets in his shirt front instead of a cravat
  • holds a black-themed funeral dinner, held in honour of his dead virility, described in a page which is worth reading and rereading for its (literally) black humour

Des Esseintes tries sex: he attends unconventional dinner parties where the women strip off; he beds singers and actresses; he takes mistresses already famed for their depravity; he pays for call girls with specialist skills; eventually he seeks satisfaction in the gutter, among the filthy proles. The effort was making him weak and shaky but still he tried ‘unnatural love affairs and perverse pleasures’ but, in the end, he emerged disgusted with the whole thing and himself, and ill with boredom.

The key thing to emphasise is that the excesses of these bachelor debaucheries have made him ill, exacerbating his many boyhood ailments:

The excesses of his bachelor days and the abnormal strains put on his brain had aggravated his neurosis to an astonishing degree and still further diluted the blood of his race. (p.94)

He has become:

a feeble, broken-down, short-winded creature (p.111)

And so it is that, utterly worn out, trembling with nervous exhaustion and disgusted by people and contemporary society, by ‘the money grubbing ignominy of the age’ (p.194), Des Esseintes sells the big ancestral home, the Chateau de Lourps, selling off the setting of his bored miserable childhood, and retires to a house he has had completely redesigned and refurbished to his tastes on the outskirts of Paris (‘on the hillside above Fontenay-aux-Roses’). He seeks a solitude and silence which are ‘a well merited compensation for the years of rubbish he’s had to listen to’ (p.132).

Now the narrative proper begins and turns out to be a series of chapter in each of which Des Esseintes explores, in obsessive detail, aspects of the worlds of sensual pleasure, esoteric knowledge, the exquisite and beautiful and perversely tasteful, carrying out a syllabus of ‘delicious, atrocious experiments’ (p.129). The narrative is, in other words, ‘almost entirely a catalogue of the neurotic Des Esseintes’s aesthetic tastes, musings on literature, painting, and religion, and hyperaesthesic sensory experiences.’

Des Esseintes’ weakness

The key thing to emphasise is that Des Esseintes is no swaggering Byronic buccaneer. He is pale and wasted. He is ill. He is weak:

sapped by disillusionment, depressed by hypochondria and weighed down by spleen.

All he wants is absolute peace and quiet. All his pleasures are solitary, slow and virtually silent. He is the extreme opposite of the sex and drugs and rock and roll lifestyle. He brings the two old servants from the ancestral home with him but makes them wear felt slippers, all the doors are oiled and all the rooms soundproofed because his nerves are so poor. It is not a lusty virile decadence, but the exquisite mental pleasures of someone on their last legs. The house really is a retreat from the world.

You might expect Des Esseintes would organise riotous feasts packed with elaborate dishes, but that is to mistake his mental and physical frailty. In reality, his stomach is so done in by his previous fast living (referred to and dismissed in the Prologue) that he can only manage the plainest of fare: breakfast consists of two boiled eggs, toast and tea. (Mind you, he has breakfast at 5pm, lunch at 11pm, and toys with a simple dinner at dawn; decadents, like symbolists, being unhealthily attracted to the night.)

Not exuberant sensuality, but boredom and spleen, and underneath everything, profound ill health, are the keynotes of the whole thing.

Chapter 1 (7 pages)

The decoration of the house, its fabrics, colours and designs, the walls lined with leather, the mouldings and plinths painted deep indigo, the massive 15th century money-changers’ table, the tall lectern, the windows of blue-ish glass dressed with curtains cut out of old ecclesiastical stoles

Chapter 2 (8 pages)

Describes the pipes, ducts, aquarium and dim windows Des Esseintes rigs up in his dining room so as to feel like he’s in a steamship on a grand cruise. This leads into a dithyramb in praise of artifice and artificiality:

Travel struck him as a waste of time since he believed that the imagination can provide a more-than-adequate substitution for the vulgar reality of actual experience.

And:

There can be no doubt that by transferring this ingenious trickery, this clever simulation to the intellectual plane, one can enjoy, just as easily as on the material plane, imaginary pleasures similar in all respects to the pleasures of reality. (p.35)

Which leads up to the declaration that, contrary to several thousand years of aesthetic theory, which has drummed home the message that the true artist needs to return to nature, that nature is truth etc etc, contrary to all this Des Esseintes insists that the artificial is always superior:

As a matter of fact, artifice was considered by Des Esseintes to be the distinctive mark of human genius. (p.36)

Which leads on to the amusing thought that Nature is a clapped-out old crone, a cliché, serving up the same stereotyped old special effects, red sunsets, glistening moonglow etc etc yawn. What is needed is the new aesthetic of complete artificiality.

(This passage amounts to a manifesto in praise of Artifice and, more than specific passages about jewels or flowers, is probably the ”Bible’ part of the book, the bit which other authors read again and again. It certainly lies behind, or is virtually repeated, in Oscar Wilde’s essays about the superiority of art over nature.)

Chapter 3 (13 pages)

A prolonged, descriptive and hilariously opinionated review of his encyclopedic collection of Latin literature, from Plautus to the tenth century. Particularly funny are his contemptuous dismissals of the classics, Virgil, Horace, Cicero et al, witness:

the disgust he felt for the elephantine Horace’s vulgar twaddle, for the stupid patter he keeps up as he simpers at his audience like a painted old clown… (p.41)

Later in the book, discussing French literature, he explains this at further length:

Imperfection itself pleased him, provided it was neither base nor parasitic, and it may be that there was a certain amount of truth in his theory that the minor writer of the decadence, the writer who is incomplete but none the less individual, distils a balm more irritant, more sudorific, more acid than the author of the same period who is truly great and truly perfect. In his opinion, it was in their confused efforts that you could find the most exalted flights of sensibility, the most morbid caprices of psychology, the most extravagant aberrations of language called upon in vain to control and repress the effervescent salts of ideas and feelings. (p. 185).

He prefers more heterogenous authors of the later, ‘Silver Age’ such as Petronius (he gives a plot summary of the Satyricon) and Apuleius (author of The Golden Ass) before moving on to consider numerous obscure works of early Christian literature.

Chapter 4 (10 pages)

Des Esseintes needs a centerpiece to bring out some of the colours in a rare oriental rug he owns and has the bright idea of gilding and then embedding the shell of a tortoise with gemstones and placing it on the rug. This leads in to a review of the colour and meaning of jewels, which is itself punctuated by a description of the ‘mouth organ’, a device for mixing amounts of expensive liqueurs so as to produce symphonies of flavour on his palate. He even devises mixes of flavours to mimic the effect and instrumentation of classical music (symphony, string quartet etc).

For some reason the chapter ends with a farcical anecdote about a raging toothache which kept him up all night till he rushed off at opening time to the first cheap dentist he could find who tugged and tugged at the septic molar like a fairground huckster. In its crude farce, this episode is oddly out of kilter with the solemn intensity of most of the book, but then Huysmans didn’t realise he was writing a book which would become a ‘Bible’.

Chapter 5 (15 pages)

A long description of, then meditation on, the painting of Salome Dancing before Herod by top Symbolist painter, Gustave Moreau. In his view Salome appears as ‘a great venereal flower, grown in a bed of sacrilege, reared in a hothouse of impiety’ (p.68). Then further analysis of Moreau’s watercolour of her, titled ‘The Apparition‘.

In his red boudoir des Esseintes has a series of engravings by Jan Luyken, titled ‘Religious Persecutions‘, a collection of the most disgusting and horrifying tortures humans can impose on each other, which make him choke with horror. Other works of art he loves include:

Plus numerous works by Odilon Redon which plunge deep ‘into the horrific realms of bad dreams and fevered visions…exceeding the bounds of pictorial art and creating a new type of fantasy, born of sickness and delirium’, reminding Des Esseintes of the many fever dreams of his own sick boyhood (p.73).

As a break from modern artists, he has a lurid Christ by El Greco which he loves gazing at.

This segues into a passage describing how he’s decorated his bedroom. Bedrooms come in 2 types, one for the pleasures of the flesh, the other restrained and monastic. Having got sex out of his system in Paris, Des Esseintes makes his bedroom into a chaste retreat. Characteristically, he seeks to mimic the effect of a plain and worn monastery but by using exquisite and expensive materials. This is dryly funny but what I took from the description is that:

like a monk he was overwhelmed by an immense weariness, by a longing for peace and quiet (p.76)

Chapter 6 (6 pages)

Sitting quietly in front of a quiet fire he has two memories, both satirically funny:

When one of his group of bachelors back in Paris, D’Aigurande, announces he intends to get married, Des Esseintes is the only one who supports him but not out of common goodwill. The reverse. When he hears that the bride-to-be plans to move into one of the circular flats in the new blocks of flats lining the new boulevards, he knows there’ll be comedy ahead and indeed there is, as the new couple struggle to find furniture to fit the shape and layout of the flat, leading to endless arguments, the wife eventually moving to a new normal-shaped flat where none of their rounded furniture fits, D’Aigurande spending more and more time out seeking distraction while she has an affair. This was precisely the cruel entertainment Des Esseintes had anticipated and then relishes.

The second memory is deliberately monstrous. Des Esseintes comes across a street urchin who asks him for a light. Instead Des Esseintes takes him to a high class brothel and pays for him to have sex with one of the whores. The madam of the house asks why. Des Esseintes shares his sadistic plan, which is to pay for the boy to have sex there every fortnight for a few months, and then abruptly cut him off. The idea is to get him addicted to the high life so that, when he’s suddenly deprived of it, it forces him into a life of crime, leading him eventually to murder some bourgeois householder returning home to find it being burgled by the boy. The madam is shocked, but then she has a lot of odd clients. Anyway, back in the present Des Esseintes is chagrined because although he scours the Police Gazette, he never sees a report about the boy. He feels cheated.

Chapter 7 (12 pages)

Living such a retired, solitary life, Des Esseintes is puzzled and discomfited to discover that many of the questions about life which he smothered during his Paris years, now return to haunt him. Although he was raised by Jesuits, he thought his scepticism secure, but now he’s starting to wonder. Creating the atmosphere of a monastic cell, living a chaste life, reading Christian writers in Latin, he finds his scepticism becoming wobbly.

He comes to realise that his tastes, for artificiality and eccentricity, stem from the subtle sophistical studies of his boyhood education. Weeks pass and he finds his head full of theological speculations, or, their converse, morbid fantasies of grotesque blasphemies.

(Only in Catholic countries is this kind of extremism possible. England with its tea party Church of England never inspired the same fanatacism or morbidness. Anger, yes, as in controversies about Tractarianism, Anglo-Catholicism etc. But no Anglican speculated about putting holy oil and wine to depraved sexual uses as Huysmans does.)

Then these moods leave him, he finds his feet again, reinforces his scepticism by reading (the philosopher) Schopenhauer, disgusted and appalled at the spectacle of a world of pain. The world isn’t guided by a benevolent Providence but is the mangled product of aimless, blind striving.

Now his illnesses come back to haunt him. Terrible headaches, a nervous cough which wakes him in the early hours, searing heartburns. He almost gives up eating, forces himself to go for long walks in the country, puts down his books but almost immediately falls prey to excruciating boredom. He has an idea: to fill the house with hothouse flowers.

Chapter 8 (11 pages)

The flower chapter. In Paris he collected fake flowers, exquisite copies. Now, tired of fake flowers that look like real ones, he wants to collect real flowers that look like fakes. Suffice to say he likes flowers with diseased perfervid colouring, as if stricken with syphilis or leprosy. Sounding very like Oscar Wilde, Des Esseintes declares that:

‘The horticulturalists are the only true artists left to us nowadays.’ (p.102)

That night he has an atrocious nightmare in which he is accompanying a working class woman somewhere when a horse gallops ahead of them, turns and reveals the rider to be a half skeleton, half blue and green demon, with red pustules round the mouth, the figure of Syphilis. The nightmare unfurls through many scenes until the climax when he finds himself embraced by a demon woman, covered in pustules and, as she pulls him (and his erection) closer, her vulva changes into a red wound in the shape of the Venus Flytraps delivered to his houses earlier, the sharp teeth, the glistening digestive juices as she pulls him closer…and he wakes up in a fearful sweat.

Chapter 9 (11 pages)

The nightmares continue, evidence of Des Esseinte’s mounting neuroses. He tries a variety of cures but nothing works. He is all the more irritated as most of the rare flowers he bought at such cost have died. To try and soothe his nerves he reviews his art collection, enjoying the savage skill of Goya’s Caprices, Rembrandt.

Iller than ever, he tries the novels of Charles Dickens, supposedly good for convalescents but is revolted by the stereotyped virginity and chasteness of its young people. This sets off an equal and opposite reaction, and he finds himself shaken by images of perverted lust. He has a small box of purple bonbons, improbably named Pearls of the Pyrenees, which trigger memories of female moments, french kisses, debauches, conquests, sex – ‘Morose delectations’.

He remembers his affair with an American trapeze artist who turned out not to be the agile athlete he hoped for in bed, but prim and Puritanical. The affair with a ventriloquist. One night he placed statues of the Sphinx and the Chimera in his bedroom and had her pitch voices into each, reading out a script from Flaubert. But all the time he is fighting a losing battle against his impotence. He tries having sex with children but their pained grimaces are too samey and boring (p.116). Lastly he remembers being picked up by an attractive young man with whom, apparently, he had a homosexual relationship for a few months.

Like everything else, these memories leave him ‘worn out, completely shattered, half dead’.

Chapter 10 (12 pages)

The chapter on perfumes, the most neglected art of all, displaying Des Esseintes’ usual encyclopedic knowledge and exquisite discriminations, as he sets out to educate himself in the ‘the syntax of smells’, ‘the idiom of essences’, until his sense of smell has ‘acquired an almost infallible flair’.

He gives a history of perfumes which accompany and match French history, certain scents associated with the reigns of Louis 14, 15 and 16, with Napoleon, the restored monarchy etc. Descriptions of his experiments, mixing and mingling rare scents and aromas to create landscapes of the senses, reams of poetic prose describing the aromas he creates on the bed of a vision of a great meadow and swaying linden trees.

Suddenly he has a blinding headache and has to throw open the window to clear the room of its stifling atmosphere. In a brisk mood he decides to sort out the tumble of cosmetics he owns, in his bathroom. Most of these were bought at the insistence of a woman he had an affair with, who loved her nipples to be scented, but couldn’t achieve climax unless she was having her hair combed, or when she could smell soot, wet plaster or the dust thrown up by a summer rainstorm.

One thing leads to another and now he quotes a 2-page-long prose poem he wrote inspired by a visit to this woman’s sister on a day of rain and mud and puddles, which sounds like this:

‘Under the lowering sky, in the humid atmosphere, the houses ooze black sweat and their ventilators breathe black odours; the horror of life becomes more apparent and the grip of spleen more oppressive; the seeds of iniquity that lie in every man’s heart begin to germinate; a craving for filthy pleasures takes hold of the puritanical, and the minds of respected citizens are visited by criminal desires.’ (p.127)

‘Decadent’ enough for you? In fact the prose poem reaches the rather complicated conclusion that invalids, worn out be their debauchery in Paris, often head to the countryside to recuperate, where they die of boredom. He suggests that with a little imagination, their doctors could use perfumes to create the atmosphere of Parisian brothels, thus giving their patients the pleasant impression of being back in their Parisian fleshpots without any of the enervating physical requirements!

But when he throws open the windows he smells again a strong scent of frangipani and, in his weakened state, wonders if he is possessed by some evil spirit, and falls fainting, ‘almost dying’, across the windowsill. It cannot be emphasised enough how the entire narrative is based on Des Esseintes’ almost complete mental and physical collapse.

Chapter 11 (14 pages)

As a result of this collapse his terrified servants call a doctor who declares there’s nothing wrong with Des Esseintes before our hero shoos him out of the house. Suddenly, on a whim, based on his earlier attempt to read the novels of Dickens, des Esseintes conceives the mad idea of going to London. He has the old servant pack his things and is off in a cab to the train station within hours. Next thing he knows he is at the station and engaging a cabbie to take him to a bookstore to buy a guide to London. But as they trot through the streets of Paris Des Esseintes has a vivid and very enjoyable vision of London, the London of fogs and non-stop rain, and soot and rumbling tube trains and miserable pedestrians.

