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

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