Three novels of Madame de Duras: Ourika, Edouard, Olivier 9783111637143, 9789027934321

Citation preview

DE PROPRIETATIBUS LITTERARUM edenda curat C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD Indiana University Series Practica 114

THREE NOVELS OF MADAME DE DURAS: OURIKA, EDOUARD, OLIVIER by GRANT CRICHFIELD

1975

MOUTON THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1975 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

ISBN 90 279 3432 0

Printed in The Netherlands

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While researching and writing this study, several individuals and institutions extended various forms of encouragement for which I would like to express my gratitude at this time. The Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison offered support in the form of a travel grant which enabled me to consult manuscripts in private archives in Paris as well as much material at the Bibliothèque Nationale which is unavailable in North America. Without this grant an essential part of the r e search would have been impossible to accomplish. The completion of the final stages of the publication of the manuscript were made possible by a generous grant awarded by the Institutional Grants Committee of the University of Vermont. I am also greatly indebted to the Comtesse de Lubersac for her permission to read manuscripts in her archives. The cooperation and hospitality of Monsieur Jacques Faure and his family in this aspect of my research a r e much appreciated as well. The encouragement, help and advice of Professor Richard Switzer, formerly of the University of Wisconsin and now of California State College at &n B e r nardino, have been invaluable at all stages of my work. Without them, I would surely not have finished this study. Among the many others who have been of help at various points In the development of this book, I would especially like to mention Professor Frank Paul Bowman of the University of Pennsylvania for his encouragement and the very useful bibliographical indications which he generously sent me at the beginning of my research. Finally, the intellectual and moral support of Sandy Baird helped me around many seeming dead-ends and periods of discouragement. Her criticisms have been insightful, at times severe, and often helped me to look at my material in some very new ways. While my debt to the above people and institutions is great, I am, of course finally and solely responsible for the contents of the pages that follow.

CHRONOLOGY

1777 March 22 - Claire-Louise-Rose-Bonne de Coëtnempren de Kersaint is born at Brest. She is the only child of Armand-Guy-Simon de Coëtnempren, Comte de Kersaint, descendant of an ancient though rather poor Breton family, and Claire-Louise-Françoise de Paul d'Alesso d'Eragny, born in Martinique, the rich first cousin of the Comte d'Ennery, governor of the Windward Islands. 1789 Claire enters the Panthémont convent, rue de Grenelle, Paris, for her education. Joséphine de Damas, later the Marquise de Sainte-Maure, and Anna de Dillon, later the Comtesse de la Tour du Pin, become her good friends there. 1791 Having made her first communion, Claire leaves Panthémont. She and her mother go to live with her mother's cousin, Madame de Sinéty, rue de Courty, Paris. 1792 May 31 - Claire's parents are legally separated; as a result, she receives a pension from her father. 1793 Claire assumes the management of the properties and fortune of her mother, who is greatly weakened and unable to govern her affairs. December 4 - A Girondist deputy to the Convention and against the execution of Louis XVI, the Comte de Kersaint is condemned to death. December 5 - The Comte de Kersaint is executed on the Place de la Révolution. Claire and Madame de Kersaint leave France, Claire with a legal passport, her mother without, for America and for Martinique to save their considerable fortune there. While embarking at Bordeaux, they learn of the Comte de Kersaint's execution from a crier. 1794 June 16 - Claire and Madame de Kersaint leave Philadelphia. After settling their affairs in Martinique, Claire, her mother and her aunt, Madame d'Enneiy, go to the Comté de Vaud, Switzerland. 1795 April - Claire, her mother and aunt arrive in London, where they are able to live comfortably and frequent the French émigré society. 1797 November 27 - Clarie m a r r i e s Amédée-Bretagne-Malo de Durfort, Duc de Duras, in London. 1798 August 19 - Claire gives birth in London to a daughter, Félicie ( ClaireLouise-Augustine-Félicité Maclovée). 1799 The birth in London of her second and last child, Clara ( Claire-Césarine). 1800 She and Félicie visit her mother-in-law ( Louise-Henriette-CharlottePhilippine de Durfort de Duras, née de Noailles) in Paris, 64, rue de Varennes. 1801 Claire and Félicie return to London. Between 1801 and 1808 Claire makes numerous trips to France and even stays in the Midi for a period; her husband sometimes joins her during her stays there. 1805 She goes to Lausanne for a rest where she rents 'le cottage' from Madame de Charrière. There she becomes friends with Madame de Charrière's niece, Mademoiselle Rosalie de Constant, with whom Claire later c o r r e sponds. They remain close friends for the rest of Claire' s life. 1808 January - The purchase of the estate and château d'Ussé in the Touraine; she takes up permanent residence there. She sees Chateaubriand at Méréville, home of the Duchesse de NoaillesMouchy. Claire becomes a friend and, during the Restoration, protector

1813 1814 1815

1819

1820 1821 1822 1824

1825 1826

1827 1828 1839

of Chateaubriand; their relationship and correspondence last until the end of her life. September - Félicie marries Léopold de la Trémotlle, Prince de Talmont. Near the end of the Empire, Claire begins to hold literary gatherings in the rue de Varennes, a prelude to the salon she holds during the Restoration. During the Hundred Days, she, her husband and her daughter Clara go to Ghent with Louis XVHI, where Madame de Kersaint dies. At the time of the Restoration of Louis XVHI, the Duc de Duras, always an ardent royalist, is named Premier Gentilhomme de la chambre du roi. Claire establishes a brilliant salon at the Louvre, a salon frequented by Humboldt, Cuvier, Rémusat, Villèle, Fontanes, Talleyrand, Chateaubriand, among others. August 31 - Marriage of her daughter Clara to Henri, Comte de Chastellux, Duc de Rauzan. September - Marriage of her daughter Félicie, now a widow, to Auguste du Vergier, Comte de la Rochejacqueleln. Madame de Duras' illness prevents her from attending the ceremony. September - August, 1820 - Claire is seriously ill. Late August - She goes to Saint-Cloud where she spends eight months in seclusion and begins the composition of Ourika and Edouard. She finishes Ourika. Ourika and Edouard are read by close friends. July - Her novel Le Moine ou l'Abbé du Mont Saint-Bernard is composed, but remains unpublished, as does her novel F r è r e Ange. June - Claire goes to her house at Andilly to recover from illness. Her health worsens. October - She sells her Andilly house to Talleyrand. Publication of Ourika by Ladvocat. Her novel Olivier ou le secret Is undoubtedly written by now. She is also composing some 'mémoires', probably the unpublished Mémoires de Sophie. Publication of Edouard by Ladvocat. Summer - She rents a house at Saint-Germain. Her health becomes still worse. August - She is partially paralyzed and her sight weakens. Olivier, by Hyacinthe de Latouche, is published anonymously and falsely attributed to her. She travels to Lausanne to visit Rosalie de Constant. Publication of her Pensées de Louis XIV and of Stendhal's Armance. She arrives in Nice where she hopes to improve her health. January 16 - Madame de Duras dies at Nice. Publication of Réflexions et prières inédites.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chronology

vii

Introduction

1

PART I: I.

THE ROMANTIC DILEMMA AS A RESULT OF SOCIAL PROCESS

Ourika

5

n . Edouard

13

IH. Olivier

21

PART II:

DUAL STATEMENT IN MADAME DE DURAS' NOVELS AS REVEALED BY FORM

Introduction

37

IV. Plot

38

V. Narrative Technique VI.

Characterization

Bibliography

44 51 61

INTRODUCTION

Interest in Madame de Duras and her literary production has been steady and in general enthusiastic since her novels first appeared. While she and her works have not ceased to arouse comment, to a very large extent they have been interpreted biographically, that is, to what degree they have been inspired by and a r e reflections of the people and events in her life, and in terms of her friendship with Chateaubriand: his role in inspiring them, his influence on her and her works, his reactions to them. Much has also been written on her life, the i m portance of her salon, and her position and personal influence during the period of the Restoration. Very little has been written on the value of her novels a s literary works in their own right, on the significance of her novels beyond their possible connections with the author's life and with Chateaubriand. This study is an attempt to fill this void: a critical study of her three novels, Ourika, Edouard and Olivier, an analysis of their central importance, significance, relevance as they stand, an effort to reveal their essential worth as integral works of art. The first two of these works have been published and frequently reprinted; the last, the subject of much controversy in the past, was published only in 1971 by Denise Virieux. I have been able to read Olivier also in a manuscript different in some details from the one edited by Madame Virieux. Madame de Duras' writings on her religious meditations, Réflexions et prières inédites, do not fall within the scope of this study of her novels. Madame de Duras' novels form a sort of trilogy on a common theme: the typically romantic dilemma of a character who, through causes beyond his control, finds himself a social exile, an individual who has no place in society or in the order of things and has no possibility of acting to change his situation. The predicaments of Madame de Duras' characters have, in each case, a specific social cause: Ourika is led to destruction for racial reasons, Edouard because of class limitations, Olivier by physical abnormality which excludes him from fulfilling the role of a male as defined by his society. Thus, the principal character of each of Madame de Duras' romans d'analyse possesses an unchangeable characteristic which is unacceptable to a rigid and closed society; this is the basis of his exile and downfall. A close examination of the novels will reveal these aspects a s well as the way in which every element and technique used moves to the creation of a unified work of fine psychological analysis and social comment.

PART I THE ROMANTIC DILEMMA AS A RESULT OF SOCIAL PROCESS

I

OURIKA Ourlka, after her true status is revealed to her, comes to a mental and emotional state similar to that of many other romantic characters in her alienation from humanity and in her conception of the world as a rigid and unjust one which persecutes her. Her complete Inability to act In any way to change her position In relation to her society, her knowledge that the goal for which she strove is lost to her forever, and her view of life as an unbearable burden further mark her similarity to other romantic literary figures. However, as with some typical romantic characters, the cause of her alienation is not cosmic or metaphysical or even emotional In nature. Nor does Ourika possess exceptional genius, insight, sensitivity, as do such figures as Rousseau's Saint-Preux and Vigny's Morse and Chatterton. She is exceptional rather In that she possesses a specific characteristic unacceptable to a rigid society. In her case, she is a black person in a white society that has no place for blacks. It is this fact which determines her alienation, her inability to act, her world view. Like Madame de Duras' other characters, then, her alienation is due to an undeniable and unchangeable physical trait which renders her unacceptable to a closed society, one with certain inflexible criteria for membership. Such diverse characters of French romantic literature as Vigny's Mofse and Chatterton, Chateaubriand's René, Balzac's Mademoiselle Gamard all come to hold a view of the universe and their place and purpose in relation to it that is essentially the same as Ourlka's. Hopelessly alienated from the world, they all feel In a way damned In that there is no way for them to act to alter their isolation, to become an integral part of the world. It is important to note that while their reasons for coming to this mentality vary widely, their final states are very similar. Vigny's Mofse, as God's elect, possesses exceptional vision and power to lead men but by the same token is forever isolated from mankind; he i s no longer a part of it. Chatterton, too, has special artistic vision and power. Endowed with an ability to see beyond everyday reality to another more pure, lofty and beautiful one, he Is condemned to interpret his vision to the rest of mankind. He thus comes to have a special position apart from and above humanity. Striving to interpret his vision, but falling short of his goal because of a materialistic society which cannot appreciate his abilities or his message, he feels Increasingly powerless to achieve his goal and finally frees himself of his burdensome task through suicide, as Morse finally asks to be released from his overpowering and terrible task when he says: 'Laissez-moi m'endormir du somme il de la terre. ' Balzac's Mademoiselle Gamard is branded as a being apart by the society in which she lives, one which is in many ways much akin to those we see In the works of Madame de Duras in that it has rigid class and role definitions condemning many people to less than full acceptance by, or participation in, its life. Unmarried, Mademoiselle Gamard becomes an object of ridicule as a vietile fille, a person not accepted as a normal, productive, integral part of her society and falls victim to all of society's prejudices against members of her group. We will see that Ourlka comes to have a position and a world view similar to those of the above characters through a reason which is concrete and has social significance In the novel. Ourika's perception of her position is more than her own strictly subjective view of the world. It is supported by what other characters in the story say, such as the conversation cited below between her benefactress and the Marquise, de . . . , and by the events that occur during the story. Their effect on Ourika is corroborated by the 'outer narrator', the doctor, a person exterior to the