At the bookshop he peruses guidebooks to London, mostly noting lists of paintings hanging in London galleries. He likes the most ‘modern’ works and it is interesting to see that, for a super aesthete like des Esseintes, this means John Everett Millais and George Frederick Watts.

Having bought a guide he goes to the Bodega, a big wine emporium, where he finds himself surrounded by Englishmen about whom he is entertainingly rude:

There were laymen with bloated pork-butcher faces or bulldog muzzles, apoplectic necks, ears like tomatoes, winy cheeks, stupid bloodshot eyes and whiskery collars as worn by some of the great apes. (p.137)

Drifting into a reverie he superimposes on all these faces the names and characters from Dickens’ novels, imagining the hooting of tugs behind the Tuileries are those of boats on the Thames. He then takes the cab through the filthy rainy Paris weather to a warm tavern near the station for the train to Dieppe and boat onto Newhaven.

Here Des Esseintes stuffs himself with an unusually large meal (thick greasy oxtail soup; smoked haddock; roast beef and potatoes; several pints of ale; stilton, then a rhubarb tart; a pint of porter followed by a cup of coffee laced with gin).

There are many English men in the tavern but also some English women, about whom he is also amusingly rude:

Robust Englishwomen with boyish faces, teeth as big as palette-knives, cheeks as red as apples, long hands and long feet. They were enthusiastically attacking helpings of rump-steak pie – meat served hot in mushroom sauce and covered with a crust like a fruit tart. (p.140)

Eventually the bad weather outside, the warmth inside, the effect of an unusually heavy dinner,  and being surrounded by English men and women contribute to the growing sense that there’s no need to go to London. In his imagination he’s already been.

After all, what was the good of moving, when a fellow could travel so magnificently sitting in a chair? Wasn’t he already in London whose smells, weather, citizens, food and even cutlery were all about him? (p.143)

Only a ninny can imagine it is necessary, interesting or useful to travel abroad. And so, with a certain inevitability, he takes the cab back to the Gare de Sceaux, and a train back to Fontenoy, arriving (comically) with:

all the physical weariness and moral fatigue of a man who has come home after a long and perilous voyage.

This is broadly funny. Des Esseintes barely seems the hero of a satanic novel of moral debauchery any more, but a figure of fun, a comically etiolated, knackered, degraded version of the dashing hero of many an adventure novel by his compatriot Jules Vernes.

Chapter 12 (22 pages)

The second longest chapter, a review of French Catholic prose literature.

Des Esseintes (slightly comically) returns to his books as if after a long absence when he has, in fact, been away for one day. It’s a return to the mode of hyperaesthetic review which we’ve seen in the preceding chapters.

Obviously, not only is his book collection of rare and tasteful books, but he insists on having them specially printed – on special paper, printed with hand-made fonts, bound in rare and precious bindings. It is an orgy of exquisite taste, requiring specialist vocabulary such as ‘mirific’ and ‘blind-tooling’.

It is here that he gives a page-long dithyramb to the patron saint of decadence, Charles Baudelaire, who went further than anyone before him to explore ‘the symptoms of souls visited by sorrow, singled out by spleen…[at the age when] the enthusiasms and beliefs of youth have drained away.’ (p.147)

In Des Esseintes’ opinion, few other writers compare; certainly, he is not impressed by the ‘classics’ such as Rabelais and Corneille, Voltaire, Diderot or Rousseau. Pascal he likes for his austere pessimism and ‘agonised attrition’.

When it comes to the nineteenth century literature, he divides it into two classes, Catholic and secular. Catholic writing is good for stating abstract concepts and intellectual distinctions but the general run of Catholic writers is dire.

He is humorously rude about a set of women Catholic writers for their banality (it’s worth mentioning that Huysmans drops casually insulting comments about women throughout the book). Catholic writers generally have fallen victim to a conventional and frozen idiom, drained of all originality – with the exceptions of Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire, the Abbé Peyreyve, the Comte de Falloux, Louis Veuillot, Antoine-Frédéric Ozanam, the Abbé Lamennais, Comte Josephe de Maistre, Ernest Hello and others he singles out.

Reading about these priests and polemicists makes me eternally grateful that England is (or was) a Protestant country, untroubled by the bitter and savage arguments about the role of Catholicism in public life which divided France, and the bitter splits which divided French Catholicism (between Ultramontanists and Gallicists). The bitter divides and the spiteful bigotry underlying French society were to come spilling out in the grotesque Dreyfus Affair a decade after this book was published (1894) whose antagonisms reverberated on to the time of the Great War.

A Catholic writer who went too far for the Church authorities was Jules Barbey d’Aurevilly (1808 to 1889). Des Esseintes likes d’Aurevilly’s more extreme works because they feed his taste for ‘sickly books, undermined and inflamed by fever’ (p.160).

Discussion of d’Aurevilly’s novels A married priest and The devils leads into a meditation on the fact that sadism only really makes sense within the context of Catholic faith. Sadism is a form of sacrilegious rebellion, a spiritual as much as a physical debauch. Without a God and Church to defy, it’s just being cruel.

Des Esseintes shares the fruits of his investigations into the Malleus Maleficorum and the Black Mass, describing a naked woman on all fours whose naked rump has been ‘repeatedly soiled’, serving as the altar from which the anti-congregation take a demonic host printed with the image of a goat, and so on.

Yes, of the entire canon of French Catholic prose, d’Aurevilly is the only one des Esseintes really enjoys reading because his works offer:

those gamy flavours and unhealthy spots, that bruised skin and sleepy taste which he so loved to savour in the decadent writers, both Latin and monastic, of olden times. (p.165)

(See my review of d’Aurevilly’s best known collection of stories, Les Diaboliques.)

Chapter 13 (12 pages)

There’s a heatwave. Feeble Des Esseintes is prostrated. He can’t eat, is almost choking with nausea. He takes down a bottle of Benedictine liqueur which he describes in a half-page prose poem, visions of medieval monks at their alembics.

Going out into the garden to recover his strength he sees a bunch of working class boys fighting in the lane which triggers negative thoughts. What’s the point of the scrofulous little brats being born in the first place? Why does society sell the means of contraception but locks up anyone who has an abortion? Maybe fornication should be banned outright. Then ‘a dreadful feeling of debility came over him again’ (p.172).

He tinkers with a few more liqueurs but they sicken him. We learn that, during his florid Paris heyday he tried hashish and opium but they only made him sick. He would have to rely in his imagination to carry him to other worlds.

He goes back indoors to seek relief from the heat, slumps into a chair and plays with an astrolabe he bought on the Left Bank. Now his mind drifts, reminiscing about walks around Paris, it dawns on him that licensed brothels are slowly being closed down and invariably replaced with taverns. This suggests to him that men tire of walking in, paying, having sex and walking out again. Too easy. In a tavern, on the other hand, you encounter women who you have to banter with, overcome, barter with, in some kind of degraded joust. If you score, there’s more of a sense of achievement. What idiots men are! Des Esseintes reflects, and goes to find some food for his troubled stomach.

Chapter 14 (23 pages)

French secular literature. At one point Des Esseintes worshipped Balzac but, as his health failed, Balzac came to seem too healthy. He changed to Edgar Allen Poe. He wants to be lifted ‘into a sphere where sublimated sensations would arouse within him an unexpected commotion’ (p.180). Hating modern life, as he does, he comes to dislike books which record it, from Flaubert to Zola. Instead he turns more and more to the fantastical, to the artificiality of Flaubert’s Temptation of Saint Anthony. He wants to escape the dullness and stupidity of his age, and fancy himself in another era, another world.

Then begins his review of nineteenth century French literature, starting by admiring Flaubert’s Salammbô, then analysing Edmund de Goncourt. What he, Des Esseintes, seeks in a book is ‘dream-inducing suggestiveness’ (p.183). After considering Zola he makes a major point about the appeal of minor, lesser writers. They are less consistent, less predictable and so more likely to include quirks and oddities which reveal strange corners of psychology and style.

Then the poets. He has a page on Paul Verlaine, who he describes as mysterious, vague, eccentric. And so on to Tristan Corbieres, Theodore Hannon. He no longer likes Leconte de Lisle and even Gautier no long appeals: they don’t make him dream any more, they no longer up vistas of escape. Hugo and Stendhal no. Nobody comes close to the pleasure given him by Edgar Allen Poe. The closest anyone comes is the Contes cruels of Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, a few of which he summarises (and which I recently reviewed).

Finally, his servant has filed his small collection of contemporary books on his shelves and leaves Des Esseintes with a specially printed selection of the finest poet of his times, Stéphane Mallarmé. Above all, des Esseintes loves the fineness of Mallarmé’s prose poems which is Des Esseintes’ favourite literary form. Verlaine, Mallarmé, represented the delicious decadence of the French language.

It is very symptomatic that Des Esseintes associates aesthetic excellence with illness, decline and collapse. Thus a little hymn celebrating the idea that the French language itself has finally reached the end of the road, is in terminal decay, since decay, decadence and death are his standard trope.

The truth of the matter was that the decadence of French literature, a literature attacked by organic diseases, weakened by intellectual senility, exhausted by syntactical excesses, sensitive only to the curious whims that excite the sick, and yet eager to express itself completely in its last hours, determined to make up for all the pleasures it had missed, afflicted on its death-bed with a desire to leave behind the subtlest memories of suffering, had been embodied in Mallarmé in the most consummate and exquisite fashion…this was the death-agony of the old tongue which, after going a little greener every century, had now reached the point of dissolution… (p.199)

All this is, in my opinion, actually a very suburban prejudice. Every generation likes to think it is the last one, that things are going to the dogs, can’t carry on this way, everything’s collapsing – whereas, in fact, rather disappointingly, things do just keep carrying on. It is a very common prejudice.

Then again, in the context of the narrative, you could argue that Des Esseintes’ opinion of the collapse of the French language really only reflects his own physical collapse. Like all his other opinions, it is highly subjective and self-referential.

Chapter 15 (11 pages)

Des Esseintes had had his servants install a food digester to cater to his sensitive stomach. It works for a while then wears off and symptoms of illness return – eye trouble, hacking cough, throbbing arteries, cold sweats, and now aural delusions i.e. he starts hearing things which aren’t there. He hears the school bell and then the hymns he learned at his Jesuit school.

Which segues into lyrical praise of medieval plainsong and Gregorian chant. As he himself notes quite a few times, not least in the passage about sadism, quite a few of the things Des Esseintes likes are meaningless without the context of Roman Catholicism. Sometimes he is deliberately rebelling against it, as in his fondness for blasphemous writers, but other times he is very sensitive to the true Christian spirit, with no irony.

And so it is here, where he deprecates almost all classical music as showy and straining for ‘popular success’ (a thought designed to make any true aristocrat shudder); only plainchant is the true ‘idiom of the ancient church, the very soul of the Middle Ages’ (p.202).

The only religious music he really approved of was the monastic music of the Middle Ages, that emaciated music which provoked an instinctive nervous reaction in him, like certain pages of the old Christian Latinists. (p.203)

He is hilariously rude about public concerts where:

you can see a hulking brute of a man waving his arms about and massacring disconnected snatches of Wagner to the huge delight of an ignorant crowd. (p.204)

Or you are forced to listen to:

contemptible cavatinas and objectionable quadrilles, sung with full orchestra accompaniment, in churches converted into boudoirs, by barnstormers bellowing away up in the roof, while down below the ladies waged a war of fashions and went into raptures over the shrieks of the mountebanks. (p.203)

The only ‘modern’ composers he can bear are Schumann, but above all the songs of Schubert which speak to his high-strung nerves, which wake a host of forgotten sorrows and thrill him to the marrow.

One day he sees his face in the mirror and is appalled. His face is shrunken, covered in wrinkles, hollow cheeks, big burning watery eyes. He is not at all like the image chosen for the cover of the Penguin Classics edition, the painting by Giovanni Boldini of the dashing, dapper Le Comte Robert de Montesquiou – that gives a completely misleading image of a dandy at the height of his powers, whereas the whole point is that Des Esseintes is a man utterly at the end of his rope.

He has his man rush to Paris to fetch an eminent and expensive doctor then falls to hypochondriac fretting and then into a doze. The doctor enters his bedroom unannounced, inspects him, writes out a simple prescription and leaves with barely a word.

Turns out the doctor has prescribed peptone enemas which appear to require the servant to place a tube or syringe up his anus and inject nutrition. Des Esseintes is overcome with hilarious glee, regarding this as the acme of the artificial way of life he has been seeking all his life. What could be more ‘against nature’ and a rejection of the whole messy way of stuffing our faces and chewing revolting foodstuffs which nature has condemned humanity to?

True to form, it crosses Des Esseintes’ mind that the ideal connoisseur could create dishes and combinations of flavours to be included in the mixture of nutrients being injected up his bottom – a thought which surely anticipates the Surreal blasphemies of a writer like Georges Bataille.

Slowly Des Esseintes recovers his strength till he can walk about his house unaided, though with a stick. As his health revives he renews his interest in interior decoration, coming up with ever-more byzantine new combinations. However, on his next visit his doctor informs him he must give up this reclusive, super-nervous, anxious way of living, return to Paris and live like other people, take his pleasures in ‘normal’ enjoyments, to which he whines:

‘But I just don’t enjoy the pleasures other people enjoy.’

Tough. It’s life or death. Keep on living as he is, and he’ll lose strength, go mad and die.

Chapter 16 (9 pages)

The doctor insists he needs a change of scene, to mix with society, to have friends. And so with great reluctance, Des Esseintes has his precious belongings packed up ready to ship back to a new apartment he is to rent in Paris.

This triggers a review of possible companions: all the young squires he used to run with will be married by now and having affairs; the money-grubbing bourgeoisie are beneath contempt, spreading all around them ‘the tyranny of commerce’; the aristocracy as a whole is dying out, ‘sunk into imbecility or depravity’, selling off their ancestral homes, their vices and crimes all too often leading them to court and then onto gaol like common criminals. He is disgusted by the way the Church, also, has caught the commercialism of the age, advertising all kinds of tacky products in Sunday supplements, Trappist beer, Cistercian chocolates.

He wants to believe, he wants to have faith, but the modern writings and even practices of the Church have been corrupted and adulterated. And so – after a bilious and very funny diatribe against the revolting bourgeoisie – the last pages of the book turn into a plea to God.

‘Lord, take pity on the Christian who doubts, on the unbeliever who would fain believe, on the galley-slave of life who puts out to sea alone, in the night, beneath a firmament no longer lit by the consoling beacon-fires of the ancient hope!’ (Final sentence, p.220)

So the book ends in such a way as to drive home the simple idea that the entire Decadence is a kind of disappointed Catholic faith, so angry with its disillusion that it turns to childish debaucheries and blasphemies in order to spite its disappointing parent. Unable to escape its firm foundation in Catholicism, À rebours ends with a surprisingly sincere prayer.

More incidents than you’d expect

From this summary you can see that the text is emphatically not simply a series of encyclopedia entries on a set of luxury topics (art, literature, jewels, perfumes etc), but that Huysmans goes to some lengths to shake his narrative up and vary it with real-world actions and events.

In the the ‘present’ of the narrative this includes the visits of various tradesmen and a doctor, and the big episode of the trip to Paris in chapter 11. A bit more subtly, the narrative is broken up with plenty of memories of active events: such as relationships with various lovers (trips to the circus to see the acrobat), the farcical trip to the dentist, memories of the visit to the sister-in-law of a lover which inspired his prose poem, the time he took the street urchin to the brothel, and so on.