6

people and events interpreted and reported by Ourika herself. Thus the Import of the work is not limited to Ourika's personal view of the world; it is, more importantly, a portrayal and statement of her society and its effect on her. The exact cause and nature of Ourika's problem, that is, the life of solitude which she faces, in which the possibilities of marriage, motherhood or the experience of a family life do not exist, are first revealed to her by this conversation between her benefactress, Madame de B. and the Marquise de . . . : 'Pendant que nous sommes seules, dit Mme de . . . à Mme de B., je veux vous parler d'Ourika: elle devient charmante, son esprit est tout â fait formé, elle causera comme vous, elle est pleine de talents, elle est piquante, naturelle; mais que deviendra-t-elle? et enfin qu'en ferez-vous? Hélas! dit Mme de B., cette pensée m'occupe souvent, . . . lorsque je réfléchis â sa position, je la trouve sans remède. Pauvre Ourika ! je la vois seule, pour toujours seule dans la vie ! ' ( 1 ) Furthermore, the possibility of marriage or companionship with others of her own race In France does not exist as they are relegated to the lower classes while Qirika has been raised as an educated and polished noblewoman. As she has been brought up since infancy as a French aristocrat, she would have little possibility of returning to Africa and becoming a part of her native society. It is as Ourika says, 'Hélas! je n'appartenois plus à personne; j'étols étrangère â la race humaine tout entière!' ( 2) She is similar to Edouard and Flaubert's Emma Bovary in that they also were given educations that not only did not prepare them for the lives they would presumably lead but in fact educated them beyond their station for the life of another class, one to which they could never belong. We shall see in the following chapter that by his individual education and his contact with the aristocracy, which was to be a part of his training, Edouard is formed to think as an aristocrat rather than a member of the bourgeoisie, an important element in the preparation of his downfall. Emma also through her convent training and her wide reading of novels is not prepared for the life of a doctor's wife in a tiny village. She rather identifies with and aspires to the life of ease and romance she imagines Is led by the aristocracy, a belief which is portrayed In the ball at the château of the Comte de Vaubyessard. As is the case for Ourika and Edouard, Emma's education does not prepare her for the social realities she must face and is an important factor leading to her final destruction. Late eighteenth century French society was one in which little mobility between the classes was possible. One could move from one class to the next through financial or commercial success, that is, a peasant could become a member of the bourgeoisie through establishing a successful business, a rich bourgeois could obtain a noble life through buying a marriage with a member of an aristocratic family which was badly enough in need of funds to resort to this frowned upon tactic. But one could not advance one's social status simply on the basis of education or personal worth. One's social standing was determined and fixed principally by birth, and this was especially true of the aristocracy. Thus Ourika, a black woman, obviously not born an aristocrat, can never be accepted as such, in spite of her education, beauty and social grace, just as Edouard, born a bourgeois, can never be accepted as an aristocrat. Even were he to marry Natalie and thereby obtain a noble title, this action would be viewed as a degradation for her and a dishonor for them both. Ourika comes to view herself as being actively persecuted by society and speaks of ' Ce mépris dont je me voyois poursuivie . . . ' ( 3 ) She is haunted and obsessed by the disdaining and questioning looks she receives from strangers and friends of Madame de B. and by the knowledge that they view her, a black person, as being very much out of place in the society of her benefactress, obsessed finally by the knowledge that this society will never, under any conditions, accept her. The feeling that she Is being persecuted is confirmed by others around her, for example by the Marquise de . . . when she makes the following statement:

7

' . . . la philosophie nous place au-dessus des maux de la fortune, mais elle ne peut rien contre les maux qui viennent d'avoir brisé l'ordre de la nature. Ourika n'a pas rempli sa destinée; elle s'est placée dans la société sans sa permission; la société se vengera. ' ( 4 ) Ourika's feeling of persecution develops into a concept of her role in life as one of suffering. It is upon recognition that her feeling for Charles is love that she states her view of her life as one unending sorrow: 'Il faut qu'Ourika connaisse tous les genres d'amertume, qu'elle épuise toutes les douleurs!' (5) She comes to feel that she was born and brought to France to suffer, and that any of her endeavors or feelings will end in suffering. However, in fact, were it not for racial prejudice, or had she been left with her native people, there is no element in Ourika's emotional, nervous or psychological make-up that would destine her for a life of alienation and suffering. A happy, outgoing, confident person in her early years, Ourika is plunged into despair and solitude uniquely because of her race, a solitude and despair compounded by her love for Charles. Like the other characters in the story, Ourika comes to view her world as one in which there is an inherent, natural order of things, an order that is well defined and rigid, one that can be altered or disobeyed only under threat of severe punishment. In the case of Ourika, this punishment takes the form of complete ostracism, of exclusion from any of the activities and pleasures that a member of this society might expect to experience. Ourika, then, is held responsible for having tried to break society's rules, the 'natural order', for having stepped out of her designated place. This violation will not be permitted to go unpunished, even though she did not place herself in this society, even though her sin was quite beyond her control. While she reacts at first with shame and horror, trying even to conceal the apparent cause of her crime, her skin color, ( 6 ) her reaction later becomes one of indignation and despair with her growing realization that it is not she, but society that is at fault and with her recognition of the injustice of her persecution. Thus, while Ourika's solitude and misery are caused by her violation of the 'natural' order, this order is stated in the very specific, societal terms of a world closed to all who do not meet its strict criteria for membership. It is not the case that she was, from the beginning, unable or unwilling to accept the values or structure of her society. She never questioned them until she became aware that she was to be excluded; she was more than anxious to play the role of a noblewoman. She finally carries her criticism of her society further than does Edouard in arriving at the conclusion that the only solution for her would be complete revolution and destruction of her closed class and society, a development treated later in this chapter. However, there is an aspect of her society and her role training which she accepts completely: the role a woman ought to play. As a result of her rejection by society and her Inability to control or change her situation, Ourika comes to hold an attitude toward herself and toward life characterized by feelings of uselessness and bitterness, by the idea that life is an almost unbearable burden and by a conception of her own role as one of suffering, a world view very characteristically romantic. Her feelings of uselessness stem most immediately from the idea that she will never be able to marry and bear children and that, especially after Madame de B. dies, she will not be loved or needed by anyone. She says: 'Cet affreux sentiment de l'inutilité de l'existence, est celui qui déchire le plus profondément le coeur . . . ' ( 7 ) £he sees her only possible roles as those of wife, lover, sister and mother. She never considers any other activity as valid for her. Indeed, in her society, probably no other occupations were acceptable except the religious sisterhood, which Ourika joins only as a last resort and as a means to exist until her death. She sees the convent as a physical, literal exile, a cloistering from the secular world in which she can no longer live without unbearable torment. Deprived of the possibility of marriage and, consequently motherhood and love, she has absolutely nowhere to turn, no possibility for existence, much less happiness, outside the convent. This is an added reason why Charles' engagement is catastrophic for Ourika; it Is literally the end of any possibility for her to have a full life. One of the

8

most difficult and painful scenes Ourika must endure Is the sight of the happiness of Charles, AnaTs and their baby, the representation of all she has been taught to want in life but which she now knows is Impossible for her to experience. ( 8 ) Like Ourika, Madame Bovary, because of her sex, has no real alternatives in her life. Her only choice or fate is to remain with Charles in spite of her education and her yearnings to do something in life but be at home in a small, stifling village with her daughter, completely dependent on her husband for survival. Ourika, then, is limited and led to destruction not only tjy her society's refusal to accept someone of her race but also by the rigid definition of the role people of her sex are permitted to play. While Ourika's 'incestuous' passion for Charles may also seem to be one of the basic causes of her alienation, it is, in fact, a symbol rather than a basic cause of her complete exile from humanity. The type of incest involved, the fact that it is not acted out and the way in which it is resolved indicate that the theme of incest is present in Ourika not for any inherent or sensational value it might have, but rather for its symbolic value. One of the most universally proscribed emotions, with Ourika it is much less damnable than it might have been: it is in reality only an unrecognized and unrequited love for a person related to her through adoption rather than blood. While Charles is the grandson of her benefactress, Madame de B., he and Ourika have been raised in the same household as brother and sister. Thus although not related by blood, they were raised as siblings, and, when Ourika realizes the nature of her feelings for him, she sees them as incestuous and criminal. ( 9 ) Horrified, she enters a convent, thus removing herself definitely from any possible contact with Charles. Ourika's and Charles' upbringing can be compared to that of Paul and Virginie in Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's Paul et Virginie. Paul and Virginie were born of separate parents and brought up together in an atmoshpere of serenity, love and innocence. They come to love each other as they reach adulthood, a fact first seen by their mothers, one of which they approve. However, in contrast to Ourika's love for Charles, theirs is reciprocal and is not seen as Incestuous or criminal, but rather as natural and beautiful and as one which should be fulfilled by marriage. Their love functions as a result of an upbringing meant to be seen as ideal In a setting presented as far from societal limitations and corruptions, as natural, really as a paradise. Ourika's love also is the result of a happy upbringing and association with Charles. However, it exists within a society which strictly forbids a close relationship between a person of her color and one of its accepted members. Thus, rather than becoming the fulfillment of their life together, her love, and the fact that Edouard does not reciprocate, become a representation of the cruelty of her society and the impossibility of her situation. The theme of incestuous love was common in the pre-romantic and romantic literature. ( 10 ) This passion can be interpreted as a representation not only of the character's alienation from society but also his 'narcissistic sensibility': ( 11 ) a complete preoccupation with himself, his inner thoughts and feelings through his love for his sibling or parent, to an extent a mirror image of himself. Ourika, on the other hand, cannot be described in this way as she Is never overly sensitive or preoccupied with herself until her realization of the meaning of her race in her society. While her close relationship with and feelings for Charles exist throughout the story, her fundamental rejection is caused by her race; her love, recognized as incestuous passion only late in the story, simply adds another dimension to her alienation and despair. Even though Ourika does not recognize the exact nature of her feelings for Charles until late in the story, the developments in her relationship with Charles underline and contribute to her feelings of isolation. At first very close to Charles, she enjoyed a relationship of intimate confidence with him: ' . . . il étoit mon protecteur, mon conseil et mon soutien dans toutes mes petites fautes, ' ( 12 ) a relationship which remains essentially the same until Charles becomes the fiancé of Anars de Thémines. He falls in love with Anals and develops a relationship with her of confidence and joy in many ways similar to the one he had with Ourika. Hurt by this development, Ourika's sense of re-

9

jection and solitude Is further underlined on the day of Charles' wedding. She is left at home completely alone and ill while everyone else in the household attends the ceremony: . . . l'isolement complet, réel, où je me trouvois pour la première fois de ma vie, me Jeta dans un profond désespoir. Je voyois se réaliser cette situation que mon imagination s'étoit peinte tant de fois . . . ( 13 ) Later, the birth of a son to Anafs and Charles and their resulting happiness pain her greatly: she cannot help looking upon Anafs and her son with bitterness, ( 14 ) for they represent the relationship with Charles that she no longer has and, in a more general sense, the warm family love, her 'place dans la chaîne des êtres' (15) that she desires but knows is denied her forever. The true nature of her love for Charles is revealed to her finally by the Marquise de . . . : ' . . . tous vos regrets, toutes vos douleurs ne viennent que d'une passion malheureuse, d'une passion insensée; et si vous n'étiez pas folle d'amour pour Charles, vous prendriez fort bien votre parti d'être négresse. ' ( 16 ) Thunderstruck, Ourika sees at once that, indeed, she is passionately in love with Charles. However, while the Marquise de . . . feels that the cause for Ourika's deep despair is her love for Charles, this is in fact only partially true. Ourika's crisis after the realization of the situation created by her color is a deep and despairing one. The fact is that it is society's prejudice against her color, not her love for Charles, that has exiled Ourika. Her unrequited and 'incestuous' love intensifies and renders more complete her isolation. It further makes of Ourika one who breaks society's rules, as well as the supposed natural order, not only by tiying to break a racial barrier but also through incest. Her passion carries her alienation to its furthest extent in that it exiles her even from her own family, until then her last place of human contact and warmth, and underlines the impossibility for her to ever experience conjugal or parental happiness. Ourika really arrives at a position of complete frustration and inability to act, at a realization that she is totally impotent In relation to her situation, as are Edouard and Olivier. Obviously unable to change the color of her skin, even though at one point she does try to hide it, she knows also that she can in no way change the racial attitudes of her society that are at the root of her misery. If she were to choose to remain in society, the best she could do would be to adjust to her situation and accept her humiliating position, as the Marquise suggests. ( 17 ) The only way in which Ourika can find any peace is to isolate herself behind the convent walls from Charles and from the daily humiliations and torture of society. Ourika's alienation, then, become total and hopeless. She sees the only solution to her problem as the convent. For her it is first a way to think about Charles without fear of sin: 1 'Laissez-moi aller, Charles, dans le seul lieu où il me soit permis de penser sans cesse à vous. . . . ' ' (18) This constitutes an avowal of the obvious: she is unable to alter her passion; she can only remove herself from the situation. Claiming to be happy there, ( 19) she at one point even attributes her present troubles to her former lack of love for God. ( 20 ) However, there is little evidence that any of these statements are any more than idealistic rationalizations for her escape as she appears to be languishing in the convent and In fact dies not long after the narration is completed. If her entrance Into the convent is a retreat from her society, it is also for Ourika a last effort to find a sense of belonging in humanity, a last effort to find a feeling of fraternity and belonging with other people. Further, It is an effort to find some fulfillment of the female roles of mother, daughter, sister, the only way - even now - in which she can conceive of possible relationships to other human beings:

10

La soeur de charité, me disois-je, n'est point seule dans la vie, quoiqu'elle ait renoncé â tout; elle s'est créé une famille de choix; elle est la. mère de tous les orphelins, la fille de tous les pauvres vieillards, la soeur de tous les malheureux. ( 21 ) While her entry into the convent marks her final withdrawal and most complete and literal exile from society, it does not really change her situation in any way; it is merely an act of escape since society's attitude of rejection and persecution due to race as well as her position of exile remain the same. In fact, then, Ourika, like Edouard and Olivier, Mademoiselle Gamard and René, is unable to act in any way to change her situation. She can only retreat from the secular world, just as Motse asks to be relieved of his painful mission, as Chatterton commits suicide, as Hené really withdraws into himself and comes to a state of complete lethargy and inability to act. That the cause of Ourika's rejection is societal not only in terms of race prejudice, but also in terms of the entire society as it exists is further illustrated by the effect of the period of the Terror on her. It is only during the upheaval of the Terror that she is able to find some measure of happiness. Because the normal structure of society is uprooted, normal concerns and prejudices seem to evaporate and she is able to find a feeling of fraternity with Madame de B. and others during this time of disaster and common suffering. Ourika says: J'entrevis donc que, dans ce grand désordre, je pourrois trouver ma place; que toutes les fortunes renversées, tous les rangs confondus, tous les préjugés évanouis, amèneraient peut-être un état de choses où je serois moins étrangère; et que si j'avois quelque supériorité d'âme, quelque qualité cachée, on l'apprécieroit lorsque ma couleur ne m'isoleroit plus au milieu du monde, comme elle avoit fait jusqu'alors. (22) Later she says of this period, ' . . . je ne me sentois plus isolée depuis que tout le monde étoit malheureux. ' ( 23 ) She sees and uses this period of social upheaval and common suffering as a means to bring herself closer to others, to establish some sort of rapport, some sort of feeling of participating in society and history with those about her and thus finding peace and happiness through a loss albeit a temporary one - of her feeling of rejection and isolation. She says of herself and Madame de B. during this period: . . . mais je n'imaginois pas qu'on pût essayer de la consoler, ou même de la distraire. Je pleurais, je m'unis sois â ses sentiments, j'essayois d'élever mon âme pour la rapprocher de la sienne, pour souffrir du moins autant qu'elle et avec elle. ( 24) However, as this period of revolution ends and normalcy returns, the old attitudes and preoccupations also return and with them Ourika's unhappiness: 'Ma position était si fausse dans le monde, que plus la société rentroit dans son ordre naturel, plus je m'en sentois dehors. ' ( 25 ) Thus the only possible solution for Ourika, other than complete withdrawal from society, is complete revolution, complete uprooting of the prejudice acting against her and of the society of which it is a part, since the society as it exists demands that black people remain in an inferior position and refuses to admit a black person into that society in any other position. Life for Ourika becomes characterized by defeat; all doors are closed to her, all her feelings are frustrated or forbidden. Like many other romantic heroes, she has an ideal, but realizes that it is useless to strive for it as it is unobtainable for her. However, her ideal is rather prosaic in terms of the lofty goals and visions of other heroes of the period: she wanted simply to participate normally in her society. The pain of the knowledge that his kind of life is impossible for her is sharpened by her happy early years when she did participate normally in society, when she felt accepted and loved, before she had any inkling of her real position in society and her future existence. Thus the ideal, the

11

life or experience for which she yearns, is one which she has already seen and experienced but which has been taken from her forever. Completely disillusioned, Ourika concludes inevitably that life is a burden, an almost unbearable one. She wishes finally for her suffering - and thus her life - to end: 'Qu'ai-je fait pour être condamnée à n'éprouver jamais les affections pour lesquelles seules mon coeur est créé? O mon Dieu! Otez-moi de ce monde; je sens que je ne puis plus supporter la vie. ' ( 26 ) This wish for death is repeatedly expressed by her in anguish. Since the cause for Ourika's solitude is specific and concrete, her inability to act is of a very different sort than that of René and many other romantic figures. The cause and nature of her situation are not in the least vague, and the cause of her inaction is not any sort of semi-mysterious mental or emotional paralysis. Ourika is simply the victim of a cruel prejudice and is powerless to change societal attitudes. Thus Ourika is closely related to other romantic literary figures in some very basic says. Victim of an unjust and immutable order, she sees her position in relation to society and the world as being outside it, set apart from it, indeed rejected by it, as do René and Mademoiselle Gamard. Like these characters, Ourika perceives that she is incapable of changing this position and views her own role in life as one of suffering, her own life as an unbearable burden. As is the case for Edouard and Olivier, the cause of her situation is an unchangeable characteristic which is unacceptable to her society and renders her incapable of finding a solution to her dilemma within the bounds of the social structure. NOTES (1) Madame de Duras, Ourika ( Paris: Ladvocat, 1824), pp. 44-46. (2) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 58-59. ( 3 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 53. (4) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 50-51. (5) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 160. (6) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 57-58. ( 7 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 133. ( 8 ) See n. 14, this chapter. (9) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 157-160. (10) Peter L.Thorslev, J r . , 'Incest as Romantic Symbol', Comparative Literature Studies, II (1965), 42. ( 11 ) Thorslev, ' I n c e s t . . . ', p. 50. ( 12 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 34. ( 13 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 132. ( 14) ' . . . le tableau de cette jeune mère avec son fils touchoit tout le monde: moi seule, par un sort bizarre, j'étois condamnée â le voir avec amertume; mon coeur dévoroit cette image d'un bonheur que je ne devois jamais connaître, et l'envie, comme le vautour, se nourrissoit dans mon sein. ' Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 144. ( 15 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika. p. 157. ( 16 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 156. ( 17 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 156. ( 18 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 171. (19) ' . . . maintenant le chagrin ne dure pas dans mon coeur: la racine en est coupée. . . . N'oubliez donc pas que je suis heureuse: mais hélas! . . . je ne l'étois point alors. ' Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 125. ( 20 ) 'Dieu a eu pitié de moi; il m'a retirée lui-même de cet abîme où je n'étois tombée que faute de le connaître et de l'aimer. ' Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 125. ( 21 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 166-167. (22) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 71-72. ( 23 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 84. ( 24 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 82-83.

12 ( 25 ) Madame de Duras, Ourlka, p. 104. (26) Madame de Duras, Ourlka, p. 146.

n EDOUARD Like Ourika, Edouard resembles René by his position in relation to the world. Their outlooks are in many ways similar in that they see themselves as persons alone, existing in solitude with no certain place in society or in the structure of things. Extremely sensitive, somewhat withdrawn and a dreamer as a youth, Edouard, still young but already separated from his loved one, sees life as empty, meaningless and unbearable; he sees himself as the victim of an unjust order and wishes to end his hopeless existence as soon as possible. As for Ourika, the cause for Edouard's alienation and suffering is a very specific and societal one: a rigid class structure with strictly defined limits of acceptability that allow no mobility between its classes. Edouard is thus the victim of a class prejudice and it is this element that is the primary source of his problems; without it, he would have had love and a happy existence. As the novel begins, Edouard is suffering from a sort of sickness very similar to the ennui or the mal of René, the mal du siècle from which so many literary heroes of the first half of the nineteenth century suffer. The intermediate narrator - who within the framework of the novel writes the 'Introduction' and the 'Conclusion' - who befriended Edouard in the army in America and is relating to us the hero's story as he received it, tells us that Edouard, suffering from a sort of sickness of the senses and the will, is leading an errant, hopeless existence, not caring whether he lives or dies, alone, incommunicative, withdrawn: ' . . . le malheur l'avoit rendu comme étranger aux autres hommes. ' ( 1 ) Edouard himself later gives us an image of the effete, alienated, hopeless person that he was: ' . . . & vingt-trois ans, des souvernirs sont tout ce qui me reste; mais, qu'importe? ma vie est finie, et je ne demande plus rien à l'avenir. ( 2 ) Expressing his feeling that existence has become an unbearable burden, he says, 'Je me sentois accablé sous le fardeau de mon existence comme sous un manteau de plomb. ' ( 3 ) It is important to point out from the beginning of this chapter, however, that Edouard's alienation and, finally, his death are not brought on by a lassitude or feelings of waste and hopelessness without concrete, identified causes, but a r e rather created by very specific social factors. His complete exile from the world and final ruin are caused principally by the class limits of a closed and immobile society and a particular combination of circumstances and collaborating factors. The most obvious and important cause of his alienation is the social sanction in pre-Revolutionary France against marriage or a position of equality between a noble and a bourgeois whatever may be the latter's personal qualities. Edouard, born into the haute bourgeoisie of Lyons, son of a highly esteemed lawyer in the Parlement de Paris who once saved the fortune of the Maréchal d'Olonne, is forever barred from the aristocracy, even though his education knd personal qualities would make of him the equal of any nobleman on any terms except his birth. His love for Madame de Nevers has tragic consequences only because of this social barrier. ( 4 ) While he feels at times inferior in the presence of others of Madame de Nevers' class, he never feels so with her. Their relationship is one of perfect rapport and felicity, there is nothing in their backgrounds that impedes their love or m a r s their private interaction. It is only the social prejudice against a marriage across class lines that separates them and in the end ruins them both. In thinking of the happiness that could have been his were they in another society, in this case England, Edouard exclaims, ' 'Quoi! me disois-je, ce qui est ici une folie

14 sans excuse seroit lâ le but de la plus noble émulation; là je pourrois conquérir Mme de Nevers! Sept lieues de distance séparent le bonheur et le désespoir. ' ' ( 5 ) Thus French society alone is the culprit. While Edouard may seem to think of its corrupting influence in an even more general way and in a way reminiscent of Rousseau when he speaks of ' . . . ce don de pitié que Dieu mit au fond de nos âmes, et que la société étouffe et remplace par l'égoîsme, ' (6) it is always his specific society that is condemned. While the principal cause for Edouard's mental state is of a different nature than that of many literary heroes of the Bomantic period, he is similar to them in many important ways. It is perhaps by a feeling of incompleteness coupled with a restlessness and preoccupation that he most resembles Adolphe and others like him. Edouard describes himself as a youth as 'Réservé, silencieux, peu confiant, tout s'entassoit dans mon esprit et ne produisoit qu'une fermentation inutile et de continuelles rêveries. J'aimois la solitude . . . . ' ( 7) Adolphe portrays himself as a youth in a very similar way: . . . je m'accoutumai à renfermer en moi-même tout ce que j'éprouvais, à ne former que des plans solitaires, . . . à considérer les avis, l'intérêt, l'assistance et jusqu'à la seule présence des autres comme une gêne et un obstacle. Je contractai l'habitude de ne jamais parler de ce qui m'occupait . . . . De lâ une certaine absence d'abandon qu'aujourd'hui encore mes amis me reprochent... . Je portais au fond de mon coeur un besoin de sensibilité dont je ne m'apercevais pas, mais qui, ne trouvant point à se satisfaire, me détachait successivement de tous les objets qui tour à tour attiraient ma curiosité. . . . Cet événement [the death of an old lady he knew ] m'avait rempli d'un sentiment d'incertitude sur la destinée, et d'une rêverie vague qui ne m'abandonnait pas. . . . Je trouvais qu'aucun but ne valait la peine d'aucun effort. ( 8 ) Reserved, preferring solitude, somewhat moody with a feeling of unrest, of dissatisfaction, of a yearning for something as yet undefined but definitely lacking in their lives, Edouard and Adolphe resemble each other remarkably as young men, both possessing the above traits as do René and many other characters of the French literature of the early nineteenth century. It is to this feeling of inner void, to his need to give some direction or fulfillment to his dreams and attain the unknown, the ideal, that the young Edouard owes his love of danger, a love that helps prepare him for his future dilemma. Liking to surpass other children in daring, he says, ' . . . mais c'étoit surtout le danger qui me plaisoit... je croyois toujours poursuivre je ne sais quel but que je: n'avois encore pu atteindre, mais que je trouverois au-delà de ce qui m'étoit déjà connu. . . . ' ( 9 ) Therefore he does not merely love risk for its own sake, but as a means to attain a special experience, vision or goal and of rendering it as unusual and exciting as possible. However, this special but is something he needs to experience alone; if it is shared, he states that ' . . . ce sentiment du danger perdoit tout son charme pour moi . . . . ' ( 10 ) This experience is one which is special for him only If he as an individual enters into it; it bolsters his sense of uniqueness and special vision, and asserts his individuality, his moi; it is a further indication of his desire to create and live in his own world, a world built by his own sensitivity and imagination, and thus apart from the common, everyday one around him. Later, Edouard will seek to attain his ideal, Madame de Nevers, through another sort of daring: maintaining his passion for her while living in the same house as a member of the family and against the strict social conventions prohibiting a close relationship between them, (11) a situation in which Saint-Preux of Rousseau's La Nouvelle Hélolae also finds himself, as does Dominique in Eugène Fromentin' s Dominique. (12) In a sense, Edouard's youthful restlessness, yearning for danger, and his search for the sublime are a preview of his adventure with Madame de Nevers which will ruin him. The nature of Edouard' s imagination adds to his characterization as a unique and superior individual capable of attaining a special vision of things. This idea

15 of Edouard is developed, for example, in the scene where he is watching a local forge in operation. In a trance-like state, he transforms the forge-lit scene of the workers, with their picks, into demons in a sort of hell, the river outside into a river of liquid fire, and finally reports that 1 . . . des fantômes noirs coupoient ce feu, et en emportoient des morceaux au bout de leur baguette magique; et bientôt le feu lui-même prenoit entre leurs mains une nouvelle forme. 1 ( 13 ) Thus Edouard is able to transform a scene of people working into one filled with demons and mystery, reinforcing our conception of him a s a dreamer, occupied with an inner, restless world rather than the material one around him, as were many heroes of the literature of this period, such as Vigny's Chatterton. Edouard and Chatterton are just two of the many heroes, rêveurs, who are crushed by a hard, unjust world in which dreams and idealism have no part. A further factor contributing to Edouard's feeling of uniqueness is his education. He receives a very special sort of education, one that keeps him apart from society between the ages of twelve and twenty. It is an education that hardly prepares him for the world in which he is to live or for the particular circumstances in which he is to find himself and one that instead reinforces his feelings of superiority to his social class and contributes directly to his final downfall. When he is twelve, his father retires with him and his mother to Lyons to devote himself entirely to Edouard's up-bringing. However, this is certainly not a social education through contact with his society and its mores. His father planned to accomplish this aspect of his formation by placing him in the home of Monsieur d'Olonne at the age of twenty in order to, as Edouard says, ' . . . me faire voir la bonne compagnie e t . . . me faire acquérir ces qualités de l'esprit qu'il désiroit tant que je possédasse. ' ( 14 ) While Edouard does acquire a knowledge of the structure and laws of his society, he seems naive with regard to many of the practices of aristocratic society of that time. When his uncle, Monsieur d'Herbelot, tells him of the rumor that he is Madame de Nevers' lover and continues to congratulate him on the feat and expand on his view that love is a matter of passing fancy and whim, with all women simply taking and exchanging lovers regularly, Edouard is shocked and enraged, saying, ' 1 - J e ne sais où vous avez vu de pareilles moeurs, . . . grâces au ciel, elles me sont étrangères, et elles le sont encore plus â la femme angélique que vous outragez. ' ' (15) If we know that Edouard is unique and superior by his exceptional sensitivity and imagination, by his education, by virtue of being the son of a famous lawyer, he is also a special person by his great suffering, the depth of which indicates his superiority, an idea present in Rousseau's La Nouvelle Héloïse and one which Musset is to develop in, for example, La Nuit de Mai. The intermediate narrator states: 'Souffrir profondément appartient aux âmes distinguées, car les sentiments communs sont toujours superficiels. ' ( 16 ) Edouard's dreams and ideals later take the form of Madame de Nevers, who comes to represent for him the experience for which he has been searching, the one that makes him feel whole and alive. Until he sees and loves her, he is dominated by a sense of incompleteness, ennui, a lack of motivation or sense of worth for his existence. ( 17 ) Upon meeting her, he tells us that 'Une émotion de bonheur inexprimable s'empara de moi; je sentis s'évanouir l'ennui, le vide, l'inquiétude qui dévoroient mon coeur depuis si long-temps; j'avois trouvé ce que je cherchois et j'étais heureux. ' ( 18) He d e votes himself totally to this ideal, to the extent that without her life becomes empty, unbearable, not worth living. She fulfills, then, the function of the ideal of his private world, a paragon of virtue, perfection, sensitivity, grace; in terms of their society, she is an aristocrat, and if he aspires to her as a woman he also aspires to the class of which she is a model. Thus Madame de Nevers functions on the level of Edouard's inner world a s well as on that of the more concrete one around him, as an ideal and a temptation to disaster at the same time; as an attraction to perfection, a new dimension of life which he cannot resist even though, at the social level of this attraction, he knows he ought to. We have seen that Edouard has an exceptional imagination and a desire to feel experiences more intensely than does the ordinary person. That he is not in any