Decadent rhetoric

Obviously the book is drenched in the rhetoric of ‘decadence’, with liberal use of classic adjectives and phrases from the genre. I made a list, curious to see how many times he could recycle the same basic ideas, and the answer is, quite a few times:

  • horror
  • spleen
  • filthy pleasures
  • tortured
  • fiendish
  • diabolical
  • voluptuous pleasure
  • licentious obsessions
  • new and original ecstasies
  • paroxysms celestial and accursed
  • atrocious
  • drunk with fantasy
  • abominable
  • ghastly screams
  • glaring infamies
  • delights
  • hideous hues
  • spine-chilling nightmare
  • foul uncontrollable desires
  • dark and odious schemes
  • fear
  • morbid depravities
  • monstrous vegetations of the sick mind
  • diseases of the mind
  • the burning fever of lust
  • the typhoids and yellow fevers of crime
  • self-torment
  • bitterness of mind
  • incest
  • disillusion and contempt
  • weary spirits and melancholy souls
  • gloomy ecstasies
  • melancholy madness
  • sacrilegious profanities
  • secret longings
  • atrocious delusions
  • insane aspirations
  • disgust
  • mystic ardours
  • cruel revulsives
  • secret reveries
  • occult passion
  • monstrous depravities
  • anxiety
  • anguish
  • terror
  • nightmares of a fevered brain
  • delicious miasmas
  • dream-like apparitions
  • inexorable nightmare
  • sexual frenzy
  • painful ecstasy
  • new intoxications
  • despairing appeal
  • stifled sob
  • mystical debauch
  • a dying love affair in a melancholy landscape
  • exquisite funereal laments
  • steeped in bitterness and filled with disgust
  • obstinate distress
  • tormented by anxiety
  • torrent of anguish
  • this hairy death’s head
  • incoherent dreams
  • dark venereal pleasures
  • subtly depraved and perverse type of mysticism

Of Moreau:

He himself remained downcast and sorrowful, haunted by the symbols of superhuman passions and superhuman perversities, of divine debaucheries perpetrated without enthusiasm and without hope. (p.69)

So an impressive collection of over-ripe and melodramatic language. But two other themes stand out and are less remarked on:

1. Decadence = exhaustion

Overcome with infinite fatigue, he slumped helplessly against the table. (p.167)

The keynote for me, is not the perversities and damned thoughts etc etc so much as the relentless tone of exhaustion. Des Esseintes only goes into retirement because his nerves have been shredded by his fast-living Paris lifestyle, and our hero is continually trembling on the brink of passing out, when he’s not having nightmares, night sweats, trembling and shaking as he lifts a cup of weak tea to his white lips.

And this air of exhaustion is something he seeks out in art and literature. The painter Luykens was, he tells us, a fervent Calvinist who:

composed and illustrated religious poems, paraphrased the Psalms in verse, and immersed himself in Biblical study, from which he would emerge haggard and enraptured, his mind haunted by bloody visions, his mouth twisted by the maledictions of the Reformation, by its songs of terror and anger. (p.71)

Obviously a lot is going on in that passage but for me, the key word is haggard. And what he likes in the later Latin literature which he collects is the sense of breakdown and decay. Half way through the book I started making a separate collection of key words on this theme

  • feeble
  • broken-down
  • short-winded
  • fainting
  • feverish
  • weeping
  • choking
  • spluttering
  • sick room routine
  • ailing
  • anaemic
  • debility
  • alarming weakness
  • apathy
  • bored inactivity
  • exhaustion
  • organic diseases
  • intellectual senility
  • last stammerings
  • exhausted by fever

In his discussion of the author Barbey d’Aurevilly Des Esseintes makes the candid remark that he is ‘really interested only in sickly books, undermined and inflamed by fever’ (p.160). It’s not too much of a stretch to call Decadence the aesthetic of illness.

Comedy

Given the book’s reputation as the Bible of Decadence, it’s unexpectedly funny.

He is savagely funny about his dull cousins in the Prologue. He is ferociously snobbish about the bourgeoisie, about shop-keepers and butcher’s wives and their meretricious, banal tastes.

He doesn’t just carry out a survey of Latin literature from Plautus to the tenth century, he massacres some of the most famous names in the classical canon, rubbishing Virgil and Horace very amusingly, and in a manner which must have been designed to render traditional Latinists apoplectic.

In a deliberately offensively funny section, the passage in praise of The Artificial, he first of all states that surely the most exquisite creation of nature is woman (‘the most perfect and original beauty’) but then goes on to say that, has not Man now produced something more dazzling beautiful than the most beautiful woman, being…’the two locomotives recently put into service on the Northern Railway’ (p.37), a deliberately offensive notion which anticipates the posturing of Marinetti’s Futurists 30 years later.

Then there are the hilarious descriptions of ugly English men and women in the aborted journey to London chapter (‘Robust Englishwomen with boyish faces, teeth as big as palette-knives’) and the thumping contempt the ignorati who attend public concerts, in chapter 15.

Maybe the one central theme of the French literature which is now regarded as canonical, from Flaubert and Baudelaire, through writers like Huysmans, through the Surrealists and on into the Existentialists, is their hatred of the bourgeoisie. Witness the diatribe against the filthy middle classes on almost the last page of the book. French authors will do anything to escape the taint or accusation of having bourgeois tastes. Whereas the same hatred of the middle classes just isn’t in evidence in English literature, lots of which is written virtually in praise of the middle and upper middle classes – Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope, Henry James, E.M. Foster.

Robert Baldick’s translation (brings out the comedy)

The translation I read is pretty old, the 1959 Robert Baldick one published by Penguin Books. However, unlike many translations of nineteenth century classics, it is immediately likeable and entertaining. Apparently:

Huysmans’s work was known for his idiosyncratic use of the French language, extensive vocabulary, detailed and sensuous descriptions, and biting, satirical wit

and this is exactly what comes over in Baldick’s translation. He uses a wider vocabulary than you might expect – I mean I was entertained by his unusual and out-of-the-way words – and certainly brings out Huysman’s biting wit. I laughed out loud at several places in the short Prologue, where he describes young men of his own age as ‘docile, good-looking ninnies, congenital dunces who had worn their masters’ patience thin’. In addition Des Esseintes:

discovered the freethinkers, those bourgeois doctrinaires who clamoured for absolute liberty in order to stifle the opinions of other people, to be nothing but a set of greedy, shameless hypocrites whose intelligence he rated lower than a village cobbler’s.

And the venom of his contempt is funny. Or the snobbishness. Like his refusal to use any of the obvious jewels on the tortoise because they are the kind worn by vulgar businessmen or upon ‘the tubulous fingers of butcher’s wives’ (p.55).

This snobbery is also evident in the passages about Goya and Rembrandt who he is embarrassed at liking because the rest of the world likes them too, and there is nothing worse than sharing the same taste as the ghastly bourgeoisie and having to listen to their inane praise of works of which, as an initiate, as a superior being, you have such a better grasp and appreciation (p.108).

If the mob start liking something, Des Esseintes hastily drops it and worries that his ‘taste’ (i.e. aristocratic superiority) is failing him. Throughout the book the adjective ‘aristocratic’ is a word of unqualified praise. Among other things, the Decadence was deeply elitist.

I bought this paperback when I was 17, alongside my edition of Baudelaire’s poems, desperate to enliven my humdrum suburban existence with the Flowers of Evil. Forty years later, some of Des Esseintes’ passages, like the rant against Virgil, his amusing abuse of middle-class taste, and even more in the farcical toothache scene, made me smile or even laugh out loud. When I was a stricken teenager I thought life was a tragedy and books like this fed that feeling. Now I know it’s a comedy and mostly what I find in them is different flavours of comedy.

French literature is more sexually open than English

Quite apart from anything else, the novel demonstrates the vast difference between French and English literature of this time in regard to women and sex. Huysmans doesn’t describe the sexual act itself, but he freely describes going to brothels, the charms of the different ladies, of attending parties where women strip off, he mentions breasts and nipples and even, apparently, what one of his lovers required in order to climax.

Absolutely none of this could have been written by or even hinted at by English authors, who subjected themselves to a ferocious self censorship. Same with Americans, possibly even more Puritanical. It’s significant that of the many lovers des Esseintes reminisces about, by far the most frigid and unsexual was American (the disappointingly prudish and passive acrobat, page 112).

I’m not sure when English writers caught up with French ones in terms of candour and honesty about sex: would it have been the 1960s, maybe? On a deeper level, it seems to me the English still haven’t caught up with the best Continental authors in capturing a genuinely relaxed, at-ease-with-themselves attitude towards bodies and sex.


Credit

À Rebours by Joris-Karl Huysmans was published in French, in Paris, in 1884. All references are to the English translation by Robert Baldick published by Penguin paperback in 1973.

Related reviews

Cruel Tales by Villiers de L’Isle-Adam (1883)

It is so amusing to play the dandy! I prefer that to playing cards.
(The narrator of ‘Maryelle’, page 216)

This book contains 27 short stories, vignettes, squibs and satires. Someone online commented that they are not cruel tales at all, and certainly anyone expecting the thrill or horror of Edgar Allen Poe will on the whole be disappointed (with a handful of possible exceptions). Much more accurate is the title of used by a 1920s translation of the same collection, ‘Sardonic Stories’. They are more about irony, satire and sarcasm than anything cruel and macabre – in particular, satire of the Paris literary and theatrical worlds which de l’Isle-Adam tried all his life to break into with impressively consistent lack of success.

Jean-Marie-Mathias-Philippe-Auguste, comte de Villiers de l’Isle-Adam (1838 to 1889) spent his entire life thinking his writings would make him famous and restore the fortunes of his aristocratic family, which he insisted was ancient and venerable. This didn’t happen. Instead he churned out novels and plays which nobody cared about while living in sometimes abject poverty, associating with a series of illiterate working class mistresses who bore him various children. Only in the last years of his life, with the publication of the ‘Cruel Tales’ in 1883, did he begin to garner some critical recognition.

Like so many French writers, de l’Isle-Adam despised his countrymen. As an aristocrat he was contemptuous of the bourgeoisie, as a monarchist he was contemptuous of democracy (in 1881 he stood unsuccessfully for parliament as a candidate for the Legitimist party), and as a Catholic he was contemptuous of science and materialism. He was, in other words, a reactionary berk.

A reactionary berk convinced of his own ineffable superiority to the rest of the human race, on account of his aristocratic family and his superb talent, even if the rest of the human race was too ignorant to recognise it. Outraged pride and lofty superiority run through the stories like a silver thread. I liked A.W. Raitt’s note pointing out that de L’Isle-Adam was well known for stopping in his walks around Paris to admire himself from all angles in shop windows and mirrors. He fancied himself a great actor, a championship boxer, as well as a writer and playwright and exquisite soul.

1. The Bienfilâtre sisters (10 pages)

De L’Isle-Adam drolly paints a dry picture of a famous café on a Paris boulevard, habituated by eligible young men and packed with courtesans. Two leading figures among the latter are the Bienfilâtre sisters, Olympe and Henriette. They have been working girls since young in order to support their parents, poor concierges, which allows de L’Isle-Adam to ironically describe them as dutiful daughters who honoured their engagements and could hold their heads high.

With further irony he then describes how one of the sisters, Olympe, fell from the straight and narrow of her profession when she (gasp!) fell in love! With a poor student called Maxime. Her work went to pot. Her sister had to pick up the slack. Other courtesans at the café talk behind her back. Henriette is ashamed. The family who have always eaten together, are now reduced to three in Olympe’s absence. There’s a funny scene where Henriette confronts her sister in the café, while all the other habitués pretend not to be listening, and delivers a rhodomontade made up entirely of Daily Mail-style bourgeois clichés and recriminations: ‘should be ashamed…owes a duty to her class…running off with a youngster like that…you’re not in this world to enjoy yourself but to work, young lady…what about her poor parents…’ etc etc.

Finally her guilty conscience (at ceasing to be a prostitute, at throwing away a good honest living in order to ‘fall in love’) strikes her down with illness and she takes to her bed. She calls for a priest and confesses her’ sin’ of falling in love and so straying from the straight and narrow, the path of purity (all ironic terms applied to her previous career as a prostitute).

At that moment the door is flung open by Maxime who bursts in chinking coins in his hand. His parents have sent him the fees for his exams. Olympe feebly stretches out her hand to him. The priest takes this as a moving sign of her true repentance. In fact it is joy that her lover has come true and has coughed up some cash. And with this beatific knowledge filling her soul, she expires.

This is a genuinely funny ‘story’, the sustained irony of the premise maintained right till the end. It was originally published in 1871, 20 years before Oscar Wilde used the same kind of satirical irony in a story like Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime (1891).

It establishes a major theme, in fact the fundamental worldview which underpins the stories, which is that de L’Isle-Adam assumes his readers to be as au fait with the cynical realities of Paris nightlife, with prostitutes and dissolute aristocrats and starving poets and so on as he is, so as not only not to show the conventional bourgeois horror at the subjects he tackles, but to take pleasure in his detached, ironic treatment of them.

In later stories he describes characters who are so blasé and over-familiar with every possible kind of ‘scandalous’ affair, with the plots of umpteen melodramatic novels, plays and operas that, when they actually find themselves in situations which could come from such productions, they not only feel they are acting a part, but observe themselves acting a part, and award themselves marks out of ten for their performances (most notable in ‘Sombre Tale, Sombre Teller’).

2. Véra (11 pages)

Powerful description of an aristocrat, the Comte d’Athol, whose wife passes away just six months after they were married, who leads the mourning and sees her body laid in the family tomb, returns to his grand apartments on the Faubourg Saint-Germain, tells his loyal retainer Raymond to dismiss the other servants, to refuse all invitations and visitors, and then immerses himself in a visionary state where he pretends his wife is still alive. It has the dreamlike intensity of Poe story but described in the sumptuous prose of late-Romanticism toppling over into the Decadence.

3. Vox populi (4 pages)

A prose poem designed to mock the fickleness and stupidity of the masses, the mob, ‘the people’. It zeroes in on three moments in recent French history – an 1868 review of Napoleon III’s birthday, the start of the Siege of Paris in 1870, the Commune of Paris March 1871 – on which the masses shouted the inane slogan of the times – Vive L’Empereur, Vive La Republique and Vive Le Marechal – all of which is counterpointed by the unchanging plea of an old blind beggar ‘Please take pity on a poor blind man’.

The moral being that the fickle face of politics and popular enthusiasms come and go, but the human condition remains the same. Or as Jesus said, the poor are always with you. Justifying de L’Isle-Adam’s lofty, aristocratic disdain for the people, the mob, the bourgeoisie, liberalism and all the other disgusting symptoms of the late-19th century world.

4. Two augurs (14 pages)

A satire on the press where a writer presents himself to the jaded philistine editor of a successful paper. The ironic twist is that the writer is proud of being a third-rate poetaster who’s produced a long-winded article bloated with complacency and bridles when the editor starts praising the quality of his work and then – horror of horrors – has the temerity to call him ‘a man of genius’, when all he’s aiming at is to churn out 5th rate bilge.

All this is a rather contrived satire on the world of the press, papers and magazines which, of course, de L’Isle-Adam himself occupied but which for so long refused to acknowledge what he considered his own genius. Sour grapes.

5. Celestial publicity (5 pages)

A satire which deadpan praises a magnificent new invention developed by M. Graves, which allows the projection of crude adverts onto the heavens. The satire is as much in the breathlessly enthusiastic tone, the tone of adverts and promotional bumf for the new technologies beginning to flood late-Victorian life, as in the (horrifying) plan to turn the heavens into advertising hoardings.

6. Antonie (2 pages)

Very short vignette describing a courtesan at a drinking party of men who, amid the drinking and banter, ask her who the locket she wears between her breasts is dedicated to. She opens it to show a lock of hair, teases the men for a minute who all want to know what heroic lover enjoys such devotion – before revealing that it is her own hair, which she wears as a gesture of fidelity (i.e. to herself). Very droll.

7. The glory machine (16 pages)

Similar to the machine which projects adverts into the sky, this satire takes the same excited tone about a new machine which produces glory. Unfortunately it then turns into a long tedious explanation of what ‘glory’ means in the world of poetry (alas) and explains the composition of ‘claques’ in Paris theatre. Laboured and boring.