16

way ordinary is further underlined by the intermediate narrator in the 'Introduction': ' . . . il avoit un esprit singulièrement original; il ne voyoit rien d'une manière commune, et cela venoit de ce que la vanité n'étoit jamais mêlée â aucun de ses jugemens. ' (19) Edouard's portrayal not only as a special but also a superior person - specifically to those around him born Into the same social class - is Introduced by the intermediate narrator, and is further developed by Edouard himself in his own narration. He aspires to the ideal, views himself as particularly endowed to see the way to achieve distinction, and as inherently qualified to be among superior souls: ' . . . je fuyois la société; je ne sais quelle déplaisance s'attachoit, pour moi à vivre avec des gens, respectables sans doute, mais dont aucun ne réalisoit ce type que je m'étois formé au fond de l'âme, et qui, au vrai, n'a voit que mon père pour modèle. ' (20) Educated t>y his father, he shares his belief in his own superiority and, while not born to the nobility which they both view as innately above all other classes, they see themselves as being equal 'moralement' to the nobility. (21) When Edouard first goes to the home of the d'Olonne family, he is especially proud of the way his father is respected by the nobles who frequent the d'Olonne home and Edouard himself remarks that he sees nothing unsettling or different there and that he does not at all feel 'hors de son état. ' ( 22) Aspiring to the aristocracy and adhering to the ideas that would place it in a higher position, Edouard believes, then, in the social structure in which he finds himself. He further believes in the superiority of certain people of talent, birth, 'bon goût' among whom he would place himself were it not for his inferior station by birth. ( 23 ) For him Madame de Nevers represents all that is superior, noble and beautiful In the upper classes; at one point he is moved to say that even if he could remove the barrier of rank that separates them he would not, and, he continues, 'En ce moment, je jouissois de la voir au-dessus de tous, encore plus que je ne souhaitois de la posséder, et j'éprouvois pour elle un enivrement d'orgueil dont j'étois Incapable pour moi-même. ' ( 24) Despite the fact that he is victimized by the unjust social barrier that separates him and Madame de Nevers, he believes in her superiority to him, not because of intelligence or some other quality she might possess, but merely because of the fact that she was born to the aristocracy. He subscribes to the idea that, in marrying him, a person of an inferior class, she would be guilty of lowering herself and would perhaps merit the opprobrium she would receive from society. Edouard says, 'Ma destinée m'a séparé d'elle; je n'étois pas son égal, elle se fût abaissée en se donnant â moi; un souffle de blâme eût terni sa vie . . . . ' ( 25 ) Edouard's belief in the validity of a class structure leads him to collaborate with the social injustice which finally destroys him. Furthermore, while society's enforced prohibition of a marriage between Edouard and Madame de Nevers is the fundamental cause of his despair and ruin, several other factors contribute to his being In a position to be victimized by this societal prejudice, factors which in a way lead him to acquiesce to this injustice being done him rather than resist it In every way possible. His education and imagination which bring him to view himself as a special and superior Individual, his search for an ideal and a missing quality in his life, embodied by Madame de Nevers, are further factors which reinforce his belief in the concept of a class elite and prepare him for his dilemma and death. His actions illustrate this aspect of his mentality: he obeys the class laws and acts within them, under the guise of not wanting to dishonor Madame de Nevers. He does finally consent to marry her, but only very late in the affair, when he is at the point of desperation and when he can scarcely control his passion for her. It is significant also that his agreement to marriage comes only at her insistence and only after she has convinced him that she would not be completely dishonored and ridiculed by theorizing that, while her father would ten them from Paris, he would take them in at Faverange where they could live happily. If Edouard's destruction is caused by class prejudice, if his downfall is seen as unjust and unmerited, it might therefore be seen as a criticism of the entire social system in which he finds himself. However, what is really being attacked is that the prejudice worked against such a superior, well qualified person as

17

Edouard. The class system as such, the idea of an elite, or an innately superior group of persons, is not attacked. He consistently supports these ideas; it is the rigidity and arbitrariness of the class rules in a society in which class mobility does not exist that are attacked. He would simply reform the social rules to allow him to enter the elite instead of necessarily changing the basic class structure of society. Edouard's concept of honor - his own as well as that of Madame de Ne vers prompts him to resist the idea of marriage. He, of course, does not want to taint Madame de Nevers 1 gloire in any way through a marriage with her because of the effect this would have on her in the eyes of society. Furthermore, his marriage to her would be a grave blot on his own 'honor' for he would be seen as a seducer, a man attaining what he wants at the expense of his loved one. He says to Madame de Nevers that, were he to marry her, 'Je serois un vil séducteur, et vous une fille dénaturée. Ah! n'acceptons pas le bonheur au prix de l'infamie!' ( 26 ) When he is under the full power of his passion, he is no longer able to say this. In retrospect, he remarks of this idea of honor to which he dedicated himself, " . . . avenir, repos, vertu même, tout me devenoit indifférent; et jusqu'à ce fantôme d'honneur auquel je me sacrifiois, je sentois qu'il ne me seroit plus rien si je me séparois d'elle. ' (27) Thus he comes to see the meaninglessness of his submission to arbitrary unjust social concepts and codes, but he sees this only when it is too late. His sense of honor led him to collaborate with the social prejudice separating noble and bourgeois long enough to ruin both him and Madame de Nevers. However, in his very progression toward the idea of the emptiness of this duty and toward the idea of breaking the social b a r r i e r which is too absolute is stated the basic attitude of the novel. While the convenances do indeed prevail in Edouard, ( 28 ) the observance of them leads the hero and heroine to ruin and death, Monsieur d'Olonne to a life of seclusion and grief. All three characters, could they repeat the affair, would ignore the convenances against their relationship and Monsieur d'Olonne would try to make an individual exception for Edouard. It is in the struggle of Edouard and Madame de Nevers with his sense of honor and duty and his pride on the one hand and their passion on the other that the principal interest of Edouard as a psychological novel lies. They find themselves in a rather strange predicament, defined by Edouard thus: 'Nous entrâmes bientôt dans la lutte la plus singulière et la plus pénible; elle pour me déterminer à l'épouser; et moi pour lui prouver que l'honneur me défendoit cette félicité que j'eusse payée de mon sang et de ma vie. ' ( 29 ) Thus Edouard, through his observance of social rules, finds himself obstinately refusing that which would make them happy. The conflict between his duty and his passion becomes p r o gressively more acute in the course of the novel. As his passion increases, so do his efforts to control it and to subordinate it to his idea of honor. At first each is afraid that the other will detect his feelings; ( 30 ) after their mutual avowal of their love, they both fear together that this love will be discovered. ( 31 ) However, It is not until Edouard, no longer able to control himself, steals a kiss that he realizes the uselessness of trying to remain near her honorably while the thought of separation from her is unbearable to him. ( 32 ) Thus his passion prevails finally over his 'honor'. As Edouard's honor seems increasingly meaningless, his pride also matters to him less and less. While he aspires to the nobility, he does often feel inferior and ill at ease in aristocratic society. He resents being the protégé of Monsieur d'Olonne, being accepted on that basis rather than for his own worth. He says, ' C'est ainsi que tout me blessoit, et que, jusqu'à cette protection bienveillante, tout portoit un germe de souffrance pour mon âme, et d'humiliation pour mon orgueil. ' ( 33 ) His feeling of social inferiority places him at a special disadvantage in reference to Madame de Nevers a s he feels that he has nothing to offer her but social disgrace: 'Mais est-ce d'une femme? est-ce de celle qu'on aime qu'on devroit recevoir protection et appui? . . . et moi, toutes mes prétentions sont déplacées, et mon amour pour elle est ridicule! 1 (34) Edouard's sense of inferiority and humiliation is increased when Madame de Nevers goes to places from which he, lacking in title, is barred, such as Versailles and most social

18

functions. He says of his feelings at these times, ' . . . je la voyois gaie, heureuse, paisible, et je dévorois en silence mon humiliation et ma douleur.1 ( 35 ) He becomes conscious of his lower social status on many occasions, from being unfamiliar or ill at ease with salon conversation, culminating in the traumatic occasion when the Duc de L. refuses a duel with him since a duel with someone who is not a gentleman would place the nobleman in a position of ridicule. Edouard's pride, often hurt by social customs and prejudice, becomes less important as he realizes that this pride, like his honor can only make him miserable, that it is merely a side-effect of the injustice that ruins him. Thus, his pride and especially his honor and sense of duty, as well as his view of himself as superior to those of his class, his aspirations to the aristocracy, all work to support the social prejudice of which he is a victim and help him to collaborate with its workings. A further factor and an obvious one in support of the victimization of Edouard by class prejudice is the particular situation in which he finds himself because of his father's friendship with Monsieur d'Olonne. Placed with Monsieur d'Olonne for his social education, he finds himself living almost as a member of the family and seemingly as an equal in the home of a nobleman and in close contact with Madame de Nevers. Through his experiences there he is separated even more from others of his own class, for whom he later expresses disgust and is thrown into the most intimate contact with noble society which views him as an inferior, thus causing him to became completely déclassé. ( 36 ) Destiny, defined actually in social terms, also is seen to play a part in Edouard's destruction. He is a fatal hero in that he not only fails in trying to escape his destiny but also brings destruction upon himself and those immediately involved with him and his situation: Madame de Nevers and Monsieur d'Olonne. Both the intermediate narrator and Edouard speak of the 'fatalité', the 'destinée', that is guiding him in life, that guides him to final disaster ( 37 ) and of premonitions of impending ruin. (38) The intermediate narrator defines Edouard's fate in this manner: ' ' Les anciens plaçoient la fatalité dans le ciel; c'est sur la terre qu'elle existe, et il n'y a rien de plus Inflexible dans le monde que l'ordre social tel que les hommes l'ont créé. ' ' (39) Thus the intermediate narrator prepares us for Edouard's destiny as well as confirming the hero's own view of his fate, stated in this way: 'Bientôt la triste vérité venoit faire évanouir mes songes; elle me montroit du doigt cette fatalité de l'ordre social qui me défendoit toute espérance . . . . ' ( 40 ) His fate then is never seen as mysterious or demonic, with unknown sources or reasons; it is, rather, from the very outset of the novel, evoked and defined specifically in terms of the unjust and cruel social order in which he lives. Edouard himself is aware of the fact that he has an ill fate hanging over him. As he Is telling his story in retrospect and therefore could be interpreting the events of his story as being guided by fate after they had occurred, it is important to note that the intermediate narrator further corroborates this notion. This theme not only creates sympathy for him as a victim, but also creates a greater feeling of the evil of the social prejudice being attacked in the novel, in raising the prejudice to the level of an uncontrollable, ruinous and inescapable force. Furthermore, he states in the narration that at the very time of the events he felt or realized that he was a victim of fate. When he first saw Madame de Nevers he not only experienced a feeling of profound happiness but he also felt ' . . . troublé en la voyant, j'entrevis mon s o r t . . . ' (41) Thus Edouard perceives his destiny yet he cannot resist it; he realizes it and yet collaborates or is led to collaborate with it by the several ways analyzed above: by his special education, his feelings of superiority to his own class and equality with the aristocracy, his sense of possessing a special vision, his notion of honor, duty, pride, his adherence to and observance of the very social code that is working to destroy him, the particular society in which he lives and the special situation that is his while living in the d'Olonne home. While Edouard defines his fate as " . . . cette fatalité de l'ordre social qui me poursuivoit partout, ' ( 42 ) it must be understood in terms of all the above factors. Like Ourika and Olivier, Edouard comes to a feeling of impotence, of complete