A thing like this isn’t a story at all so much as a sustained expression of de L’Isle-Adam’s sour grapes and resentment.

8. The Duke of Portland (7 pages)

This is obviously intended to be one of the macabre stories. The Duke of Portland returns to his grand house by the sea, continues to host dinners and parties for all the best people but never attends them himself, sends a letter to Queen Victoria after reading which she gives him permission not to attend the House of Lords or carry out any official functions and a year later his fiancée arrives by boat on the beach at night to discover him dying and he dies as she is with him. His secret? On a trip to the Middle East he met a leper who gave him the disease, hence the letter to Victoria and his seclusion and the sadness of his fiancée.

It seemed obvious from this one that de L’Isle-Adam is much better at the wordy trappings of the Gothic tale and melodrama than he is at devising an actual plot.

9. Virginia and Paul (5 pages)

Many of de L’Isle-Adam’s pieces start with a sort of prologue describing the theme or subject of the story – Paris boulevards, the life of a courtesan, death and mourning – in general and poetic terms before finally arriving at t(often slender) plot.

Here there is over a page asking the reader to remember the emotions, the images and objects associated with their first love, before it finally arrives at the ‘story’ which concerns two young lovers, both aged just 15. They are cousins, he has slipped out of his parents’ house to climb over the wall into the grounds of her boarding school and they gushingly mix expressions of first love with clumsy talk of practicalities, like trying to conceal their love when they are with their families and how Paul can extract money from his father so they can run away.

Maybe the point isn’t the 3 or so pages devoted to their naive dialogue, but to the last paragraph which suddenly switches the perspective and reveals that the narrator (improbably enough) has been eavesdropping this little scene, which is not very likely in practical terms (how? if it’s happening on the other side of a high wall and, presumably, hidden in bushes) but is really just a pretext for him to deliver a little paean:

Oh youth, springtime of life! May God bless you, children, in your ecstasy – you whose souls are innocent as flowers, and whose words, evoking memories more or less similar to his first rendezvous, bring tears to the eyes of a passerby! (p.76)

10. The eleventh-hour guest (25 pages)

De L’Isle-Adam’s stories are 1) often barely stories at all, with very little narrative and 2) very contrived. He is proud of their contrivance. As far as I can make out, the show of contrivance is part of the aim. Their artificiality is to be prized.

The story is that one night he and his friend are in a box at the opera when, in the interval, three well-known ladies about town invite them out for dinner. At that moment the narrator spies a gentleman he recognises from somewhere, they get chatting and then, on a lordly aristocratic whim, they decide to invite him along. There follows an interesting description of what such an evening in a private room at a posh Parisian restaurant was like, with detailed descriptions of the meal, actions and banter of the six characters.

The last-minute guest is, as you might expect, mysterious, given to gnomic sayings, and insists on being referred to as Baron Saturn, which they playfully agree to. As the hour draws late he says he needs to leave as he has an urgent appointment in the morning. It’s only after he’s left, that another friend turns up and tells them who their mystery guest was. Turns out he is one of the most notorious unbalanced monomaniacs of the age and obsessed with public executions. Turns out h travelled widely in the East (Orientalism!) where he bribed his way to being allowed to carry out public executions and tortures. On his return to Europe he wrote to all the heads of state of the continent asking to be allowed to apply the exquisite tortures he had learned in the East to western criminals and condemned men.

In this he consistently failed but it is said that he quietly bribed executioners in some European countries in order to take their place. Still, he manages to get advance notice of executions across the Continent and then rushes to be present t the scene, at the foot of the scaffold soaking up the grisly thrill of the moment.

This puts a damper on the previously light-hearted party and as the hour of 6am approaches, when that morning’s execution is scheduled to be carried out, they all feel a ghost walking over their graves. Voodoo spooky.

The ‘story’, such as it is, is garnished with reflections about psychology, about perception and meaning, which feel pregnant with the Symbolist movement which was just about to be christened. (Symbolism was given its name when Jean Moréas published the Symbolist Manifesto in the Paris newspaper ‘Le Figaro’ on 18 September 1886). It contains paragraphs like this:

The sound waves of the nervous system have mysterious vibrations…They deaden, so to speak, with their multiple echoes, the analysis of the initial blow which produced them. The memory makes out the atmosphere surrounding the object, but the object itself is lost in this general sensation and remains stubbornly indistinguishable. (p.83)

As the Wikipedia article on Symbolism explains:

Moréas announced that symbolism was hostile to ‘plain meanings, declamations, false sentimentality and matter-of-fact description’ and that its goal instead was to ‘clothe the Ideal in a perceptible form’ whose ‘goal was not in itself, but whose sole purpose was to express the Ideal.’… As Mallarmé writes in a letter to his friend Henri Cazalis, ‘to depict not the thing but the effect it produces’.

Or, as de L’Isle-Adam puts it:

Objects are transfigured according to the magnetism of the human beings who approach them. Things have no significance for people other than that which the latter are able to give them. (p.84)

The Naturalism of Émile Zola and his followers strives to depict the world and everything in it exactly as they are, with full realistic descriptions. Symbolism has the diametrically opposite aim of trying to capture the feelings and moods (sometimes verging on hallucinations) which the world, and especially particularly powerful objects or experiences, evoke in us.

11. The very image (4 pages)

A very short text which is a premonition of Kafka.

A man is hurrying through Paris ‘on business’ when he finds himself next to a hospitable-looking building and pops inside to find the atrium has a glass ceiling, there are pillars on which are hung coats and mufflers, marble tables laid out bearing portfolios of official papers around which sit blank-faced people, and realises that the hostess of the place is none other than Death (!).

He hears the rumble of cab wheels outside, exits, gets into the cab and announces his destination. He arrives at another building, goes inside to find the atrium has a glass ceiling, there are pillars on which are hung coats and mufflers, marble tables laid out bearing portfolios of official papers and the same blank-faced people i.e. a complete repetition of the first experience.

At this point you expect some kind of cunning payoff as you might have in Kafka or, especially, Borges, but instead the narrator goes out, gets into his cab which he asks to take him home, and (rather limply) vows to stop rushing around ‘on business’.

Is it an allegory implying that the ordinary bourgeois running round Paris on business is living a kind of living death? That ‘business’ is the death of the soul and the antithesis of the sensitive refined thoughts which de L’Isle-Adam is at such pains to show off in these stories?

12. The impatient mob (8 pages)

The title reflects de L’Isle-Adam’s (comical) contempt for the mob, the masses, the people, in all their forms. This is another tale long on atmosphere and looming symbolism and short on actual story. It describes the population of Sparta crowding to the city walls because rumour has reached them that the vast army of the Persian Empire under Xerxes I has crushed the Greek army sent to stop it at the Battle of Thermopylae. The story describes a sole Spartan warrior who is spied descending from the hills and staggering across the plains towards the city. The entire city starts booing and shouting insults because a Spartan soldier was meant to come back holding his shield or dead on it, while this one doesn’t carry a shield and is taken to be a coward. They throw stones at him and the city cook spits a gob of phlegm at him. Utterly exhausted, ashamed and humiliated the soldier lies down in the dirt and lets himself be attacked by the ominous flock of black crows flying overhead. In the morning nothing is left of his body except the bones picked clean. And so the city never gets to learn that the Spartans won and that this man had been stripped of his spear and shield by his generals all the better to run faster back to the city and tell his countrymen of their victory. Never trust the masses, you see.

This is such a cheesy reversal, such a heavy moralising twist, that it reminds me of the cheesy payoffs of lots of cheap science fiction stories.

13. The secret of the old music (5 pages)

The Paris orchestra prepares to play the new piece by an unnamed ‘modern’ composer (strongly hinted to be Wagner) but discovers it has a part for the Chinese pavilion, an instrument it doesn’t possess and nobody can recall having been played in their lifetimes. But some of the musicians think they know an old guy who might have one so they visit him in his apartment (surrounded by versions of the instrument and sheet music) and persuade him to come along to rehearsals the next morning. But he finds the new music so difficult he protests against it, halting the rehearsal to declaim that Music is finished and promptly falling into the bass drum. Maybe this is meant to be funny.

14. Sentimentality (9 pages)

De L’Isle-Adam was a member of the Parnassian group of poets:

Parnassianism was a group of French poets that began during the positivist period of the 19th century (1860s to 1890s), occurring after romanticism and prior to symbolism … As a reaction to the less-disciplined types of romantic poetry and what they considered the excessive sentimentality and undue social and political activism of Romantic works, the Parnassians strove for exact and faultless workmanship, selecting exotic and (neo-)classical subjects that they treated with rigidity of form and emotional detachment.

This, then, explains the emotional detachment, the clinical approach, and the occasional classical subject matter of L’Isle-Adam’s ‘stories’.

This isn’t really a story but a dialogue designed to demonstrate and show off Parnassian values. The young poet, the Comte Maximilien de W– and the well-known beauty Lucienne Émery are sitting on the Champs Elysees. They are romantically involved. She asks him to explain why he, as a Parnassian poet, gives the impression of performing everything, of acting out feelings and emotions. Why can’t he be more like ordinary people? He explains that a poet and artist like himself feels things so deeply that he is lost for how to behave and so ‘acts’ feelings with the appropriate gestures which the ignorant masses would understand.

Very casually, she, also a devotee of this Parnassian way of living, informs him that this is their last hour together as she is leaving him for another man, who she’s meeting later the same night. True to his philosophy of deep feeling kept under clinical self-control, the Comte barely flickered an eyelid, possibly going just a shade paler before congratulating her on her choice. There’s a bit more explanation of art and feeling etc before he hails her a cab and she drives off. He walks home, files his nails, writes a few lines of verse, opens a new book, then calmly takes a small pistol from his cabinet and shoots himself through the heart. Émery has since that day worn mourning black.

15. The finest dinner in the world (9 pages)

I think de L’Isle-Adam’s obvious contempt for people would stop him being considered a major writer. In this little vignette two notables in an unnamed provincial town bet each other they can produce the finest dinner in the world. Maitre Percenoix goes first and produces a 13-course marvel which astonishes the 17 provincial worthies invited to enjoy it. At its climax his bitter rival, Maitre Lecastelier, stands up and says he will serve up one even better in exactly one year’s time.

The joke or gag or point of the story is that one year later Lecastelier serves the same bunch of (lampooned) provincial notables exactly the same dinner down to the last detail BUT…into each napkin he has slipped a 20 franc piece. These fall out as the guests open the napkins and each guest, in a provincial bourgeois way which de L’Isle-Adam mocks, hurriedly slips it into their pockets or purses, pretending they never saw it.

The joke is that, as they leave, and for days afterwards, all the guests for some reason feel that, although the menu was identical to the one laid on by Percenoix, the Lecastelier dinner really was better but, because of their bourgeois hypocrisy, none of them will admit why.

16. The desire to be a man (10 pages)

A variation on the Parnassian theme of ‘true’ feeling. The protagonist is Esprit Chaudval, the famous tragedian, getting on a bit now as he’s turning 50. Wandering the streets of Paris as the restaurants shut down he catches sight of himself in a mirror and poses and preens as he has done all his professional life. His hair is turning grey. It’s time to retire. In an incongruous and improbable development it turns out that he has applied to be a lighthouse keeper. He has just received a letter answering his application, now opens it and squeals with pleasure, then catches himself acting.

It dawns on him that he’s acted so many parts but, deep down, never really felt anything and he finds himself saying that he needs to be a man. Because of the histrionic way his (and de L’Isle-Adam’s) mind works, the old actor thinks the best way to really feel something is to commit a great crime and feel himself flooded with remorse, a genuine emotion which he can hold onto and feed off for the rest of his quiet life as a lighthouse keeper.

So he sets fire to an industrial estate on the outskirts of Paris full of warehouses of oil etc which goes up in a huge blaze, spreading to the nearby houses of the urban poor, some of whom are burned to death, many made homeless. He loiters long enough to enjoy the fruit of his labours – ‘At last I’m going to find out what it means to be “tortured with remorse”…I’m born again. I exist!‘ – then takes a cab with trunks of his belongings to the station whence he will travel to his lighthouse.

A small digression on outsider literary criminals

His grand arson puts Chaudval in the lineage linking Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s alienated student, Raskolnikov, in the novel ‘Crime and Punishment’ (1867); with Albert Camus’s blank-minded murderer, Mersault, in ‘The Outsider’ (1942); via André Gide who invented the concept of the ‘acte gratuite’ (an utterly unmotivated behaviour that defies routine, custom, and normal explanations) in his novel ‘Les Caves du Vatican’ in 1914.

17. Flowers of darkness (2 pages)

A baleful little 2-page meditation on the trade in Paris whereby flowers and wreaths left at funerals, come nightfall, are scavenged, thrown into carts and taken to ateliers where they are reworked as attractive bouquets and handed to the sweet little flower girls who come out at night and loiter in front of theatres, restaurants etc so that men can impress their dates by buying them bouquets.

De L’Isle-Adam gives it a characteristically morbid and moralising turn by saying that these flowers of the dead are an apt emblem for the pale-faced ladies of the night who all-too-often hand out love which is death, by which I take it he means sexually transmitted diseases.

18. The apparatus for the chemical analysis of the last breath (8 pages)

Like ‘Celestial publicity’ and ‘The Glory Machine’, this is a heavy-handed satire on the unrelenting pace of ‘progress’ and ‘enlightenment’ which de L’Isle-Adam associates with unbridled technical innovation, commercialism and advertising. It isn’t a ‘story’ at all but more a satirical article about a fictional invention.

The narrator hails the invention of a device which can capture and analyse the last breaths of the dying. He goes on to say that children are now practicing on their parents when they fall asleep in front of the fire, getting used to the experience and feelings of death so it’ll seem boring when it actually happens. An extended satire on how the young will learn to be heartless, respect for the dead will vanish and good thing too, art and literature will lose their mystery which is just as well in an age when time is money, and other sarcastic sallies.

19. The brigands (7 pages)

A broad farcical satire on the provincial bourgeoisie. A beggar, an old fiddler from the Gascon town of Nayrac, stops the churchwarden of the neighbouring town of Pibrac on the highway and asks for some alms. Within hours rumour passes round both towns that a huge gang of ferocious brigands is at large. So the bourgeois landowners of both places nerve each other to assemble a posse and, armed with ancient muskets (and cough drops from anxious wives) set off on a tour of their lands during which they’ll collect all the rents owed them.

They see no sight of any brigands because there aren’t any but as night falls they become distinctly nervous. Then in the darkness the two wagons, one of nervous burgers from Pibrac, one of the same from Nayrac, surprise each other on the dark road. The moon disappears behind a cloud and a nervous landowner fires his gun by mistake. What follows is a general massacre in which everyone, even the horse, is slaughtered.

Some distance away the blind fiddler and his loose group of beggar friends hear all the shooting and decide to investigate. They arrive just at the moment that the last burger accidentally blows his brains out and to find a scene of mayhem and massacre.

And, as you might have predicted, seeing all these dead bodies and bags of coins scattered everywhere, the fiddler suggests to his mates that they steal all the swag and hot tail it out of the province, which is what they do.

20. Queen Ysabeau (8 pages)

De L’Isle-Adam wrote a biography of Ysabeau de Bavaria (who was a real historical personage) which was itself meant to be only part of a vast history of his aristocratic family which he insisted stretched back at least as far as the 1400s. In the event this grand history was never completed and even the biography of Ysabeau de Baviere was never published during his lifetime. This ‘story’ is an episode from the larger biography.

It is a deliciously cruel story, a kind of historical Roald Dahl story. It is 1404. Queen Ysabeau de Bavaria is the wife of King Charles VI of France. He has gone mad and she has taken a lover, Vidame de Maulle. One day, carousing with his aristocratic friends who are discussing the nubile women at court and in particular the daughter of the Court silversmith, Bérénice Escabala, de Maulle is foolish enough to bet that he can take her virtue before anyone else.

Now, among the mob of jesting courtiers is Louis d’Orléans, the Queen’s brother-in-law, who has an unhealthily incestuous passion for her. He doesn’t hesitate to report de Maulle’s boast to the Queen, who is not amused. Thus, the next time they are in bed together, having had the usual passionate sex (‘the abandoned delights of the most wonderful pleasures’), the following scene transpires. De Maulle wakes the drowsy Queen to say he can hear bells ringing and the sky is red, there must be a big fire somewhere. Yes, Ysabeau, drowsily says, yes she had her people set fire to the home of the court silversmith. The next day he (de Maulle) will be arrested on the charge of starting the fire in order to abduct the silversmith’s daughter and win his bet. He has only one alibi, that he was here with the Queen on the night in question, which his honour as an aristocrat will forbid him from using – and also the fact that admitting to having sex with the Queen is Treason, also punishable by death. So it’s death either way. In any case he will be tortured until he confesses whatever he’s told to.

Now, they are in bed together, naked, having just had sex, as the Queen lazily and sleepily tells de Maulle all this and he laughs nervously and embraces her again. Ha ha, you’re joking, right? But next morning he is arrested, taken off to the Grand Chatelet prison, and thoroughly tortured, as the Queen predicted.

There’s a final twist. De Maulle’s lawyer believes the young nobleman and makes the noble gesture of swapping places with him in prison, lending de Maulle his cloak so the latter can leave pretending to be the lawyer after a prison cell conference. But when the Queen hears of this, she doesn’t display the nobility you might expect in a more bourgeois story and free the noble lawyer. Instead she has the lawyer ‘broken on the wheel’ in de Maulle’s name so that the latter’s title can be struck from the register.

And the moral of the story is: If you’re having an affair with a medieval queen do not make a public bet to take another woman to bed. A lesson we can all take to heart.

21. Sombre tale, sombre teller (10 pages)

It might be me adapting to de L’Isle-Adam’s style and worldview but, with this run of 5 or 6 good stories, the collection seemed to significantly improve. A bunch of writers go for dinner to celebrate a playwright’s success. Food and drink make them talkative and the subject turns to duels. One of them is asked to explain more about the duel he’s recently taken part in. This writer certainly does describe, in detail, the duel he assisted at which involved an old schoolfriend seeking satisfaction for a bounder who insulted his mother. But the point of the story is that he is so imbrued with writing and playwriting that he assesses every situation, every step of the unfolding story, as if it was a fiction, awarding marks to his friend as he retells the story of the original insult, then comparing him to famous actors of the day for his restraint, nobility and then, after he’s been mortally wounded in the actual duel, the dignity of his death speech. So much can he only see it as a drama that as his old friend expires in his arms he bursts out applauding.

This story had a little of the delirious effect, the effect of dizzying paradox, of one of Borges’s short stories (a little).

22. The sign (19 pages)

The narrator and some writer friends are drinking tea round a friend’s house when this friend, as always a titled gent, Baron Xavier de la V— offers to tell a story about an uncanny coincidence. To start off he makes all the fashionable claims about being doomed by hereditary spleen, a morose and taciturn creature prey to crippling depression. And that’s why he decided to take a rest cure in the country.

He decides to go and visit the Abbé Maucombe in the town of Saint-Maur in Brittany. His journey there, the farm and the good Abbé are all described in adequate detail. What stands out is the Baron’s hallucinations. Everything looks calm and bucolic around the old house where the priest lives but then a cloud passes over the sun and he sees it all in a different way, rundown and crumbling and sinister. (It reminded me a bit of the TV series ‘Stranger Things’ where you see an innocent small town by day and then are shown the grim, overgrown derelict place it will become if They take control.)

They have philosophical talks about God and stuff but that night the Baron has a sinister dream in which he a creepy figure whose face is masked hands him a cloak. Long story short, several days letter the Baron has to return to Paris on business and the Abbé insists on walking him to the village where the stagecoach stops and it starts to rain, and the kind-hearted Abbé lends him his cloak, handing it over in a gesture which exactly matches what the Baron saw in his dream. With a certain inevitability, a couple of days later, in Paris, the Baron gets a letter saying the Abbé has died of a cold picked up in the rainstorm.

But these ‘facts’ barely matter. What matters is the tremendous atmosphere of ominous premonition which de L’Isle-Adam whips up, and especially the couple of genuinely creepy moments when he suddenly sees an alternative reality, the rundown haunted landscape behind the bright sunny one we see most of the time.

23. The unknown woman (14 pages)

The scene is a grand night at the opera, the farewell performance of noted soprano Maria Felicia Malibran, singing in Bellini’s Norma. The narrative singles out a handsome young man in the stalls, displaying a notable excitement and enthusiasm, explaining that he is the Comte Félician de la Vierge, a provincial aristocrat who only comes to Paris occasionally. This young man catches sight of a beautiful woman in a box and is bowled over by her beauty. Her image speaks to something inside him and he realises that he is in love.

He follows her outside, ignoring the flashy opera crowd, and when she dismisses her cab, he does the same to his and follows her on foot. Seized by a sudden premonition that he might lose her and never see her again, he overtake he, turns and bows and declares his undying love for her. So far, so melodramatic and overwrought and improbable. But all this is to set up what follows, for the pale beautiful young woman waits till the man has finished his speech then declares that she is…deaf!

This staggers the young man for a moment but then his love is reinforced by compassion, and he renews his assault, declaring her disability will make him love her even more. Whereupon the ‘story’ takes a turn, for the unnamed deaf woman delivers a series of long speeches. The gist is that their love can never work because he will, sooner or later, no matter what he promises now, get used to her deafness. Married life requires a lot of practical discussion and agreement and she won’t be able to hear him and eventually he will just mouth ‘I love you’ and write her practical notes and she couldn’t bear that.

Having reduced him to stricken silence, she turns, steps into the cab which has been following her all that time, and is whisked away. Next day the tragical young man packs his bags, returns to his estates in Brittany and is never heard from again, living in heart-broken solitude.

That’s what happens, but in reality the last 6 or so pages are a peg or pretext for de L’Isle-Adam to get his unnamed woman to deliver a series of lectures or addresses on a variety of topical themes. In fact I detected (or think I detected) in the 14 pages of the story a variety of tropes and styles from the period, including Realism, Naturalism, Parnassianism, Romanticism, Decadence and Symbolism. If I have time, I’m thinking I might have a crack at analysing out all the different tones, registers and styles which thong this packed little text.

24. Maryelle (10 pages)

A well-known lady of easy virtue suddenly disappears from society and the narrator, from lordly aristocratic boredom, sets out to find out why. This isn’t very difficult since he bumps into her on the street, on the Avenue of the Opera, to be precise.

She is 25 and pale. He invites her to lunch at a restaurant in the Bois de Boulogne ‘so that we might get bored together’, striking the note of exquisitely aristocratic world weariness. He tells her a story ‘to break the ice’ which captures the cynicism of de l’Isle-Adam and his circle perfectly. It concerns a vengeful squire who arrives home to find his wife ‘in a questionable position’ and swiftly inflicts a mortal wound on the lover. As he lays dying in the unfaithful wife’s arms, the husband has the bright idea of tickling her feet with a feather so that she bursts out laughing in the face of her beloved!

It now appears that they had some days of passion a year or so ago but Maryelle makes it quite clear that that is not going to happen again, at which, like so many de L’Isle-Adam characters, the narrator acts the part.

I considered it incumbent on me to assume a somewhat melancholy expression, as the tribute any well-bred man must always pay to a pretty woman. (p.217)

Then she tells him a story. Last winter at the theatre she became the object of a naive young man up from the provinces. Maryelle has the gift of becoming whatever other people want her to be. Here, as in so many of the other stories, it’s about a person who plays at living or acts a role, for at least two reasons: 1) they are such experts at life, they have lived so thoroughly, that most scenes are just repeats of things they’ve experiences, so they’re just going through the motions; 2) from another perspective, their acting turns their lives into art, gives them an artful completeness and aesthetic finish which ‘real life’, alas, usually lacks.

Anyway, when Maryelle becomes aware of the youth’s interest she adopts the role of a respectable widow of a respected army officer, deceased, on a rare trip up to Paris. (She is a courtesan. This is all an act.)

She receives one then several letters (which she shows the narrator who is cynically amused at their naive innocence) but then something strange happened. As she agreed to meet the poor innocent lad she found herself…falling in love with him!

She plays the part of the chaste widow so well that she comes to believe it herself conveniently forgetting her entire previous existence as a lady of the night. And the narrator, with typically droll irony, praises this sweet and innocent love based, as it is, on all-round lies and deceit. The only slight snag is that, while being faithful in her heart to the young innocent she is, apparently, continuing to see and sleep with an impressive roster of other gentleman to which her response is the admirably practical: ‘Is it my fault if a girl has to live?’

She then delivers a page-long speech about the artificiality of modern life, whose gist is:

Haven’t the appearances of love become, for nearly everybody, preferable to love itself? (p.223)

The implication that he (the narrator) has never had a meaningful relationship with Maryelle infuriates the narrator who shouts at her to go back to her penniless lover, Raoul. She, by contrast, keeps her cool, rises, adjusts her veil, and disappears into the evening.

There’s a funny payoff. From the balcony of the restaurant the narrator looks out over the grass bright with the evening dew. Vexed and irritated, to try and calm his mood, in a petty gesture, he insouciantly tosses his dead cigar onto it. Which explains why, one billion cigars later, the world is dying.

25. Doctor Tristan’s treatment (5 pages)

Hurrah!…Hosannah! Progress sweeps us along on its torrential course. (p.225)

Another right-wing satire on ‘progress’ and ‘liberalism’ and ‘humanitarianism’ like ‘The apparatus for the chemical analysis of the last breath’, ‘Celestial publicity’ and ‘The Glory Machine’. In many ways it’s the best because the satirical premise is kept simple and punchy.

A Dr T. Chavassus has invented a treatment for anyone suffering from those troublesome voices in their head, such as: the voice of God a la Joan of Arc, the voice of conscience, the voice of patriotism, the voice of outraged honour etc etc a sarcastic list of all the right-wing shibboleths.

The doctor’s technique is to clamp the patient to a chair, then yell in their ear for 20 minutes the magic word HUMANITY, after which he slips an electric wire in each ear and sends such a voltage through it that it bursts the eardrums, and makes the patient permanently deaf. But no more irritating inner voices which detract from the citizen’s efficiency in the modern economy.

This is carried along by de L’Isle-Adam’s anger but, as with all the other science satires, you only have to reflect for a few seconds to realise that deafening someone won’t interfere in the slightest with the voice of conscience or God or outrage patriotism or whatever which continua assailing those who hear them. It’s a bravura comic performance for the 7 or 8 minutes it takes to read, then instantly revealed to be impossible and not even internally consistent and so, like so many of his stories, discarded.

26. Occult memories (5 pages)

Originally a prose poem and only just about converted into something approaching a ‘story’, a 5-page monologue by a proudly Celtic son of Brittany who describes the career of his ancestor, some kind of soldier-adventurer in France’s Indian colonies, which opens with a deliberately Gothic description of the Dead Cities, overgrown with foliage, into whose tombs his ancestor crept, having massacred all the guards, to steal ancestral treasure, until he was eventually betrayed by a fellow adventurer, an Irishman with the splendid name of Captain Sombre.

It is another variation on one of de L’Isle-Adam’s idées fixes – the descent from grand, wealthy ancestors, the lament for present poverty, the refusal to truckle to the degraded ‘values’ of the present age.

27. Epilogue: The messenger (23 pages)

This is the longest story in the collection and de L’Isle-Adam was particularly proud of it. It’s based on a story told in the Old Testament which the book’s editor, A. W. Raitt, quotes in the notes in its entirety before going on to comment that de L’Isle-Adam’s main achievement was to ‘overlay it with a veneer of pretentious erudition’ (Notes, p.285). A bit later Raitt comments that de L’Isle-Adam ‘optimistically claimed to know Hebrew’ when he very obviously didn’t. Raitt’s notes are a joy to read in their own right, especially for the more absurd moments of de L’Isle-Adam’s biography which he pulls out.

It’s set in Jerusalem in the time of King Solomon and mostly consists of a long prose poem describing the layout and buildings and trees and canals and gilded decorations of the city as the narration, like a camera, pans over it and up to the great palace of Solomon himself. Here the text becomes clotted with descriptions of the exotic peoples who attend the court, in all their oriental variety, stuffed with Biblical placenames. It is striving for the same kind of gorgeous Biblical ornateness as Flaubert’s story, Hérodias‘, published just a few years before, in 1877, and anticipating Oscar Wilde’s play on the same subject, Salomé, published in 1891.

Almost the entire story is a gorgeous description of the celebrations of the Passover in the great palace of King Solomon at the height of which the sky goes ominously dark, heavy raindrops fall, a bolt of lighting demolishes a column and suddenly appears an angel of the Lord, Azrael. Initially Solomon thinks the angel of the Lord has come to take him away from this world of sorrow but he is disappointed because the Angel has, in fact, come to whisk away the King’s chief priest, Helcias.

This piece forms the deliberate climax of the collection, a spectacular cornucopia of Biblical names and descriptions rendered in a deliberately clotted, gorgeous poetic prose which you can imagine de L’Isle-Adam labouring over long and hard. It probably ought to be read aloud, recited or declaimed from a stage rather than silently read.

It prompted one simple thought, which is that, in a way I doubt de L’Isle-Adam intended, it shows how the entire edifice of Symbolism depends, ultimately, on the voodoo resonances of Judeo-Christianity. Symbolism piggybacks on Catholicism. It relies for its atmospheric effects on the most lurid and melodramatic aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition while ignoring the positive day-to-day practice of Judaism or the cheerful, ‘good news’ aspects of Christianity.

Conclusions

It took a while for me to adapt to de L’Isle-Adam’s tone and vibe and subject matter, but eventually, after an initial aversion due to their snobbery and melodrama, the sheer number of stories drew me in and I found myself enjoying them more and more, and rereading a number of them purely for pleasure of their arch, contrived, improbable, sometimes comic, but sometimes genuinely effective melodramatic appeal.

Purple prose

Here’s what de L’Isle-Adam regularly sounds like:

‘You, I thought to myself, who lack the refuge of your dreams, and for whom the land of Canaan, with its palm-trees and its living waters does not appear in the dawn after you have walked so far beneath the hard stars; traveller so joyful when you set off and now so gloomy; heart made for other exiles than those whose bitterness you now share with evil brethren – behold! Here you can sit on the stone of melancholy! Here dead dreams revive, anticipating the moment of the grave! If you wish to feel a real longing for death, approach: here the sight of the sky thrills to the point of forgetfulness.’ (Baron Xavier de la V— sounding off in ‘The Sign’)

Characteristic ingredients include:

  • exotic location from the Bible (land of Canaan) or some Romantic source text
  • melodramatic vocabulary (gloomy, dead dreams, grave and death death DEATH)
  • long histrionic sentences, as if written not to be read but declaimed from the stage in some Gothic melodrama

A.W. Raitt’s notes

The notes in this 1985 Oxford University Press edition by de L’Isle-Adam scholar A.W. Raitt are a droll delight. Apart from annotating particular aspects of the text, his throwaway references to aspects of de L’Isle-Adam’s life create a kind of collage biography. Thus:

  • Villiers (as Raitt calls him; much shorter and easier) was very proud of his skill as a boxer and at one time earned money as a sparring partner in a gymnasium (p.261)
  • Villiers was a devoted monarchist and stood unsuccessfully as a royalist candidate in the 1881 elections to the Paris Municipal Council (p.262)
  • the poet Stéphane Mallarmé was for many years Villiers’s best friend and wrote a mighty funeral oration for him (p.264)
  • Villiers was an ardent Wagnerian and visited the great man in Switzerland in 1969 and 1870 (p.265)
  • as a Breton, Villiers had a great love of the sea (p.266) [in which case it’s striking how few of his stories feature it; most are firmly wedged in Paris]
  • Villiers had a morbid interest in the guillotine and was a regular attender at executions (p.270)
  • Villiers was a member of the Parnassian group of poets who were routinely accused of being too cold and clinical in their approach (p.272)
  • Villiers believed he had the makings of a great actor (p.273)
  • Villiers was well-known for stopping in the street to gaze at his own reflection in mirrors and shop fronts (p.273)
  • his uncle (his father’s younger brother) was a parish priest in Brittany for his entire life (p.278)
  • Villiers was extremely suspicious and regularly took elaborate precautions to defend himself (p.279)
  • towards the end of his life Villiers, obviously unwell, returned to his Catholic faith (p.281)

The funniest biographical snippet concerns Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, third Marquess of Salisbury who succeeded Disraeli as the leader of the Tory Party in 1881. Villiers named a character in his novel ‘The New World’ Lord Cecil and sent a copy of the book to the Marquess along with a flattering letter. Having read Andrew Roberts’s vast and hugely enjoyable biography of Cecil, I’m not surprised that the Marquess a) was polite enough to write a reply which was b) studiedly distant. But it was enough to delude the ever-hopeful Villiers into believing he had at last found the wealthy patron who would make his name and fortune, and Villiers proceeded to bombard the Marquess with copies of each of his new works as they were published. Villiers did, in fact, finally meet the Marquess in Dieppe when the latter was on holiday there in 1888, but was intensely disappointed that nothing came of the encounter (p.286).