19

inability to act in any way to affect his situation. Ourlka can neither change her skin color, nor the attitudes of her society nor go to any new or different society and find a place, being thus trapped with no way out. We will see that Olivier's impotence is really a metaphor for the same basic situation: because of an unchangeable fact of his person, he has no acceptable role to assume within the framework of his society and can do nothing to alter his situation. Edouard's inability to act during his period with Madame de Nevers is caused by several factors and is more complicated than that of Ourika and Olivier. Edouard, an exile in a sense all his life in that he really belongs to no group in his society and is trained to view the aristocracy as superior, cannot easily control or dictate his aspirations - and has no real cause to - until it is too late. Through most of his affair with Madame de Nevers, Edouard's sense of honor prevents him from marrying her. This is the only point at which Edouard might have acted to create his own happiness, to free himself from the forces which have been controlling him, but he does not have the will to break the existing order. He cannot see what would be their place in society were he to do this except one of exile and especially of disgrace and ridicule for her having lowered herself and thus for him also for having acted dishonorably in bringing her to this end. He cannot see that there is any sense of honor; through his observance of social conventions, he contributes to his own destruction and loses the only possibility of action - a questionable one at that for him - that he will have.. When Edouard finally does act in consenting to marry Madame de Nevers, regardless of convention, it is society in the person of Monsieur d' Olonne who separates them and prevents their marriage. Obviously unable to change society or even to cause society to bend its rules for him, Edouard is unable to act in any positive way to prevent his ruin or alter his alienation. While there are elements of collaboration on the part of Edouard with his alienation and destruction, even this collaboration, such as his sense of honor, has been created by society which has Imbued him with its values. Thus, Edouard is totally the victim of an unjust order, and is completely alienated from society and unable to alter his position because of a lack of possibility of action rather than some cosmic force, inner ennui or inertia or lack of will. A rêveur, a person always in search for the ideal, superior to the ordinary person and apart from society, déclassé at the beginning and totally alienated from life at the end, Edouard is brought to his destruction through the action of class prejudice against him. The criticism of the rigidity and arbitrariness of class prejudice is inherent in the fate of Edouard and Madame de Nevers and their decision to try and throw aside the convenances. Like René by his exceptional vision, idealism, sense of disgust for life and alienation from it and his inability to act, Edouard differs from him by the cause of his situation ( i. e., a class society ) and by his view of the world. The nature of this cause of the hero's dilemma places Edouard rather in the tradition of the confessional personal novel in that Madame de Duras engages in social criticism through the use of a hero in many ways lypically romantic within the framework of psychological analysis. NOTES (1) Madame de Duras, Edouard ( 2 vols; Paris: Ladvocat, 1825), I, 6. ( 2 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 68. ( 3 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, H, 196. (4) G. Pailhês, in La Duchesse de Duras et Chateaubriand ( Paris: Perrin, 1910), p. 462, cites a letter from Madame de Duras to Rosalie de Constant, written in Paris [ 15 mai 1825 ], in which she says of Edouard: 'J'ai fait un roman qui s'appelle Edouard et dont l'idée est de montrer l'infériorité sociale telle qu'elle existait avant la Révolution où les moeurs admettaient tous les rangs pourvu qu'on ait de l'esprit, mais où les préjugés étaient plus impitoyables que jamais, dès qu'il était question de franchir les barrières. J'ai essayé de peindre les

20

souffrances de coeur et d'amour-propre qu'une telle situation faisait naître. 1 ( 5 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 220. ( 6 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, n, 198. ( 7 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 31-32. ( 8 ) Benjamin Constant, Adolphe (Paris: Garnier Frères, n.d. ), pp. 21-23. ( 9 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 40-41. (10) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 41. ( 11 ) See Pailhês, La Duchesse de Duras, p. 364, " . . . l'impossible tout â la fois les excite et les sépare. ' ( 12 ) For a thorough treatment of the parallels in Edouard and Dominique and a study of Edouard as a literary source for Dominique, see Jacques Vier, 'Pour l'étude du Dominique de Fromentin', Archives des Lettres Modernes, IV (Oct.-Nov. 1958), 1-56. (13) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 38-39. ( 14 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 60. (15) Madame de Duras, Edouard, n, 162-163. ( 16 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 17. ( 17) Edouard says, ' . . . je sentois . . . quelque chose d'incomplet au fond de mon âme. ' Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 33. (18) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 93. (19) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 5-6. ( 20 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 53-54. ( 21 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 63. ( 22) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 87-88. (23) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 170-172. ( 24 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 101-102. ( 25 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 94. ( 26 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 76. ( 27 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, n, 95. ( 28 ) 'Quel triomphe pour les convenances ! Quelle leçon pour les jeunes duchesses tendres et romantiques ? Elles doivent prendre garde aux plébéiens trop charmants. ' Stendhal ( Marie Henri Beyle), Courrier Anglais: New Monthly Magazine, in Oeuvres ( 32 vols;Paris: Le Divan, 1930-37), H, 333. (29) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 70-71. (30) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 46-47, (31) Madame de Duras, Edouard, n, 35-37. (32) Madame de Duras, Edouard, n, 135-136. (33) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 217-218. (34) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 221-222. ( 35 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 183. ( 36 ) While watching Madame de Nevers at a grand bail, Edouard as spectator says: 'Le language que j'entendois autour de moi blessoit mon oreille. Quelque chose de commun, de vulgaire, dans les remarques, me choquoit et m'humilioit, comme si j'en eusse été responsable. Cette société momentanée où je me trouvois avec mes égaux m'apprenoit combien je m'étois placé loin d'eux . . . Qu'il est indigne â moi de désavouer ainsi au fond de mon âme le rang où je suis placé, et que je tiens de mon pére!' Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 202-204. (37) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 93, II, 195. ( 38 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, n, 99. (39) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 14-15. ( 40 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 114. ( 41 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 92. (42) Madame de Duras, Edouard, H, 195.

m

OLIVIER Having seen the characteristic patterns to which both major novels can be r e duced, we shall see that his pattern is also to be found in Olivier ou le Secret. Further, the information we have about her unpublished novels, Frère Ange, Le Moine ou l'Abbé du Mont Saint-Bernard, and the Mémoires de Sophie, indicates that they also illustrate the central theme and outlook present in Ourika and Edouard. While little is known about Frère Ange, written in 1822, (1) its mention in a review of Edouard as being about a 'victime du préjugé des voeux perpétuels' ( 2) indicates that, at any rate, the hero is in some way a victim of a rigid and unchangeable situation and thus of the institution and society which perpetuate this inflexibility and injustice. Madame de Duras herself speaks of Le Moine ( 3 ) as well as Olivier, both written by 1825, in a letter to Rosalie de Constant, providing us with more concrete information about Le Moine than we have about Frère Ange. (4) In this letter she says: 'Puis, j'ai un Moine du mont Saint-Bernard; c'est un abbé d'autrefois, bien factice d'esprit et de coeur, mondain sans être scandaleux, dans lequel l'éducation et l'influence des moeurs de ce temps ont détruit le naturel et la vérité et simplicité du caractère, et qui est ramené â tout cela et même â la vraie piété par l'amour. Car rien ne détruit le factice, et tous les genres de factice, comme la passion. ' In this work also society is seen as a corrupting influence, one that will destroy one's humanity, a force that in a way ruins and alienates the individual. However, in Le Moine, the hero is able to counteract this corrupting influence through love, an emotion foreign to, and in opposition with, the dominating attitude and nature of society. As in all of Madame de Duras' works, it is never human nature that is evil; it is rather the societal structure and the attitudes it both embodies and endangers that is portrayed as reprehensible and unjust. Too little is known of the Mémoires de Sophie to make even a general tentative evaluation of its thematic content. Two critics, A. Bardoux and Mrs. Bearne, state that the Mémoires de Sophie a r e about life among the émigrés from the French Revolution. ( 5 ) Thus, if these reports are reliable, the narrator and characters a r e exiles in at least a literal sense from their native society. Madame de Duras' comment of the Mémoires is not very helpful except to ascertain that she was indeed working on some 'Mémoires': ' 'A présent, je fais des Mémoires, la vie d'une femme recontée par elle-même. Cela est â moitié. J e n'y travaille plus. Tout ce beau zèle s'est passé, je ne suis pas sûre de finir . . . ' ' ( 6 ) Olivier has always been one of Madame de Duras' most discussed works because of its subject matter, and the controversy surrounding the other Olivier published by Canel in 1826. Finally, the fact that Madame de Duras' Olivier is an important source of Stendhal's Armance enlarges the work's importance. Before analyzing Madame de Duras' novel in t e r m s of Latouche's or Stendhal's related novels, it would be well to review the history of the Olivier controversy alluded to above. Madame de Duras' Olivier was certainly composed by May 15, 1824 because she speaks of it in a letter of that date to Mademoiselle de Constant: ' 'Puis j'ai fait un autre roman dont je n'oserais vous dire le sujet. C'est un

22

défi, un sujet qu'on prétendait ne pouvoir être traité. Je vous en dirai seulement le titre: cela s'appelle Olivier ou le Secret. ' M 7) Her Olivier had been read aloud at the salons in Paris with the result that when Canel published an Olivier in 1826, many attributed It to her. Hyacinthe de Latouche, now acknowledged by most as the author of this version of Olivier, had heard Madame de Duras' Olivier read and wrote his own based on hers. He furthermore published it in a manner to make it appear to be a work of Madame de Duras. The format was very similar to that used for Ourika and Edouard, with an epigraph by Byron, no indication of author, and with the statement that the book was 'publié pour une oeuvre de charité, qui sera faite par les mains de M. Baudesson, notaire royal, rue Montmartre. ' ( 8 ) Ourika and Edouard had carried the mention: 'publié au profit d'une oeuvre de charité. ' The kind of type used and the length of the work were also similar to those used in Ourika. Thus eveiy effort was made to make Madame de Duras appear to be the author of this sensation-producing book whose hero is impotent. Stendhal added to the controversy over the 1826 edition of Olivier by making several favorable comments on it in the New Monthly Magazine of February 2, 1826, and by stating that the work was being much discussed in the salons and affirming that Madame de Duras was the author. Most critics did come to the decision that Madame de Duras is not the author of the Canel edition. S&inte-Beuve, in articles in the Lundis of March 17, 1851 and January 2, 1854, stated that Latouche is the author of this Olivier. However, the controversy continued well into the twentieth centuiy. While both Lebègue ( 9 ) and Henri Martlneau, ( 10 ) in their editions of Armance, and Luppé in his article in Le Divan, 1944, were sure Latouche is the author, E. -A. Férard, in his articles in Le Figaro, 1930, was convinced, rather, that the 1826 edition is indeed by Madame de Duras. ( 11 ) Férard cited as evidence her letters stating that she wrote an Olivier, as well as the idea that it was known or said in all the salons of the time that the Canel edition of Olivier was by her and that the format and way in which it was published is like those of Ourika and Edouard. Férard viewed as shaky Sainte-Beuve's statement that Madame de Duras' Olivier is different from the published one on the basis of his claim to have quickly read her manuscript. ( 12 ) Férard also discarded Stendhal' s statement in 1828 that the published version is not by Madame de Duras. ( 13 ) The Marquis de Luppé added concrete evidence that the Olivier of Madame de Duras is Indeed different from the Canel edition. ( 14 ) Luppé reported on a brouillon of an epistolary novel written on the back of letters addressed to the Duchesse de Duras and dates from 1821 to 1822. The rough draft was found in the château de Chastellux by the Duc de Duras. On page 267 of his article, the Marquis de Luppé gives the following résumé of the story of this epistolary novel: Une jeune veuve, Louise, comtesse de Nangls, aime le comte de Sancerre, Olivier, un ami d'enfance. Elle repousse les déclarations du comte de Rieux, dont Olivier est jaloux et qu'il blesse en duel. Après cette preuve d'amour, Olivier s'écarte d'elle, la fuit, tombe dans le désespoir et finit par se tuer. Elle manque de mourir et se retire du monde. Olivier est un babilan. ( 15) Mais il n'avoue pas â Louise ce secret qui le ronge. Le lecteur ne le devine pas sans peine. La plume de la duchesse de Duras est chaste; et aujourd'hui l'on ne jugerait pas ce roman scandaleux. The question of attribution has been definitively solved by the discovery of two manuscripts of Olivier. Madame Denise Virieux edited and published in 1971 the manuscript of the novel found at the château de Chastellux. Furthermore, in 1969 1 read yet a different manuscript of the same novel which is in the possession of one of Madame de Duras' descendants living in Paris. ( 16 ) While it corresponds in general outline and subject matter to the manuscript published by Madame Virieux, it does differ in a few points of structure and detail. A description of it will, then, contribute to our knowledge of Olivier, its meaning and some of the different possibilities Madame de Duras entertained. The manuscript includes some variantes written on the backs of letters, and

23

pages already used for another purpose, much in the way the château de Chastellux manuscript was written; however, only the variantes were on the backs of letters, the entire text being written on clean sheets. The manuscript is entitled Olivier ou le Secret; the title page contains a quotation from Dante, just as the title page of Ourika contains a citation from Byron. Unlike the version found in the château de Chastellux, this manuscript ends with a 'Conclusion' rather than an 'Epilogue', and contains the suggestion that Olivier is possibly the brother of Madame de Nangis. Such a suggestion does not appear at all in the Virieux edition. The following résumé of Olivier is based on the notes I was permitted to take of my reading of the manuscript. As in the Virieux edition, this version of Olivier is an epistolary novel consisting principally of the correspondence between Louise, Comtesse de Nangis, and her sister, Adèle, Marquise de C., ambassadrice â Naples. The bulk of their correspondence is occupied with the development of the love between the Comtesse de Nangis and her cousin, the Comte Olivier de Sancerre ( his mother and the mother of Louise and Adèle were sisters). Olivier writes only a few of the letters in the novel, mostly to the Comtesse de Nangis, with a few to the Marquise de C. The Comte de Nangis also writes a letter to his wife. PART I At some time before the beginning of the correspondence, Olivier had refused to marry the future Comtesse de Nangis, saying that they were too young. Olivier had then left to be a soldier in Russia for four years, and during his absence, Louise had married the Comte de Nangis. Olivier's conduct since that time has been bizarre; this conduct is explained by the fact that there is a secret, a mystery, which surrounds Olivier. While his secret excuses his conduct in the eyes of Louise, she is constantly trying to discover its nature. In Letter V the Comtesse de Nangis reports to the Marquise de C. that Lord Exeter, who knows Olivier, says that there are several different facets to Olivier and that he is very gallant, not religious enough, a man of honor. The Comtesse de Nangis, not happily married and childless, feels alone and restless, Ignored and unloved by her husband. Furthermore, she still loves Olivier ( Letter VII) and encourages any attentions he may pay to her. The Comtesse de Nangis and the Marquise de C. had had some holdings in common which have just been split. In the settlement, the Comtesse de Nangis lost her beloved childhood home, ïlavy; however, Olivier, knowing her attachment for Flavy, buys it back for her. Olivier is often melancholic, even pleasantries seem to hurt him; Lord Exeter says that there is certainly a secret cause for Olivier's mysterious behavior. Olivier's bad humor is further aggravated by Monsieur de Rieux, a suitor of the Comtesse de Nangis ( Letter X). Seeing Olivier's jealousy by his troubled, upset countenance, she sends Monsieur de Rieux away and goes to Flavy, where she leads a happy 'vie de château' in the beautiful countryside with Olivier living in nearby Rouville ( Letter XHI). Olivier comes to see her every morning, but she still has the feeling that a mystery is presiding over their destinies. The Marquise de C. answers in her next letter that Louise should follow her duty and obligation to her husband, not Olivier. The Comtesse de Nangis replies that she is further troubled by her husband's lack of affection for her; she feels born to suffer. In Letter XVI, Olivier announces to the Marquise de C. that Monsieur de Nangis has had a very bad fall from a horse and that it seems hopeless for him. He dies soon after. Olivier is very impressed by the grief of Madame de Nangis and comes to believe that she must have loved him very much. Madame de Nangis in Letter XVII, writes to the Marquise de C. that her husband is dead and repents of her former feelings. She does not want to hear of Olivier again.

24 PART n Olivier, now twenty-eight, speaks of his life without happiness or peace because of his destiny. Louise writes Adèle that she needs help for she fears Olivier has forgotten her. After the death of Monsieur de Nangis, and the grief of Madame de Nangis, Olivier has not come near her, and is much troubled because he does not know whether he should give in to his desire and go to her. Adèle writes to Louise first about Olivier's secret, a hopeless obstacle and misfortune. Adèle continues to advise Louise not to think about Olivier any longer as he will render her even more miserable. The Comtesse de Nangis answers in Letter VIII, however, that she and Olivier have seen each other and are reconciled: they have decided to be no longer separated from each other. Louise goes on to describe her extreme happiness, her feeling that everything seems so much more alive for her. By Letter XII, however, Louise indicates that Olivier again seems moody and sad. He is beginning to imagine that Louise prefers Monsieur de Bieux to him. In Letter X m Louise writes to Adèle that Olivier, somber and preoccupied much of the time, seems to be fighting against himself and that he seems to avoid her and seek solitude. Olivier says, finally, that he must leave her because, while she Is everything for him, there is an obstacle, a reason, a duty which prevents him from staying with her. In a note to the Comtesse de Nangis, Olivier says farewell to her, tells her to be f r e e and asks her to forgive him. He ends by saying that he still loves her. Louise writes Adèle ( Letter XVI) that Olivier has gone to England. Louise, at the depths of misery, begs hi™ to return. Her grief is killing her; they will never be united and she does not know why.

PART m In the first letters of this part, Louise writes to Adèle of her suffering which Ollvier's self-imposed exile is causing her. In Letter IV she tells Adèle of a visit she had from Lord Exeter who had seen Olivier and who said that Olivier looks completely changed, very thin, that he has been sick and has left for the Isle of Wight to regain his health. Louise then receives a tender note from Olivier in which he avows his love for her. Louise renounces all efforts to discover his secret because it causes him too much pain. In Letter V m Louise announces to Adèle that Olivier has returned to her and that they are now together on the Isle of Wight and extremely happy; she also describes the countryside on the island. Olivier, however, is often sad, illustrated by his behavior when they return to Flavy: he at one moment kisses her hands, at the next rejects and avoids her. Olivier' s bad moods are further piqued by Monsieur de Rieux who still comes to see the Comtesse de Nangis. Adèle has agreed to visit them; Olivier, however, believes that she is coming to try to separate him and Louise. Increasingly, everything seems to make Olivier furious, and finally, he becomes sick. However, Louise says she still wants to follow him, to be with him. Olivier has an attack, and is found prostrate under an oak that he and Louise had loved.

CONCLUSION In the Conclusion, written by a narrator, we see that Louise is nearly dead from shock and grief. The story ends on the note that Ollvier's secret was never discovered and the suggestion that perhaps he was the brother of Madame de Nangis. A s the château de Chastellux version and the one I read In Paris are very similar, the discussion of Olivier will be based on and r e f e r to Madame Virieux's edition, with differences between the two being pointed out where appropriate. To analyze Olivier as a romantic character, a definition of his secret, the

25

central problem of the book, needs to be made. If the nature of his secret Is never defined In the novel, it would not, however, have been a mystery to anyone reading the novel. This work is related to the roman â clé of the seventeenth century in that the 'key', or, in this case, the nature of the hero's secret, was circulated by word of mouth in polite society and would therefore be known to all before reading the novel. There was, thus, no real need for Madame de Duras to actually state the nature of Olivier' s secret» There are several factors in the novel itself that support the assertion that Olivier's secret is his sexual impotence and that his secret would have been known a priori by anyone who would have read the novel. First, it is only marriage which is prohibited for Olivier. He comes to avow his love to Louise freely, but, in spite of his feelings, his secret duty or obstacle compels him to leave her. It is seemingly the permanent and physically intimate relationship which is forbidden. Second, among at least some lettrés of the 1820's, the name Olivier signified a man who was impotent. A letter from Stendhal to Mérimée, dated 1826, reflects the meaning the name Olivier has come to have in literary circles at his time: Il y a beaucoup plus d'impuissants qu'on ne croit. Une femme que vous voyez le lundi a un Olivier . . . J'ai pris le nom d'Olivier, sans y songer, â cause du défi. J'y tiens parce que ce nom seul fait exposition, et exposition non décente. Si je mettais Edmond ou Paul, beaucoup de gens ne devineraient pas le fait du Babilanlsme (mot italien pour le cas de M. Maurepas). (17) Lebêgue also remaries that Olivier was the name of Caroline Pichler's novel, translated from German by Madame de Montolleu in 1823. The hero, scarred by smallpox, was incapable of inspiring love because of his ugliness. While the problem of the French Oliviers is different, the name in any case is associated with men unable to fulfill their love. Thus, a reader of that period might easily have been able to see the nature of Olivier's secret as impotence without its ever being explicitly stated. The suggestion of incest made in the 'Conclusion' of Madame de Duras' unpublished Olivier manuscript would be taken as a thinly veiled subterfuge covering the real subject of the novel. Finally, Madame de Duras' comment about the nature of the subject of Olivier being one she scarcely dares mention to Hosalie de Constant ( 18 ) is another indication that the secret is not really that Louise is Olivier's sister, for incest is certainly a subject that had been treated in the French novel before Madame de Duras and was a popular theme of romantic literature. Treatment by Madame de Duras of incest could hardly have been considered a défi in 1825; however, sexual impotence could very well qualify as a subject that would be very difficult to treat with taste and one which she might not dare openly discuss in her correspondence. The intermediate narrator suggests in the ' Conclusion' of the manuscript I read that Olivier's secret is perhaps that he and Louise were merely brother and sister. This is merely a tongue-in-cheek device here to bring the novel to a close and to maintain the pretense that the cause of Olivier's problems is a mystery. Furthermore, the suggestion itself is implausible for several reasons. First, the family relationship between Olivier, Louise and Adèle is specifically defined early in the novel: Olivier's mother was the sister of Louise's and Adèle's mother, and therefore, Olivier is their cousin. It is never suggested in any way until the 'Conclusion', and then only in the form of pure conjecture, that there might be a reason to doubt that their relationship is not as it has been stated. Second, if Olivier was somehow really the brother of Louise, it seems Improbable that their families would arrange a marriage between them and leave the decision to Olivier, who whould not be the only one to know if he were Louise's brother. Finally, it is specifically marriage that is forbidden to Olivier; his love for Louise is not forbidden, nor does he feel guilt for his love. H he were her brother, his love would then be incestuous and the entire relationship, not just the step of marriage and consummation of their love, would be condemned. Olivier's secret functions not only as the immediate physical cause of his alienation, but also as a fate. Olivier comes to view his secret as a sort of

26 cosmic force, speaking of it as a fete o r destiny which has befallen him, which controls him and which he cannot conquer or escape. In a letter to the Marquise de C., he says, Il y a des destinées, ma chère cousine, qui sont frappées par le sort: rien ne peut les adoucir, elles défient les secours de l'amitié et les conseils de la raison; privées de la douceur de confier leurs peines, elles voient le blâme s'attacher â elles quand elles ont lassé la pitié. Telle est, Adèle, ma triste vie. Croyez que, si ma douleur eût admis des consolations, je n'aurais pas attendu pour réclamer votre Intérêt que vous me l'eussiez offert. Je dois souffrir seul . . . (19) It is not seen as a curse imposed upon him a s punishment for a sin. Nor do we know that it is inherited as a family curse. It is an irreducible, unconquerable force which determines the course of his existence, his exile from humanity and his final destruction. Olivier writes, Je dois souffrir seul; il m'est défendu de puiser dans un autre coeur la force et l'appui qui me manquent; il faut que je tire tout mon secours de moi-même, et que dans mon malheur je n'aie d'autre soutien que moi. Une telle situation est si peu d'accord avec la nature de l'homme qu'elle est une douleur â elle seule. Vous savez mieux qu'une autre si mon coeur est fait pour s'isoler ainsi: trop susceptible de sentiments passionnés, je vis dans la lutte perpétuelle de mes affections contre mon sort. ( 20 ) The secret functions much as fate does and makes of Olivier a fatal hero, one who is controlled by a destiny and who, cognizant of it, tried to combat It anyway, who loses this battle and, in coming to his own destruction, brings those with whom he is involved to the same end. Olivier, indeed, is neither able to conquer his secret nor control its effects on his own emotions, on his actions, relationships with others or on the others involved with him. Although he knows and states that his secret forbids a marriage for him he tries to circumvent this through being with the woman he loves as much a s possible without actually marrying her. However, his emotions and passions in this situation become uncontrollable, the tension between them and his secret unbearable. He has placed himself in a situation that leads to natural, if not legal, marriage and his impotence bars it. The first crisis brought on by this tension occurs in Part n when Olivier, no longer able to stand the strain between his desire for Louise and his inner obstacle, leaves and goes to England and then the Isle of Wight. His separation from Louise is not salutary, however, for he is miserable and in bad health without her, a s Lord Exeter reports. No longer able to tolerate his literal exile from Louise, he returns to her but also to the former tension between his secret and his love; this time in Part m , this tension, this desire to resist his fate, ruin him. Thus, Olivier was condemned to be an exile; not really able to bear life either with Louise or without her, he failed in his struggle against his fate. He writes to Louise, J'ai manqué à un devoir sacré, il fallait vous fuir ou plutôt il fallait ne jamais me rapprocher de vous. Ah! Louise, puis-je sans mourir renoncer â vous voir! Nos deux vies, nos deux âmes ne sont-elles pas unies par une chaîne indissoluble! Et cependant je serais le dernier des hommes si je cherchais â engager votre coeur. Jamais je ne puis prétendre â vous. Par la bizarrerie de mon sort, je fuirai deux fois le bonheur que je payerais au prix de ma vie. Ah! Louise, je dois même vous cacher mon désespoir, renoncer â vous le peindre: j'abuserais de votre pitié pour troubler votre vie, pour vous engager â partager une passion â jamais sans espérance. Que du moins elle me perde seul . . . (21) It is in this conscious, tortured striving for his love and his struggle against his destiny where lies the principal dramatic tension and interest of the novel. Also