It is richly comic to imagine the response of the immensely wealthy, profoundly conservative, philistine and reactionary Cecil to the tactless importuning of a poverty-stricken, scandalously immoral Bohemian depicter of Paris’s high-class prostitutes and dissolute wastrels. Hard to imagine two more opposite types.

At one point he sums up Villiers’ profile in a snappy sentence:

Breton origins, illustrious forebears, present poverty, nostalgia for past glories. (p.284)


Credit

Contes Crueles by Villiers de L’Isle-Adam was published in France in 1883. Oxford University Press published an English translation, ‘Cruel Tales’, translated by Robert Baldick, in 1965. Extensive notes and a new introduction by Oxford academic A.W. Raitt were added in a revised edition published in 1985.

Related links

Related reviews

Les Diaboliques by Barbey d’Aurevilly (1874)

‘A considerable number of years ago…’
(First words of the first story which set the tone of backward-looking nostalgia which characterises the whole book)

‘By Jove I was young then, and the disturbance of the molecules in the organisation, which is called the violence of emotion, seemed to me the only thing worth living for…’
(Dr Torty in ‘Happiness in Crime’, page 107)

‘Stop him, mother!… Don’t let him tell us these horrid, creepy tales!’
(Little girl Sybil in ‘Beneath the Cards of a Game of Whist’, page 130)

From his Wikipedia article:

Jules-Amédée Barbey d’Aurevilly (1808 to 1889) was a French novelist, poet, short story writer, and literary critic. He specialised in mystery tales that explored hidden motivation and hinted at evil without being explicitly concerned with anything supernatural. He had a decisive influence on writers such as Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, Henry James, Leon Bloy, and Marcel Proust.

His greatest successes as a literary writer date from 1852 onwards, when he became an influential literary critic at the Bonapartist paper Le Pays, helping to rehabilitate Balzac and effectually promoting Stendhal, Flaubert, and Baudelaire. Paul Bourget describes Barbey as an idealist, who sought and found in his work a refuge from the uncongenial ordinary world. Jules Lemaître, a less sympathetic critic, thought the extraordinary crimes of his heroes and heroines, his reactionary opinions, his dandyism and snobbery were a caricature of Byronism.

Beloved of fin-de-siècle decadents, Barbey d’Aurevilly remains an example of the extremes of late romanticism.

Les Diaboliques (‘The She-Devils’) published in 1874, is a collection of short stories, each about a woman who commits an act of violence or revenge, or other crime. On publication it caused an uproar with the French public, was declared a danger to public morality and the Public Prosecutor issued orders for its seizure on the grounds of blasphemy and obscenity, thus guaranteeing it would become a succès de scandale, a particularly French phenomenon. It was defended by the prominent politician, Leon Gambetta. It is generally considered d’Aurevilly’s masterpiece.

My view

The blurb on the back of the Dedalus paperback edition and the introduction by Robert Irwin both claim the book is drenched with the late Romantic taste for the melodramatic – all satanism, vampires and lurid crime – which revived in the 1870s and 80s as the Decadent movement, intensifying into the dark symbolism of the 1890s. To quote the blurb:

Les Diaboliques are six tales of female temptresses – she-devils – in which horror and the wild Normandy countryside combine to send a shiver down the spine of the reader.

This, quite frankly, is rubbish. The stories are nowhere near as intense and spooky as, say, Dickens’s most intense moments. They completely failed to create any sense of suspense or drama for me. There is nothing supernatural, ghostly, spooky or scary about any of them. On the contrary, they are above all garrulous. They consist of middle-aged men of the world telling long yarns – long, long yarns full of leisurely circumstantial detail, about some incident from their long-lost youth or things they once witnessed 25 or 30 years ago. The effect, for me, was reassuringly old fashioned and comforting, like listening to an old uncle telling a long-winded story from his youth.

The lack of dramatic impact is heightened by the way all the stories are examples of récit which, Wikipedia tells us, ‘is a subgenre of the French novel, in which the narrative calls attention to itself’. It certainly does, with the narrator sedately setting the scene, introducing the secondary figure who is going to tell the actual story, and that person, in telling their story, often handing over to yet another narrator or, frequently, retailing conversations and dialogue from 30 years ago as if he was there and so, by extension, as if we, the readers, were there.

For it all happened a long time ago. ‘The Crimson Curtain’ was written in 1866 and concerns a seasoned, middle-aged roué recalling his first love affair when he was a young soldier in the generation immediately following Napoleon i.e. the 1820s. ‘Happiness in Crime’ talks about the impact on his character of the 1830 revolution in France. They were written while Dickens was still alive, before Thomas Hardy had published anything, and generally set a generation before that.

And whereas the Decadence is associated with the City, with dark sins in sordid slums or perversions in locked garrets, the overall vibe of these stories is rural. ‘The Crimson Curtain’ is set in a small town in Normandy and so is ‘Happiness in Crime’, in small Normandy towns which, compared to the inner City London I inhabit with its stabbings, shootings and street crime, instead of ‘sinister’ and ‘wild’ has the bucolic innocence of Thomas Hardy’s lighter Wessex stories.

This récit is a very artificial technique which calls attention to itself but not in a modern, disorientating kind of way. On the contrary, it feels, like so many aspects of the stories (the long ago settings, the atmosphere of nostalgia, the courtly manners of all concerned) very calming and reassuring. Cosy. Fireside stories.

This is why I realised they’re best experienced read aloud. Their slow stately pace is a bit frustrating to read to yourself but makes much more sense if you snuggle up with someone and read them aloud.

The stories

  1. The Crimson Curtain
  2. The Greatest Love of Don Juan
  3. Happiness in Crime
  4. Beneath the Cards of a Game of Whist
  5. At a Dinner of Atheists
  6. A Woman’s Revenge

1. The Crimson Curtain (40 pages)

The narrator takes a stage coach for Normandy. There is one other passenger who he names as the Vicomte de Brassand, though that is an alias. The narrator goes out of his way to describe the Vicomte as a famous dandy, an ‘old beau’, although the story concerns his early life as a soldier. For night falls and after rattling through a succession of small towns they arrive in one where they have to stop to get one of the wheels of the coach fixed. As it happens they park in such a way as to see the a light in the third floor window of a house and the Vicomte says there’s a story behind that window.

And then he sets off telling, in long rambling style, the story of his first love. For it was in this town that he was first posted as a young soldier (very young, aged 17) and in this house that he was billeted. It was owned by a middle-aged bourgeois couple and they had a beautiful daughter, aged 18. But she was cold as ice, rigid and aloof. At mealtimes and around the house she completely ignored our hero. She is named Albertine but the parents call her Alberte.

Imagine his astonishment, then, one mealtime when, for once she is not placed between her parents but next to him and he fells her suddenly touch his hand under the table. It takes all his self-possession not to flinch or hive himself away etc etc. Over succeeding weeks she takes his hand secretly while they’re all eating together. Then she is placed back between her parents and she gives no sign of ever having been friendly. Until one night his bedroom door opens and she is standing there in her nightwear i.e. scandalously undressed for the era: ‘she was half naked’ (p.45).

And here commences one of the most characteristic aspects of these stories which are supposed to be so full of sex and melodrama which is their extraordinary reticence about things of the flesh. The daughter tiptoes to his room every other night at the same hour but all they appear to do is lie on the sofa together, her head on his chest. That’s it, that’s as crazy, lurid and debauched as it gets. Maybe I’m being slow and that’s as crazy and debauched as D’Aurevilly was allowed to write in his day and age (the late 1860s). Maybe the intelligent reader was meant to imagine the rest.

One night she comes barefoot along the cold brick corridor from her room to his and he notices her feet are icy cold and tries to warm them up by, I think, kissing them, then taking her in another of his sexless embraces. Then she falls into one of the swoons she is apt to give way to and he initially thinks it’s another one, as usual (which is itself odd). But no, she’s dead! The cold ascends from her feet through her body then he realises her heart has stopped!

a) He is upset but he is then b) thrown into a terror because he has a dead girl in his bedroom. As and when it comes to light he will be accused of a) taking advantage of her b) murder. Initially he considers trying to sneak her back to her room and picks up her corpse for the purpose but, in a peculiar detail, the only way to her bedroom is through the bedroom of her parents. If either of them wake up to discover him carrying the corpse of their daughter through their bedroom…

He goes on at length about how he is seized by ‘a terrible dread’ and ‘deadly fear’ and his hair stands up like quills, and the dread of the black doorway to the parents’ room etc etc, but, to be honest, the situation has none of the genuine terror of an Edgar Allen Poe story. It just seemed odd, inexplicable and contrived that this woman had died of nothing at all, and embarrassing that he had to do something with the body. More farce than horror.

In the end it is resolved in a very practical way. Chickening out of trying to sneak through the parents’ bedroom, he places the corpse back on the sofa, sneaks out of the house and goes to the house where the Colonel of his regiment is boarding, bangs on the door and wakes him up. And the Colonel gives him the gruff practical advice to clear out of town. Loans him some money and tells him to catch the diligence to a nearby town where he will write to him. And that’s it. Ten minutes later the coach pulls into the town inn, the young Vicomte is waiting and climbs aboard, and off he rides.

A month later he receives a letter to report to his regiment as they are heading off on campaign. Years pass and his curiosity about what happened slowly fades. There are more military adventures, many more women (of course) and he had virtually forgotten that bizarre episode of his first love.

Then, in one final touch, as they are both looking up at the window of the room in question, they see a woman’s outline appear at it just for a moment, and the captain exclaims that it is the ghost of Alberte mocking him. Then the coach wheel is fixed, the horses paw the ground, and the stage drives off, and that is the end of the tale.

Comment

Early on the narrator tells us the Vicomte is ‘the most magnificent dandy I have ever known’ (p.18), ‘the most stolid and majestic of the dandies I have known’ (p.26) but, as you can tell from my summary, this much vaunted dandyism has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual story which concerns a boy soldier and the bizarre story of his quiet, retiring first love simply dying in his arms. You could stretch it and claim the story somehow accounts for his later alleged dandyism but I don’t think so. In my opinion the word ‘dandyism’ is slapped onto a story which has precious little to do with it. It is fake. It is factitious. You could delete all the spurious references to dandyism from the start of the story and it wouldn’t affect it in the slightest. It’s almost like dandyism was a buzzword and fashion of the 1860s and so D’Aurevilly tacked it onto this otherwise odd but straightforward story of a young soldier.

In the same way, the Vicomte prepares the narrator for the story with big words about its huge significance – ‘the story of an event which bit into my life as acid bites into steel and which has left a dark stain on the page of my libertine pleasures’ (p.28) but once you’ve read the thing, it feels much less than that – as does the fact he states, at the end, that years passed and he almost forgot about Alberte.

At one point the narrator says he thought the whole thing was going to turn into ‘a mere history of a garrison love affair’ (p.39) and, although the girl dying suddenly in his arms is, apparently intended to give it a weird voodoo power, in fact, despite all the persiflage about dandies and souls, that is pretty much what it seemed to me to be: young soldier has an affair with the pretty daughter of the family he was billeted on.

If this is the first story in order to set the tone, the tone looks like it’s going to be one of disappointment at stories which are odd but not quite the earth-shattering scandals I was led to believe.

2. The Greatest Love of Don Juan (20 pages)

‘For a good Catholic you are a trifle profane and I must beg you to spare me the details of your naughty suppers.’ (p.59)

The unnamed narrator is chatting to the Comtesse de Chiffrevas. He is describing the Comte de Ravila de Ravilés who is widely held (i.e. among their aristocratic circle) as the greatest Don Juan i.e. lover of woman or philanderer, of the age. OK, if you say so.

The narrator proceeds to tell the Comtesse that just a few days earlier, to celebrate the Comte’s mature years, twelve of his greatest conquests from the finest aristocratic ladies in Paris decided to hold a grand feast to celebrate his career. Obviously this is described in sumptuous detail but the heart of the matter is that one of the ladies suggests that the Great Man recounts the story of his greatest love, his greatest conquest, which, with very little encouragement, he proceeds to do.

Now remember that the narrator wasn’t present at this great supper, only 12 posh ladies and their Don Juan. So he must have been told the story by one of the twelve. So what we’re reading is the narrator’s version of this woman’s version of the Comte de Ravila de Ravilés’ version of events. From reading around the book (Wikipedia, the introduction, the introductions to related books) it seems that it was this technical expertise (a narrator relating a narration of a narration) which had most impact on other writers, not the silly superficial posing of the subject matter.

Long story short: all 12 fine ladies are disappointed because the Comte reveals that his greatest conquest wasn’t any of them, it was some other aristocratic lady, or at least it initially seems like it. Until the Comte starts talking about her daughter, a fussy, cold, over-religious little girl of 13 who is studiedly indifferent to him and who, after making initial efforts to befriend, he gives up and ignores.

The climax of the story comes when the family priest comes to visit the Comte’s lover in a passion of bewilderment and quickly tells the woman that her 13-year-old daughter has just been to confession at his church and confessed that she is pregnant! The posh lady runs upstairs and finds her (morbidly religious) daughter prostrate in front of a crucifix crying her eyes out. When the mother calms her down and gets her to speak the girl says that the other day she and the Comte were in the same room, he reading quietly and completely ignoring her until he eventually got up and left the room without a word. At which point the daughter went and sat in the chair because it was nice and warm by the fire and felt ‘as if I had fallen into a flame of fire’, couldn’t move, felt as if her heart had stopped and the only explanation she could think of was that…she was pregnant and she bursts into tears on her mother’s shoulder.

Cut back to the dinner party and the 12 fine ladies listening agog as the Comte concludes his tale:

‘And this, ladies, believe me or not, as you please, I consider the greatest triumph of my life, the passion I am proudest of having inspired.’ (p.78)

Comment

When I summarised this story to my wife she thought it was ‘sweet’ because she focused on the poor 13-year-old girl’s innocent panic. Now ‘sweet’ is pretty much the opposite of the lurid, melodramatic, decadent qualities which the book’s reputation, back cover blurb and introduction all talk about, but I agree. It is a sweet and almost whimsical tale and its sweetness far eclipses the stagey setting of the feast of the twelve ladies with its (if you care about such things) risqué parody of the Last Supper. Far from shivering with some kind of Grand Guignol, it made me smile.

3. Happiness in Crime (41 pages)

‘One morning last autumn I was walking in the zoological gardens with Doctor Torty…’ (p.83)

It is these relaxed, sunny openings with their amiable civilised tone of voice which completely belie the book’s reputation for ‘satanism, vampires and lurid crime’. A crime is eventually committed but a very banal and ordinary one and the image which stayed with me was of these two mature chaps enjoying a Sunday afternoon stroll.

Anyway, whilst in the park they behold a little scene. An impressively tall and stately couple saunter up to the little zoo in the park. They stand in front of the cage holding a panther. The woman slowly unbuttons her elegant glove, puts her hand through the bars and slaps the panther. The panther snaps at her and for a second it looks as if it has her hand in its toothy grip but then onlookers realise it’s just the glove and the woman has withdrawn her hand. Her tall elegant companion chides her for being so foolish and they saunter off with aristocratic nonchalance.

Turns out that Doctor Torty knows the couple very well, indeed he delivered the elegant woman 20-something years ago. (The tales are always set a generation earlier). So, with a little prompting from the narrator, he proceeds to tell the tale.

An ex-army fencing instructor named Stassin came to the sleepy Normandy village which the narrator, very annoyingly, only names as V. Here he builds up a practice among the aristocrats of the neighbourhood who want to acquire this noble art. In his fifties he marries, gets his wife pregnant and the local doctor, Dr Torty, delivers a bouncing baby girl. On a suggestion from a posh client Stassin names her Hauteclair.

Dr Torty watches her grow up, tended by a besotted father who teaches her his craft so that by the time she’s a teenager, she is a supreme and expert fencer. (The narrator tells us that the 1830 revolution demoralised Stassin and also undermined his trade. The girl was about 17 then so the origins of the story – Stassin coming to V – must have been just at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, 1815. Long, long time ago.)

One day at V arrives the Comte Serlon de Savigny who has been absent being educated but, his father just having died, has returned to take up residence in the family chateau. He has heard about the local fencing master and his legendary daughter, the beautiful, haughty and extremely skilled Hauteclaire and so he immediately signs up for lessons and comes every day.

With vast inevitability he falls in love with his strict, stern teacher. But there’s a catch. Years ago he had been engaged by his family to the daughter of another local noble family, Mademoiselle Delphine de Cantor. Duty calls so he marries her, she moves into the ancestral chateau, married life is established, but the Comte continues to come to his fencing lessons.

Then one day Hauteclaire disappears, vanishes off the face of the earth with no explanation. The townspeople gossip about a mystery elopement or any other story they can cook up but nobody knows for sure. Only the doctor discovers the secret, by accident. He goes to treat the new wife, now titled the Comtesse de Savigny, and realises that Hauteclair is living at the chateaumasquerading as a servant under the name of Eulalie.

Rather than elope with her, the Comte has installed her in his own house, given her a disguise and a false name, where she now has to wait on and serve the very woman whose husband she is having an adulterous affair with!

Again, as in ‘The Crimson Curtain’, this doesn’t send a shiver up my spine, it just feels like an eccentric variation on a very tired theme (adulterous husband takes a lover). During his periodic visits Dr Torty drops in a few questions about the new maid but the Comtesse’s replies make it quite clear she hasn’t a clue that her new maid is her husband’s lover.

Then the Comtesse falls ill, with what doctors of the time called anemia and so the doctor starts to visit more regularly until he is a regular visitor at the chateau. One day he’s passing by the estate past midnight when he hears the sound of fabric being beaten. He sneaks closer and realises he’s hearing the sound of the Comte and Hauteclair dressed in full fencing outfits, fencing in one of the chateau’s more remote rooms. So this fencing is a crucial aspect of the affair.

Long story short, next thing we know is that the countess is dying of poisoning. The story is given out that her faithful servant Eulalie mixed up a medicine the doctor had prescribed with ‘some copying ink’. The doctor goes to attend her on her deathbed and hears her deathbed confession or last thoughts. These are that she knows that Eulalie is her husband’s lover and knows that she’s been poisoned and is consumed by hatred for both of them, but … noblesse oblige, meaning that although justice demands they be punished, she doesn’t want the Savigny name which she now bears to be dragged through the courts and the public scandal. And so she will take her secret to the grave and demands that the doctor does the same. And he promises.

The Comtesse dies and the Comte observes the customary two years of mourning. Then he marries Hauteclaire. The entire neighbourhood is scandalised by an aristocrat marrying a servant but still nobody even knew that she was the former Hauteclair and there was no whisper of scandal about the Comtesse’s death. Anyway, they keep entirely to themselves, locked away in their rural chateau, never mixing with the outside world.

The doctor still visits, has become a family retainer, discovers Hauteclaire has thrown off the disguise of Eulalie and now lords it as the haughty lady of the house. Discovers they are still absolutely besotted with each other, with no falling off due to familiarity. Indeed their happiness puts other married couples he knows to shame.

Being a cynical atheist, the doctor can’t help commenting that the adulterous and murderous couple’s ongoing happiness, which shows no sign of flagging with familiarity, conclusively disproves moralists with their fairy tale notions of vice punished and virtue rewarded (p.121). (You can’t help suspecting that it’s cynical comments like this which caused the outcry against the book, rather than the fairly tame stories themselves.)

Comment

At the end D’Aurevilly tries to jazz the story up by describing the chateau as ‘the theatre of a crime of which they have perhaps forgotten the memory in the bottomless abyss of their hearts‘ but here, as in all the other stories, you feel he is trying to dress up what is a fairly mundane tale (husband and lover poison wife) in the trappings of fashionable amorality and cynicism and decadence which it doesn’t really merit. All the way through he deploys this hyperbole.

4. Beneath the Cards of a Game of Whist (44 pages)

The opening page and a half are an extended statement of the world-going-to-the-dogs trope (see separate section, below):

[She was] one of the most faithful admirers of the now almost lost art of witty conversation, a lady always ready to keep her doors open to the few exponents of it still spared us … [since] in these later days wit has been entirely superseded by a pretentious nondescript called Intelligence…(p.127)

If you say it in the right upper-class twit voice, this is more P.G. Wodehouse than Marquis de Sade and almost all of D’Aurevilly’s attitudinising comes over as pompous and silly rather than in any way menacing or sinister.

The narrator pops into the salon of Madame de Mascranny which, he ludicrously claims, is the last redoubt of the Art of Conversation which is being crushed by the vulgar world of newspapers, by ‘the busy, utilitarian habits of the age’ (p.127). In statements like this you hear the embattled tones of the bourgeois intellectual who rebels against the triumph of his own class on the back of the industrial revolution, and allies himself, in wistful nostalgia, for what he describes as the last, expiring examples of the once-great aristocracy with all its fine manners and conversational style.

Anyway he arrives just as some aristocrat who the narrator claims is ‘the most brilliantly successful talker in this kingdom of brilliant talk’ is talking about ‘Romance’ and suggesting that it is in fact, all around us, but that we only ever glimpse fragments of it. At which he settles down to tell a yarn to prove this proposition.

He takes a long time to paint a picture of the ‘most profoundly, ferociously aristocratic town in all France’ (p.131), the same title given to the town in the previous story and, like it, in Normandy. It is some time in the 1820s and the aristocrats have been restored after the fall of Napoleon but have found themselves increasingly rendered redundant by the new class of rising bourgeoisie.

Ruined. Futile. In vain. Melancholy. Stagnation. Monotony. Smothered. World-weariness. Exhaustion. These are the keywords of the superseded aristocracy, clinging on to its values and self importance despite the growing realisation of its redundancy. In this society it is considered ‘a sublime axiom’ to say that ‘the best happiness of life is to win at cards, and the next best, to lose’, which is pretty pathetic, neither witty nor profound (p.137).

The story, such as it is, concerns a handful of superior aristocratic personages in this town on the Normandy coast. There is a profound paradox at work here, which runs through the other stories, too. This is that D’Aurevilly’s entire schtick is based on the notion that his characters are the grandest acmes and perfections of aristocratic superiority, nonchalance, wit and good manners in all of France – and yet, at the same time, they are all depicted as living in a stiflingly dull, melancholy provincial little town on the Normandy coast. It is as if D’Aurevilly has mashed together two completely different genres – tales of the highest aristocratic circles (which really ought to be located in Paris) and life in dull provincialdom, in the manner of Flaubert, another Norman addicted to describing in fiction how dull and tedious life in his province was.

Anyway it concerns a Marquis de Saint-Albans. He hosts regular whist evenings. A regular guest is an Englishman, Monsieur Hartford. One evening he is late but arrives with a friend from Scotland, born in the Hebrides (which triggers many references to characters in the novels of Walter Scott) and named Marmor de Karkoel (a very unscottish name). On that first evening the fourth player is the Comtesse du Tremblay de Stasseville. The text then turns into an extremely drawn-out description of the characters of these two people and here, again, I thought D’Aurevilly’s influence on other writers must surely not be for the voodoo, spooky supernatural aspect of his writings of which there is, in fact, nothing; surely much more for the insane detail which he goes into in describing all these posh people. I imagine this is what Proust is like, page after page after page of carefully limning every facet of the characters of his exquisites. Something D’Aurevilly himself seems perfectly aware of, for he comments of the old boy telling this particular yarn:

It may be the whole merit of the story lay in his manner of telling it… (p.163)

In fact the plot is a bit convoluted: one night in his uncle’s house (the narrator still being only a teenager) he witnessed yet another game of whist during which the Comtesse’s green ring happened to let loose a flash of light. The man partnering her, the Chevalier de Tharsis, asked to take a look at it. At that moment Madame Herminie de Stasseville, standing by the open window, coughed piteously. And this recalled to the narrator a pretty important event which he had up till this moment concealed, which is that a few days previously he (the narrator) had entered the room of M. de Karkoel without properly knocking and discovered the latter bending over a desk concentrating. When quizzed, he explained that he was handling an extremely toxic poison which a brother officer serving in India had sent him at his request. He was decanting some from the vial it arrived in into a ring with a removeable diamond. Surely a moment and a far-fetched explanation anyone wouldn’t easily forget.

Anyway, weeks later, on this evening of whist playing at his uncle’s, the coincidence of the Comtesse handing her partner her exquisite green ring to inspect with her daughter’s sudden hacking cough at the window, brought the scene back to the narrator’s mind and made him wonder whether the Comtesse was poisoning her daughter.

Then his narrative takes a huge leap, he has been sent off to college and two years later he hears news that Herminie has died of a wasting disease (tuberculosis?). In the meantime the revolution of 1830 had taken place and hit the little Norman town hard. All the English tourists who used to come across for the season have abandoned it.

The narrator returns to the town to find it much changed and almost immediately bumps into the Chevalier de Tharsis who is only too keen to tell him the scandalous gossip: for not only Herminie is dead but so is her mother, the Comtesse du Tremblay de Stasseville, who outlived her by barely a month. As for Marmor de Karkoel, he was soon after summoned to rejoin his regiment in India.

But the point is, everyone now realises that Marmor and the Comtesse were lovers, but not just this, this would be pretty banal (witty lady has affair with dashing soldier); no, the scandal is that her daughter was in love with him too. And their rivalry led the Comtesse to hate her daughter and persecute her.

But even that isn’t all, because the story has the first really atrocious ending of the collection: for the Comtesse had taken, on her social visits, to wearing a spray of mignonette in her waistband and, when she played whist or became nervous, breaking petals off the flowers and chewing them. So far, so eccentric. But after the died they cleared out her rooms, including the big mignonette in a pot and when they went to replant it discovered the corpse of a newborn baby buried in it. What?

The Chevalier de Tharsis delights in the visceral impact this has on the narrator who is stunned. What? Was the baby stillborn? Was it murdered? Whose baby? The Comtesse’s? Her daughter’s? By Marmor?

Nobody knows and nobody will ever know because Marmor is now far away in India and the priest who received the Comtesse’s last rites is bound by the rules of the blah blah.

Comment

This is the first story which featured something uncanny or weird i.e. the baby in the flower pot. But what strikes me as more ‘literary’ about it is the way it ends with mystery, mystery upon mystery. So I can imagine D’Aurevilly’s influence being twofold: 1) the long wordy pen portraits of these aristocrats who all regard each other as blessed, special, the old warrior, the great Don Juan, the best whist player in France, the sharpest wit in Paris, and so on, each one a legend in their little social circle, and 2) the deliberate irresolution of many of the stories, which have endings of sorts but leave you with a strong sense of the deeper mysteriousness of life or, less pompously, of other people. Despite all our tale-telling about them, other people remain, in the end, a mystery.

5. At a Dinner of Atheists (48 pages)

Contains the only witty line in the book. Mesnil says to a fellow soldier who doesn’t understand what he’s doing:

‘My good fellow, ever since the creation of the world there have been men like me specially intended to astonish men like you.’ (p.176)

Like the other chapters this is less a story than an extended profile of a handful of characters, in this case the Chevalier de Mesnilgrand. This fellow served in the Army of the Emperor (Napoleon) and returned to him on his return from Elba, and fought at Waterloo, but the defeat ruined him. His loyalty meant he was kicked out of the Restoration army. And then a profile of his father, of the previous generation, who the Revolution and then war made into a hardened atheist. So hardened that he holds regular Friday night dinners for all the old soldiers, atheists and blasphemers of the neighbourhood, including some ex-monks and ex-priests.

The long deep profiles the narrator gives of Mesnilgrand father and son make it all the more surprising that one Sunday his military junior but more impetuous ex-officer friend, Captain Rançonnet of the 8th Dragoons, spies him coming out of a church of all places and accosts him. Mesnilgrand refuses to say what he was doing there. Now, in the middle of the dinner of atheists, Rançonnet brings up the incident again and demands that Mesnilgrand explains to the whole room of 25 or so dinner guests, what he was doing there.

Mesnilgrand good-humouredly agrees but this, of course, as in all the other tales, requires him to start a new narrative, a story within a story. So he reminds the old soldiers there of the days of the Spanish campaign of 1808, in particular the arrival of a Major Ydow who brings with him his mistress, who calls herself Rosalba or La Pudica. She is, of course, a phenomenon of debauchery who, at the same time, maintains an absurd modesty. In a short time all the other officers in the regiment are besotted with her. Mesnilgrand describes how he himself made love to her once when she received him wearing only a transparent muslin gown revealing her full voluptuousness.

Eventually Mesnilgrand breaks off his liaison with Rosabla, realising that she doesn’t love him, she doesn’t love anyone. Shortly afterwards Major Ydow announces to everyone that his wife is pregnant, leading half a dozen officers to wonder whether they might be the father. Soon after follows the Battle of Talavera (28 July 1809) and then Rosabla had her baby in the carriage train of the army on the move. A few months later it died and Ydow was distraught and widely sympathised with. Because they’re on the move he quickly buries the body but has the heart embalmed and placed in a glass container to carry about with him (unusual and ghoulish).

The end of the story is first farcical, then atrocious. Mesnilgrand goes round to see Rosalba, knowing Major Ydow is playing billiards in the officers’ mess. He finds her half-dressed as usual, but just putting the finishing touches to a letter to yet another lover. He starts kissing her back but then she stiffens, she can hear the Major coming up the stairs. So she hurriedly bundles Mesnilgrand into the cupboard where he has to hide and stay still, a scene from a thousand bedroom farces.

What happens next is not so funny. Ydow is in a filthy mood and when he discovers the letter he tears it open and reads it and proceeds to yell all kinds of abuse at Rosalba. She gives as good as she gets, yelling that she has a hundred lovers and then twisting the knife by claiming that the baby, which Ydow genuinely loved and grieved over, wasn’t his. When Ydow demands to know whose it is, Rosalba, either truthfully or just to taunt him, and to taunt Mesnilgrand who she knows is listening, claims it is Mesnilgrand’s.

At that Mesnilgrand hears the sound of breaking glass and realises Ydow has thrown to the floor the glass container which held the embalmed heart of his dead baby. Now the wild couple proceed to throw the baby’s heart at each other. Not so much horrific as macabre. Then Mesnilgrand hears shrieks and can put up with no more, bursting out of the cupboard like the lover in a Whitehall farce.

He sees that in all the fighting Rosalba has been stripped naked (of course) and that Ydow is holding her pinned to the table and…that Ydow is melting the wax Rosalba had been using to seal her letter over the candle she was using and is going to seal her up. To be precise:

He was sealing his wife as she had sealed the letter…’Be punished where you have sinned, miserable woman,’ he cried. (p.218)

Does this mean what I think it means, that Ydow is dripping molten wax onto Rosalba’s vulva? That he is sealing up her genitals?? If so, then this is easily the most outrageous and scandalous idea in the book and you can see that it would probably trigger an outcry today, let alone in nineteenth century France.