27 like the fatal hero, Olivier brings disaster to those closely involved with him, in this case, the Comtesse de Nangis, who is nearly dead from shock and grief at the end. Ourika and Edouard also come to view their respective 'flaws' - race and rank as a sort of fate o r destiny. For them, it is really an unchangeable characteristic and an unacceptable one in their particular rigid, closed societies. For Olivier, too, impotence is unchangeable and unacceptable to society. Because of it he would never be viewed as a normal man, worthy of his normal place in society, and is rather thrown into complete isolation and despair. For him to hope for anything different is useless folly, and only leads him to even greater anguish. Olivier's solitude is compounded by his inability to share or confide his secret in anyone. To do so would probably bring total exile even sooner than it came through others' reactions to his problem. Olivier must carry the knowledge of his problem, his destiny, alone, unable even to explain or communicate to others the cause of his actions and misery, as a r e Ourika and Edouard. We must bear in mind the nature of marriage in Olivier's time to understand why he, like Edouard, would be considered guilty and dishonorable if he were to marry. Marriage was an institution for the preservation of the family name and fortune. It was a contract to maintain if not ameliorate the family's social standing as well a s its wealth through union with a member of an equally illustrious and moneyed family with both partners bringing certain defined amounts of money and resources to the marriage. An essential function of this union was to produce offspring to continue the family line and fortune. If Olivier were to enter into a marriage unable to consummate it, thereby rendering the production of children impossible, he would in effect be guilty of deception or fraud. Olivier, then, is in a position like that of other romantic characters, including Ourika and Edouard. He is alone, miserable, completely excluded from his society and the order of things, in some way different from most people and rejected because of this difference. Olivier's outlook is also typically romantic: miserable in his solitude, he sees himself the helpless victim of a cruel and unjust order, represented by his secret. Like Ourika and Edouard, he is barred from his place in society by an irremediable characteristic which is unacceptable to society - in the case of Ourika, her race, for Edouard, his rank, and for Olivier, a physical abnormality. Through the stories of these three characters is implicit an attitude of criticism toward the rigid and unjust societies that destroyed these individuals who a r e seen as exceptionally fine, sensitive people, who, because of a characteristic with which they a r e born and cannot alter, are cruelly and unjustly ostracized and ultimately destroyed. In view of the controversy surrounding the relationship between Madame de Duras' Olivier, Latouche's novel of the same title and Stendhal's Armance, it is appropriate here to make a comparison between Madame de Duras' novel and the two better-known works based on it. If the hero of each work suffers from the same unusual problem, that of sexual impotence, Madame de Duras' and Stendhal's works especially are similar in a more important way: their effort to combine psychological analysis with a study of the mores of French Restoration society. These three works differ in important ways, in terms of quality, interest and emphasis as well as of technique and manner of handling the subject. While Latouche made every effort to make it appear that his Olivier was in fact written by Madame de Duras, (22) it resembles her novel much less than does Stendhal's Armance, in terms of the story itself as well as in terms of the importance placed on the psychological analysis and social comment, the latter elements being definitely less significant than in Madame de Duras' Olivier. As Olivier's secret - or even the fact that he has one - is revealed to us only late in the novel, (23) and then through a very special situation, a large part of the novel is devoted to the preparation of this situation. Plot, then, becomes a very central element of the novel, assuming a considerably greater importance in Latouche's Olivier than it holds in Madame de Duras' novel, in that it is more complicated and actually constitutes the major point of the interest of the work. Olivier's relationship with St. H. is developed in such a way that he must cross the Baronne de B. to protect his friend, giving

28

her a pretext to avenge herself and finally to reveal that he has a secret. This moment of revenge is prepared through the development of his love for the Marquise de Nanteull, a love that leaves him with a certain vulnerability. The exact situation by which his secret or Impotence is turned against him is rather Involved: the Baronne de B. tells Madame de Nanteull that her fine reputation and honor, which she values above all else, are being tarnished by rumors that she Is having an affair with Olivier. To protect her reputation, she must ask Olivier to marry her, the one thing Olivier can never do, thereby forcing him to renounce all that he loves and to retreat to a monastery. The evil of the Baronne de B. is revealed through a contrived situation whereby she eavesdrops on their conversation and anguish and lets her presence be known. Realizing that the Baronne de B. is the moving force behind this entire problem, Olivier feels obliged to marry Madame de Nanteull to save her honor. Most of the novel Is spent setting up this final dilemma; a s we are not aware that Olivier has any secret or problem beyond the fact that he loves Madame de Nanteull until late In the work, our interest is in the development of Olivier's friendship with St. H., then of his love for Madame de Nanteull and whether and how the Baronne de B. will obtain her revenge. If the novel is, to a certain extent, a study of the psychology of a man in love, It is not a study of the psychology of an impotent man, o r even of a person who, for some reason feels isolated from humanity, as is Madame de Duras' Olivier. While Latouche's Olivier does of course come to be in this situation, it happens only at the end and the book is not a study of his coming to awareness of it, of his mentality at that point, or an analysis of the effect of this position on him, as is Madame de Duras' book. Latouche's book Is really a story of revenge and the way in which it is accomplished; the hero's impotence is merely the weak spot that enables the Baronne to avenge herself and gives an interesting twist to the end of the story. That the focus, purpose and interest of Madame de Duras' and Latouche's novels in question are not the same is further reflected by their different narrative forms. A common function of these different forms In each novel Is to permit the telling of the stories without ever explicitly revealing the exact nature of the main characters' secret. The narrative techniques used in both novels a r e traditional ones: the epistolaiy form and, In Latouche's novel, simple third person narration. However, in the latter case, this narrator is an individual who does not participate in the story itself but rather is one who has collated letters he has found and who has put them into the form of a continuous narrative. This narrator is limited to the information contained in these letters and, while he can be aware of what is occurring In several places at once, In this novel he generally remains within the narrative point of view of Olivier. We see the other characters principally when they a r e in contact with Olivier; the information we have about them is limited to what Olivier could conceivably know. For example, we become aware of Madame de Nanteull's actions, thoughts, reactions while Olivier is in retreat only through a letter Olivier receives from his servant, Gervais, rather than directly through the narrator. (24) The central interest of Latouche's Olivier is not the principal character's personal crisis and mentality; it is rather the story of Olivier's relation to his friend St. H., the latter's wife, the Baronne de B . , and his own beloved and especially the way in which the Baronne de B. seeks revenge on him and traps him. As the workings of this plot rather than an analysis of Olivier's final position and psychology a r e the basis of the work, knowledge of his sexual impotence is unnecessary throughout the story and only assumes Importance as the means by which the Baronne de B. has her revenge at the very end of the story. Thus the narrator very easily avoids identifying the nature of Olivier's secret, or even mentioning that he has one until late In the book. In Madame de Duras' Olivier, on the other hand, we a r e interested primarily In the behavior and dilemma of the hero as one that is of a certain universality, and scondly in the specific cause of the problem. Here, also, the narrator can manage to recount his story without defining Olivier's secret as impotence. Knowledge of the exact nature of the secret, of course, increases our appreciation of what

29

occurs in both works and, in Madame de Duras' novel, removes any mystery from the motive for the hero's seemingly strange behavior and enables us to devote our full attention to the observation and analysis of the hero. That Latouche's Olivier is centered on the events that take place, on the maneuverings and machinations of the characters, rather than on psychological analysis is further reflected by the characterization used. A favorite device of characterization is the use of opposites or the contrast of characters. Each figure is introduced through a portrait; in this portrait and in the development of the character that ensues, a given character is contrasted with others, usually Olivier, and often shown to be an example of extreme virtue or evil. The Baronne de B. is an example of an evil character: no longer young, jaded, corrupt and of bad reputation, she is seen as the opposite, a sort of foil for the young Madame de Nanteuil, a paragon of beauty and especially virtue. Each tends to accentuate the evil or virtue of the other. The following passages illustrate this relationship: . . . mais depuis que ses charmes étaient un attrait moins puissant, [la baronne de B. J avait cherché â gagner par son esprit ce qu'elle perdait en avantages extérieurs. Son savoir était devenu du pédantisme, ses malices des méchancetés, ses envies de plaire une jalousie féroce, et ses grâces des grimaces. Fort sévère envers des autres femmes, elle passait pour l'avoir été envers elle-même . . . ( 25 ) Veuve avant vingt ans, douée de tous les avantages extérieurs et de tous les dons de l'esprit, ( Madame de Nanteuil ) était surtout recommendable par une vertu d'autant plus méritoire qu'elle avait été plus éprouvée. Jamais cependant la simple médisance n'avait osé s'exercer sur elle. Les soins qu'elle donnait à une vieille mère lui restait, et la culture des beaux-arts pour lesquels elle avait autant de goût que de talent, étaient ses uniques occupations. Elle faisait le plus noble usage de la fortune que son mari lui avait laissée . . . ( 26 ) Even more explicitly, Olivier and St. H. a r e contrasted to each other. Olivier is portrayed as the reasonable, thoughtful, reserved one, St. H. as the passionate, but calculating rake: César était aussi impétueux et aussi bouillant qu'Olivier était flegmatique et réfléchi. L'un parlait et agissait môme souvent avant d'avoir pensé; l'autre semblait être, au contraire, livré â une méditation et â une incertitude continuelles. Dans la plupart des actions de leur vie, l'un était la tête, l'autre était le bras . . . Autant Olivier était secret [à l'égard de leurs amours ], autant César était inconséquent et léger. ( 27 ) The Interplay between these somewhat polarized characters creates a dramatic tension that alone, irrespective of Olivier's secret, sustains our interest in the machinations of the characters and the outcome of their interests and plottings. While based on the subject of Madame de Duras' Olivier, Latouche's novel is, then, not really very similar to hers: many of the techniques used are different as is the very focus and interest of the novel. While perhaps an amusing story on a superficial level with a surprising turn at the end, his novel does not have the interest of an attempt at analysis of the mentality, position and r e a c tions of a person afflicted by an inadmlssable physical abnormality and permanently condemned to social exile that Madame de Duras' Olivier has. The importance of Latouche's work lies principally in that it was based on Madame de Duras' novel, the cause of a literary controversy that has continued to this day, and Is one of several novels of the period, Including one by Stendhal, whose principal character Is impotent. Unlike Latouche's Olivier, but like Madame de Duras' works, the principal interest of Stendhal' s Armance lies in its evocation of the psychology and dilemma of the principal character who suffers from sexual impotence; furthermore, a portrayal of his society forms part of the essential interest of the

30

novel and assumes much greater importance than in either Madame de Duras' or Latouche's novels. Like Madame de Duras' and latouche's works under discussion, Armance is a roman babilan in that Octave de Malivert is sexually impotent and this impotence is the final or basic cause of all his problems, many of his seemingly bizarre actions, his estrangement from the world and finally his death. However, as in Madame de Duras' and Latouche's works, this impotence is never defined in the novel, indeed it is never really alluded to in a manner by which the reader can guess the nature of Octave's secret. We know from some of Stendhal's statements on Armance that Octave is impotent, ( 28) just as we know this about Madame de Duras' work from sources outside the actual text. (29) For each novel, we must assume, as did the author, that the nature of the hero's 'secret' would be known or guessed by the reader before his reading of the novel. However, none of the novels is a study of impotence per se as its nature is not analyzed: we do not know the cause of the impotence of any of the heroes, as H. Martineau points out about Octave in his introduction to Armance. ( 30 ) Each hero's impotence or secret serves, however, as the specific and concrete basis of the hero's plight, his mentality and his outcome. It is less significant that each hero suffers from sexual impotence, even though this is unusual, than it is significant that there is a concrete, exterior and seemingly unchangeable characteristic in each of them that is the root of their dilemma. Furthermore, in neither case does the hero suffer from a sort of mal du siècle that results simply from his imagination; his problems are very real and have a more immediate significance because their cause is real, physical and concrete. Like Madame de Duras' Olivier and many other characters of romantic fiction, but unlike Latouche' s Olivier, Octave is afflicted by a sort of mal du siècle. He is portrayed as being very much of a solitary and somewhat mysterious nature, a person who spurns society and social contacts, tends to be moody, sombre, with fits of bad humor, and exhibits unexpected and seemingly, at first at least, inexplicable fits of violence. It is explicitly stated early in the book that Octave suffers from a state similar to the mal du siècle from which suffered so many young nobles of the Restoration: Des médecins, gens d'esprit, dirent à Mme de Malivert que son fils n'avait d'autre maladie que cette sorte de tristesse mécontente et jugeante qui caractérise les jeunes gens de son époque et de son rang. ( 31 ) A somewhat sombre and mysterious person: 'Ah! ton caractère a quelque chose de mystérieux et de sombre qui me fait frémir . . . , ' ( 32 ) Octave often seems a distracted dreamer: [ Mme de Malivert ] observait constamment que la vie réelle, loin d'être une source d'émotions pour son fils, n'avait d'autre effet que de l'impatienter, comme si elle fût venue le distraire et l'arracher d'une façon importune â sa chère rêverie. ( 33 ) Octave in fact sees himself as followed by a fate which he can neither really fight nor conquer: 'Pourquoi ne pas en finir? se dit-il enfin; pourqoui cette obstination â lutter contre le destin qui m'accable?' (34) The tension created within Octave by his striving to overcome and conquer his fault, his impotence, while at times manifested by his seeming detachment from life and reality, is also manifested by fits of ill humor and violence: Ce n'était pas toujours de nuit et seul qu'Octave était saisi par ces accès de désespoir. Une violence extrême, une méchanceté extraordinaire marquaient alors toutes ces actions, et sans doute, s'il n'eût été qu'un pauvre étudiant endroit, sans parents ni protection, on l'eût enfermé comme fou. (35) This violence is illustrated by the lackey incident in which Octave, under the impression that a lackey had gotten in his way, picked him up bodily and threw