Mesnilgrand springs forward and, without a second thought, plunges his sabre right through Ydow’s body, who falls to the ground dead. All the racket had brought a maid to the door who Mesnilgrand now orders to run and fetch the regimental surgeon, who will have, presumably, to treat the burns on her pudenda.

But D’Aurevilly neatly gets round having to deal with the aftermath of this appalling scene by having Mesnilgrand declare that at this exact moment the enemy (the British or Spanish) launch a surprise attack on the garrison. Mesnilgrand picks up the trampled heart of the baby Rosalba claimed was his, tucked it in a pocket of his tunic, sprang onto his horse and went off to fight. In the chaos following the surprise battle, he not only never saw Rosalba again, he couldn’t even find the regimental surgeon who, like so many others, disappeared. In other words, D’Aurevilly simply dispenses with the problem of any aftermath or repercussions.

Having given the full background, Mesnilgrand ends his story with a simple explanation that, after Waterloo he carried the baby’s heart around with him but slowly came to feel that he didn’t want to profane the poor mite’s soul any more than it had already suffered. And so he had finally nerved himself to take the heart to a priest and ask that it be given a decent burial. It was coming out of the side aisle where he handed it over that Captain Rançonnet collared him and accused him of giving in to Christian belief.

You can see why conventional opinion would have been outraged by this atrocious story. And yet D’Aurevilly goes out of his way to tack on a pious moral. Addressing the entire gathering of atheists and renegades, the narrator says:

Did these atheists at last understand that even if the Church had been established for nothing else but to receive those hearts – dead or alive – with which we no longer know what to do, it would be accomplishing a good work? (p.220)

When he was threatened with prosecution it was comments like this which allowed his defender, Gambetta, to claim that underlying the cynicism and shocking content of the book, lay a profoundly moral and Christian sensibility…

6. A Woman’s Revenge (32 pages)

The final story starts with an interesting prologue arguing that contemporary (1860s and 70s) French critics, journalists etc lambast contemporary literature for being ‘immoral’ when it isn’t at all, when it is nowhere near as ‘immoral’ as behaviour reported in newspapers every day, let alone the scandalous behaviour described in the ancient historians (and he cites Tacitus and Suteonius). Far from being ‘immoral’, contemporary literature is nowhere near immoral enough! Interestingly he cites the widespread practice of incest, which he claims is commonplace among the French lower and upper classes as he writes, but which no novelist dare go anywhere near.

Anyway this little essay morphs into the thought that modern ‘immorality’ or crime is more sophisticated than the kind described in older literatures because, as society has developed, it has become more psychological: the worst modern crimes often entail no physical harm at all but forms of psychological torture. And he sets about proving it with the following story:

As this thoughtful prologue indicates, this is one of the best stories. Maybe it was written last. Certainly the description of the young protagonist, Robert de Fressignies, feels more modern, that’s to say, less backward looking and nostalgic and socialised than the protagonists in the previous stories, who tend to function amid salons and soirées which just feel like assemblies of snobbery.

De Fressignies is much more the Baudelaire-Des Esseintes flavour of ‘dandy’, solitary, intellectual, in control of his appetites but always open to the lure of a new sensation.

He had outlived that first youth of folly which makes man the buffoon of his own senses, and during which any woman exerts a magnetic influence over him. He was long past that. He was a libertine of the cold and calculating sort of that positive age – an intellectual libertine who had thought about those feelings of which he was no longer the dupe, and was neither afraid nor ashamed of any of them. (p.226)

Almost a scientist of sensations, then. Anyway, he’s loitering on the balcony of Tortoni’s (presumably a smart restaurant) when he sees a brightly-dressed woman walk past, then back the other way, then past again, clearly flagging that she is a prostitute. He is intrigued because she reminds him of a former love and so steps down into the street and follows her. So he follows her through the streets back to her dingy lodgings, typical of her type, up the winding stairs and into her sordid room, clothes scattered everywhere, unstoppered vials of perfume, the big rumpled bed taking centre stage with a mirror behind the headboard and on the ceiling (this kind of thing was considered risqué when it appeared in movies of the 1960s yet here it is calmly described in a novel of the 1860s).

Anyway, the appeal of the story is in the slow pace and the lingering descriptions. De Fressignies sits on the sofa and takes her between his knees to assess her shape, which is outstanding. D’Aurevilly throws in that de Fressignies has been in Turkey and so is experienced at sizing up and buying women for sex. Then she slips behind a screen, strips off and re-emerges wearing only a see-through slip, walks right over and presses her breast against his mouth and then the text dissolves into generalisations about the sex that followed, in which she justified the nickname of ‘panther’ which Parisian prostitutes of the time were assigning themselves, what with her biting and scratching. She is the best lay he’s ever had.

So far the story has been all of a piece, a lengthy, wordy description of a fairly commonplace event (posh man on a whim follows prostitute to her lodgings, she strips they have mad sex). Now it takes a sudden turn to the melodramatic and stagey. During all this sex he notices her looking at a bracelet on her arm (?) and suddenly realises the is maybe having sex with him as a substitute for an old love etc. So he demands to see the bracelet which, sure enough, contains the portrait of an ugly Spanish man.

The story now takes a turn for the ridiculous as the woman reveals that 1) the portrait is of her husband 2) he is one of the greatest nobles in Spain 3) she hates him 4) she herself is none other than the Duchess of Arcos de Sierra Leone. And now she mentions it, de Fressignies realises that he met her once, years ago, when he was holidaying in Spain just on the French border and she was holding a magnificent court. He had tried to get an introduction to her but had failed and only glimpsed her from a distance. This explains what attracted him to her when she sauntered past Tortoni’s.

De Fressignies is appalled at how low this grand personage has fallen. Predictably enough, the Duchess explains that she is taking revenge and asks if he would like to hear his story? And so, once again, we get a story-within-a-story as the Duchess tells her tale.

She comes from an ancient Italian family, the Turre-Crematas. It was an arranged marriage to the head of one of the oldest Spanish families, Don Christoval d’Arcos, Due of Sierra Leone. He takes her off to his remote estates where she is locked up with her maids and servants, living a life of stifled boredom. Until the Duke’s cousin, handsome Don Estaban, Marquis of Vaconcellos, comes to stay. Guess what? They fall in love. Suddenly it has stopped being modern but collapsed back into a late-Romantic melodrama, like hundreds of forgotten Victorian plays and a handful of operas about soaring aristocratic love.

For their love is utterly chaste, far superior to physical love, the adoration of Saint Theresa for Jesus etc. Except one day, as Don Estaban sits at her feet adoring her, her husband enters with some Negroes from the colonies who proceed to strangle Esteban to death, then cut out his heart! Not just that, but the Duke whistles for two savage dogs and prepares to throw Estaban’s heart to them but the Duchess begs to be allowed to eat her lover’s heart. Precisely because she wants to, the Duke throws it to the dogs, but the Duchess then fights with the dogs to get scraps of the still warm heart!

She realised there was nothing physical she could do to the Duke she hated, he was not afraid of death. So she would hurt him in his wretched pride: she would become a common prostitute and drag his name through the mud. And so here she is, and here is de Fressignies, suitably harrowed and chastened by her story, and here is the reader, disappointed that a tale that began with reasonable subtlety and interest has exploded into the wildest overblown Gothic melodrama.

She describes her secret escape, after some months of silent seething hatred. She explains coming to Paris, as anywhere in Spain she would be captured and returned to the Duke. She explains taking up the career of streetwalker and why she wears the bracelet with the image of her hated husband, for every time she has sex she looks at the picture and delights in his debasement.

She explains that she wants not to drag his name through the mud but bury it under a pyramid of mud. She explains that she wants to catch syphilis and die horribly in a Paris hospital and to spread the word of her fate in order to drag the Duke’s name into the gutter. She is an artiste of vengeance.

But there’s more. De Fressignies goes back to his rooms and spends days locked away by himself mulling over this extraordinary tale. When he eventually returns to the salons he comes over as depressed and anti-social. Then he packs his bags and disappears for a year, gone nobody knows where. At a reception of the Spanish ambassador’s another Frenchman asks after the Duke d’Arcos de Sierra Leone, and after receiving a summary of the mysterious disappearance of his wife a few years ago, stuns the company by telling them that he just today was passing the church of Salpetriere where he noticed that she had just been buried, after dying of a wasting illness in the adjacent hospital. And on her tombstone it mentions that she was a ‘harlot’ i.e. she has her public revenge on the Duke.

Next day Fressignies goes to see the priest who tells him it is true, that the Duchess contracted a terrible venereal disease and quickly wasted away and died. She gave her considerable fortune to the other inmates of the hospital.

The French attitude to sex

The attitude of nineteenth-century French literature to sex is a universe away from the British. Dickens, Thackeray, George Eliot, Collins, none of them would dream of even hinting at sex, not a breath or whisper, whereas the French routinely described mistresses and infidelity and, as here, in a military context, happily accepted that army officers took mistresses or grisettes for sex in every town where they were billeted. When characters in nineteenth century British novels are referred to as reading French novels it always means stories which are far more open about sex, sexual motivation, sexual infidelity and sex crimes than the British dared to be until well into the twentieth century.

Having acknowledge the existence of sex in a way British writers simply couldn’t, French writers were able to investigate its impact and effects, its themes and variations, its role in obvious events like falling in love, marriage, infidelity, adultery and so on, in a wide range of colours and tones. All of this was undeveloped and unexplored in British fiction, which in its place has snobbery and all the aspects of a repressive class system as its central theme (see, for example, the novels of E.M. Forster).

What this meant is that the French, to put it crudely, had a head start in dealing with grown-up themes in a grown-up way in literature, a frankness and honesty about sex which British writers have still, arguably, not caught up with.

Dandyism and its fans

The book is disappointing for a number of reasons. No chills went up my spine, just a handful of occasions when I was nauseated (dead babies). One of the disillusioning things is how it, inadvertently reveals the origins of the quite appealing notion of ‘the dandy’ in the banal nostalgia and embattled elitism of an outworn aristocracy. The stories are so old, set against the Napoleonic Wars or the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815, harking back back back to fops and beaux of the Regency period (1811 to 1820), repeatedly citing Beau Brummell (1778 to 1840) as the archetypal dandy.

Leaving aside what a dandy is or thinks he is, what the use of récit – i.e. a framing device of a first-level or initial narrator who then hands over the telling of the story to a second narrator, to someone within his framing story – really brings home is how the essence of dandyism is having fans, having devotees who acknowledge your superiority. A ‘dandy’ is only really a dandy because his fans say he is.

Thus in the first two stories there is no real evidence that either the Vicomte de Brassand or Comte de Ravila de Ravilés are particularly well dressed and they certainly don’t say anything at all witty or memorable (nothing at all) but what they both have is fans. The narrator of ‘The Crimson Curtain’ in particular is unable to contain his gushing adulation of the Vicomte who, in fact, just comes over to the reader as a tired old man with an odd story from his youth. All this is treated as if it is some spectral spooky story of Edgar Allen Poe intensity but it really isn’t. Dandyism is in the eye of the beholder.

To experience the full effect you have to buy into the mystique, you have to accept the premise that there are only a few hundred people ‘who matter’ in Paris and that this or that hard-drinking old geezer is the Greatest Dandy of the Age. If you don’t buy into this fantastically narrow, blinkered and elitist view of the world then the narrator and his small clique instead come over as shabby self-deceiving relics of a bygone age, left behind by the dynamism and transformations of nineteenth century industry and technology, complaining about ‘Liberalism’ and ‘industry’ and the new ‘bourgeoisie’, harking back to a vanished golden age… The Daily Mail mindset with cravats.

Old soldiers

I wrote the above after reading the first three stories but as I read on I realised a simple truth: although D’Aurevilly uses the word ‘dandy’ about his protagonists it’s just a word applied to what are, in reality, old soldiers. These are soldiers’ stories.

  • The Crimson Curtain’ is a story about a young soldier billeted on a local family
  • ‘Happiness in Crime’ centres on the figure of Hauteclaire Stassin but before the love story gets going there’s a lot about the military experiences of her father, the army fencing instructor
  • ‘At a Dinner of Atheists’ sounds as if it’s going to be bracingly modern but turns out to be a a very long story (the longest in the book) about officers in the French Army during the Peninsular War

The repeated descriptions of or references to the French Army of the Napoleonic Wars reminded me much more of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Brigadier Gerard stories than of anything which came after D’Aurevilly (Aestheticism, the Decadence, Symbolism).

‘World going to the dogs’ trope

Believing that the world is going to the dogs and everything is going down the drain may be the most tiresome and suburban of prejudices, a Daily Mail-level cliché, the belief of long-suffering old codgers that young people these days don’t know they’re born, in the old days you could leave your front door unlocked, people had respect for the law blah blah blah.

D’Aurevilly’s stories are full of this slack slagging-off of the contemporary world, lamentations about how its protagonists are the last true this or the end of that noble tradition etc. He and his characters marinade in this utterly negative, blocked and futile worldview. It’s enervating and pointless.

These days when strength is continually diminishing and is no longer much thought of… (p.21)

… a man who belonged to our time and yet differed so much from the men of our time… (p.22)

‘…that is a feeling of which your generation, with its peace conferences and philosophical and humanitarian clowning will soon have no idea…’ (p.31)

…’physiologically, if I may employ that pedantic word which belongs to your days and not to mine…’ (p.34)

…he flourished aloft his champagne glass, not the silly, shallow cup fashionable in these pagan days but the true champagne glass, the glass our fathers drank from…(p.66)

‘The Comte de Savigny was certainly one of the most distinguished of the swell youth of the locality. There are none of them left now.’ (p.94)

‘She showed more and more all the symptoms of that debility which is so common now, and which the medical men of this enervated age call anaemia…’ (p.108)

‘If we were still what we ought to be, I should have thrown Eulalie into one of the dungeons of the Chateau de Savigny, and there would have been no more said about her. But we are no longer masters in our own houses. We have no longer our expeditious and silent justice…’ (p.115)

She would die as befitted V., the last aristocratic town in France… (p.116)

Nowadays, unfortunately, the sovereigns of Europe have quite other matters of greater urgency to attend to… [than] the expiring art of conversation, that doomed child of aristocratic leisure and monarchical absolutism…’ (p.127)

‘…that stern spirit, better worthy of sixteenth century Italy than of our puny days…’ (p.169)

‘What a piece of good fortune for me in these empty, hollow-hearted days…’ (p.231)

‘He prides himself on having nothing but ‘blue blood’ in his veins whilst even the oldest families, degraded by misalliances, have now only a few drops.’ (p.238)

After I’d picked out so many of these lachrymose laments for the good old days, it occurred to me that this whole attitude is a form of self pity. The world changes, as it must, and some people are sad or devastated that it has changed and this feeling is self-pity dressed up as opinion. It’s an extremely commonplace sentiment.

The only way to avoid falling into this suburban prejudice is to embrace change, to acknowledge that your times and values and everything you hold dear will diminish, disappear, be swept away – and embrace it.

As I tried to explain in my review of Edward Burtynsky‘s dazzling photos of a world gone to hell, you can either 1) ignore it, turn away, reject it, or 2) acknowledge it and collapse into endless tears and lamentation over what is lost or 3) you can embrace the change, the loss of the old, the continual arrival of the new. Human beings will certainly endure but on a planet, in ecosystems, in social structures, with languages and norms, beyond our imagining. Good!

A few years after ‘Les Diaboliques’ was published, in 1873, the boy wonder poet Arthur Rimbaud wrote in his prose poem ‘A Season in Hell’ that ‘Il faut être absolument moderne’. Rimbaud’s virile embrace of the future shows up D’Aurevilly’s nostalgic ‘dandies’ and lachrymose ex-soldiers for the backward-looking, drink-sodden, self-pitying conservatives that they are.


Credit

Les Diaboliques by Barbey D’Aurevilly was first published in 1874. It was first published in English in 1926. Page references are to the 1996 New Dedalus paperback edition.

Related links