31 him out the window. ( 36 ) Afterwards, Octave, remorseful for what he had done, and somewhat frightened, went to great lengths to make up to the lackey and finally sent him to his home with a pension for fear he would spread stories about him. While Latouche's Olivier comes to a desperate situation at the end because of his impotence, he does not really exhibit the above characteristics. He is portrayed rather as a very normal person throughout the novel, one who falls prey to a plot of revenge, this plot constituting the focal point of our interest throughout the book. Madame de Duras' Olivier, however, does exhibit all of the characteristics mentioned above that we see In Octave: he, too, tends to be a dreamer, somewhat mysterious and isolated, a fated character in constant struggle with himself and the outside world, given to fits of violent and bizarre behavior. While these characteristics are common to Olivier and Octave as well as many other romantic figures, it is essential to note that for Octave and Madame de Duras' Olivier this behavior and mentality have a definite cause which is anchored in physical and social reality. As for Ourika and Edouard, the social context in which Octave as well as Madame de Duras' Olivier live is, then, always of prime importance in that their problems, the basis of the work itself, are not a matter of pure imagination, but have specified social origin and significance. This psychological analysis closely linked to a portrayal and comment on social conditions is one of the essential ways in which Armance is similar to Madame de Duras' Olivier. As Latouche's Olivier really focuses on the plot and creation of interest in its development rather than on analysis of Olivier's psychology and dilemma, it bears little resemblance beyond the subject matter, to a certain point, to Armance and Madame de Duras' Olivier and is not included in the following comparative discussion of Armance and Madame de Duras' work as romans d'analyse. As the subtitle, Quelques scènes d'un salon de Paris en 1827, of Armance indicates, the depiction of social mores plays an important role in this novel, not only In respect to the social scene which frames all Octave does, but in respect to Octave's own manner of acting: he observes and judges society and makes a conscious refusal to join it. ( 3 7 ) The many scenes which take place in noble salons form a portrait of the manners and the noble stratum of society during the Restoration. The Chevalier de Bonnivet remarks that the Jesuit journal Etoile should be better wrapped to prevent its being read by the common people who, at any rate, cannot and should not read. This comment brings on the congratulations and agreement of nearly everyone present in the salon of Madame d'Aumale and reflects its monarchist and anti-revolutionary feeling. (38) Many aspects of this society are revealed to us, such as the structure and relations of the family, through Monsieur and Madame de Malivert, and Madame de Malivert and her brother, Monsieur de Soubirane, financial problems and maneuverings of the Malivert family. A good deal of attention is even given to the precise way in which a duel is carried out when Octave kills Monsieur de Crôveroche. ( 3 9 ) Thus Octave functions always not only in terms of his impotence and his reaction to it and its meaning for him, but in terms of his abnormality and dilemma within the structure of noble Restoration society. The image of this society in Armance is much fuller than the few glimpses we receive of it from the letters in Madame de Duras' Olivier. While Armance is a roman d'analyse, as are the novels of Madame de Duras, it is not one in the way her works are in that the narrative form is quite different. While Ourika and Edouard are narrated in the first person singular and by the principal character, which narration is relayed to us by an outer narrator not part of the principal story, Armance is simply narrated in the third person by a narrator who remains unidentified and has no direct relationship to the story or its characters. While this narrator has the capability of being omniscient, he relates principally only that which contributes directly and efficiently to an evocation of Octave's mentality and the society in which he lives as it affects him. The use of the third person narrator serves to place the reader at a greater distance from the principal character than does the use of the first person singular narrator. We are not in the position of a privileged confidant hearing the hero's intensely personal confession. Rather, we view him from the exterior,

32

In a more detached fashion, and are able to have a wider and more general view on his society. The plot of the work does not have the importance or interest that it has in Latouche's Olivier. It is simply a linear progression gauged to Olivier's life, with any events of Importance either revealing an important aspect of the social mores being presented or a step in Octave's development. As in Madame de Duras' novels, the plot holds no Interest for us merely for its own sake, or for interest of suspense alone. The episode of Octave's duel, for example, illustrates the mores of Octave's class as well as Octave's lack of Interest In living without Armance, with whom he had recently broken. Stendhal's use of situation at times is an important device for characterization and moving the story along. A crate by the orange tree in the garden becomes a sort of symbolic place for the development of Octave's and Armance's relationship: every major step in their love, from its first declaration to the end, when his rival the Chevalier de Bonnivet discovers that they leave notes for each other there and plants a false letter to create discord between them. (40 Perhaps more illustrative of Stendhal's use of situation is the episode in which Armance is seen coining from the direction of Octave's room at night by Madame de Malivert's brother. While she had not actually seen Octave, the situation is a dangerous and compromising one as Monsieur de Soubirane cannot be depended upon not to spread malicious gossip which would ruin Armance's excellent reputation and force them into marriage under the wrong conditions and one Octave at any rate must avoid. The situation reveals how precarious and difficult is Octave's position in society and further reinforces his desire not to reveal his secret. It is really impossible for him to function at all normally in society, to enter into relationships with people without coming to disaster: either having to reveal his secret or enter into what can only be a disastrous marriage. While Madame de Duras' Olivier and Latouche's work of the same title may be seen as sources of Stendhal's Armance and while they all treat the subject of sexual impotence, as well as the same social milieu and historical period, in no case is it a matter of Latouche and Stendhal merely copying or even following closely the preceding work or works on the same subject. If every effort was made by Latouche to make his work resemble a work by Madame de Duras in the way it was printed, it actually differs very much from her Olivier, even if the heroes' names are the same. It is not at all the portrayal of a character in crisis and struggling to come to grips with his seemingly hopeless dilemma which both Madame de Duras' and Stendhal's works are, nor is it the work of social observation and comment that especially Armance is; it is rather a work which tries to create an interest in the story through suspense and mystery, a much less significant work than the other two in question. If Stendhal's and Madame de Duras' works differ in many ways, a general analogy definitely can be traced between Olivier and Octave in the course of their struggle with their impotence and dilemma: both exhibit moody, temperamental and mysterious behavior because of it, both fall in love and try to find a middle path between physical union and revelation of their secret and complete break with and negation of all social relations. Both find the torment of living close to the woman they love to be too much to bear, and on several occasions try to find a solution and peace through complete separation: Olivier goes to England, Octave leaves on a trip, both with a feeling of total desolation and a desire for death. Neither can stand this self-imposed exile, and return, only to finally find greater torment, which both end by death, as does Latouche's Olivier. Further, as Madame de Duras' Olivier (completed by 1824) was a work Stendhal knew and was written not long before Armance (1826), It seems certain that its subject was a source for Stendhal's work. If Armance provides a more detached and complete psychological analysis of Octave and a more complete picture of aristocratic Restoration society than does Madame de Duras' Olivier, the latter work creates for us a more intensely personal, direct and involving experience than does Stendhal's, an experience typical of her other novels, and a difference inherent in the forms used by the

33

two authors, a difference not so much of quality as of focus and direction of the work. NOTES ( 1 ) G. Pailhès, La Duchesse de Duras, p. 431, n. 1. ( 2 ) 'Edouard', Le Globe, H (26 novembre 1825), 985. ( 3 ) Pailhès, In La Duchesse de Duras, p. 523, states that, like her other novels, Le Moinewas passed around among the friends of Madame de Duras. The Marquis de Luppé indicates an interesting idea in Astolphe de Custine ( Monaco: Editions du Rocher, s. d. ), p. 119, when he cites Le Globe as saying that Madame de Duras had the idea for a collection of seven tales narrated by seven monks each telling the stories of his vocation. Her Moine would be one of these tales, as would Custine's Aloys. ( 4 ) Pailhès, La Duchesse de Duras, p. 382. While Pailhès dates this letter 1824, the Marquis de Luppé in 'Autour de I'Armance de Stendhal" L'Olivier de la Duchesse de Duras', Le Divan, no. 250 (avril 1944), dates it 1825. ( 5 ) Agénor Bardoux, Etudes sociales et politiques: La Duchesse de Duras (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1898), pp. 51-53 and Mrs. [Catherine Mary] Bearne, Four Fascinating French Women (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1910), p. 230. ( 6 ) From a letter by Madame de Duras to Mademoiselle de Constant, cited by Pailhès in La Duchesse de Duras, p. 383. ( 7 ) Pailhès, La Duchesse de Duras, p. 382, and Duras, Madame de, Olivier ou le Secret, texte établi, présenté et commenté par Denise Virieux (Paris: José Corti, 1971), p. 10. ( 8 ) Hyacinthe de Latouche, Olivier (Paris: U. Canel, 1826). ( 9 ) Stendhal, [ Marie Henri Beyle ], Arm ance ou Quelques Scènes d'un salon de Paris en 1827, texte établi et annoté par Baymond Lebègue, préface d'André Gide (Paris: Champion, 1925), p.xxvi. ( 10 ) Stendhal, [ Marie Henri Beyle ], Arm ance ou Quelques Scènes d'un salon de Paris en 1827, texte établi avec introduction, bibliographie, notes et variantes par Henri Martineau (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1962), pp. ii-iv. ( 11 ) E. -A. Férard, "Olivier' par Madame de duchesse de Duras: Pourquoi ce petit roman fut attribué â Henri de Latouche', Le Figaro, 25 janvier 1930, p. 6, and "Olivier' par Madame la duchesse de Duras. Une lettre probante', Le Figaro, 1er février, 1930, p. 6. (12) See Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve, 'Madame de Duras', Portraits de Femmes (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1845). ( 13 ) See Stendhal [ Marie Henri Beyle ], Courrier Anglais: New Monthly Magazine, établissement du texte et préfaces par Henri Martineau (Paris: Le Divan, 1935), m, 365. (14) Luppé, 'Autour de l'Armance de Stendhal: L'Olivier de la duchesse de Duras', Le Divan, no.250 (avril, 1944), 263-268. ( 15 ) Babilan, a word of Italian origin, indicates sexual impotence, the case according to Luppé, Lebègue and others with Madame de Duras' Olivier, as well as the Olivier of Latouche and Octave de Malivert in Stendhal' s Arm ance. ( 16 ) I read the manuscript over the course of several hours one afternoon and was permitted to take general notes on it. ( 17 ) Stendhal [ Marie Henri Beyle ] , Correspondance de Stendhal (1800-1842 ), publiée par Ad. Paupe et P. A. Chéramy (3 vols; Paris: C.Bosse, 1908), n, 445. ( 18 ) Pailhès, La Duchesse de Duras, p. 382. (19) Madame de Duras, Olivier, pp. 147-148. ( 20 ) Madame de Duras, Olivier, p. 148. (21) Madame de Duras, Olivier, pp. 173-174. (22) See pp. 21-23. (23) Henri de Latouche, Olivier, préface de Henri d'Alméras (Paris: Pour la Société des Médecins Bibliophiles, 1924), p. 81. (24) Latouche, Olivier, p. 66. ( 25 ) Latouche, Olivier, p. 32.

34

(26) Latouche, Olivier, pp. 48-49. ( 27 ) Latouche, Olivier, pp. 19-20. ( 28 ) Stendhal, Correspondance, n, 445 ff. ( 29 ) See pp. 21-23 and n. 6. ( 30 ) Stendhal, Annan ce, texte établi avec introduction par Henri Martlneau, pp. xvili-xix. ( 31 ) Stendhal, Armance, p. 8. ( 32 ) Stendhal, Armance, p. 12. ( 33 ) Stendhal, Armance, p. 16. ( 34 ) Stendhal, Armance. p. 24. ( 35 ) Stendhal, Armance, p. 28. ( 36 ) Stendhal, Armance, p. 29. (37) Octave says: 'Il est trop vrai, nous voyons ses ridicules [de sa position dans la société ] sans oser en rire et ses avantages nous pèsent. Que me fait l'ancienneté de mon nom? Il faudrait me gSner pour tirer parti de cet avantage. ' Stendhal, Armance, pp. 115-116. (38) Stendhal, Armance, pp. 191-192. ( 39 ) Stendhal, Armance, pp. 156-161. (40) Stendhal, Armance, pp. 139, 230.

PART n DUAL STATEMENT IN MADAME DE DURAS AS REVEALED B Y FORM

NOVELS

INTRODUCTION

In Part I we have analyzed the common dilemma of the main characters of Madame de Duras' three novels with each other as well as with other Romantic characters. We need now to examine the ways in which she uses form to make a double statement within and by a unified work. Madame de Duras' novels a r e romans d'analyse combined with a marked social consciousness. Ourika, Edouard and Olivier a r e at once analyses of the inner feelings, thoughts, reactions of a fictional character a s he undergoes a crisis and change or development a s well as a statement or judgment on the society of which he is a part. Like most romans d'analyse, these novels are narrated by the hero, in the first person singular, to create the impression of intimate confidence. Madame de Duras' heroes, however, a r e seen in their social context and their dilemma has a clearly defined source in this social context. Thus these novels are an analysis of the hero and his problem seen a s a product of the social forces which govern him. An examination of the way in which Madame de Duras structures her novels, the kinds of narrative technique she uses, and of her methods of characterization will reveal that every aspect of her novels is carefully conceived and executed to create an intimate personal evocation of a particular kind of dilemma and to show the social background and causes of this common dilemma.

IV

PLOT The structure or plot In Ourika, Edouard and Olivier Is basically linear and chronological. While the character Is presented near his death in the 'Introduction' of Ourika and Edouard, the stories of the main characters are told in a straightforward, chronological maimer, and especially in the case of Ourika and Edouard, as a basis for the analysis of the main character and of the social roots of his problem. The plot of Ourika reacts to an external catalytic event which brings on in Ourika a psychological crisis, marking a realization of her true social position and a vision of her future, followed by several steps in the actualization of her alienation. Only events which have some importance in terms of Ourika's psychological and emotional evolution a r e included. Every element of the plot reflects her mentality o r its social roots; never is an event or anecdote present merely for Its own interest. The very beginning action of Ourika portrays Ourika as she was before her recognition of her true status. While the basic conditions which cause her alienation - the fact of her color, and her education and training which close any possibility of a relationship with others of her color - exist from the beginning of the story, Ourika is not aware of their real meaning and believes herself to be fully accepted. She says: J'arrivai jusqu'à l'âge de douze ans sans avoir eu l'idée qu'on pouvoit être heureuse autrement que je ne l'étois. Je n'étois pas fâchée d'être une négresse: on me disoit que j'étois charmante; d'ailleurs, rien ne m'avertissoit que ce fût un désavantage; je ne voyois presque pas d'autres enfants; un seul étoit mon ami, et ma couleur noire ne l'empêchoit pas de m'aimer. ( 1 ) The first several pages of the story a r e thus filled with descriptions of her talent, happiness, her seemingly brilliant place in society and are an image of the person she could have been, the life she could have led were it not for her color. The external, catalytic event which brings on Ourika's first insight into her position takes the form of a conversation between Madame de B., her guardian, and Madame de . . . , which Ourika overhears. The two ladies discuss Ourika's position as a black woman, the fact that she certainly faces a life of complete solitude, without the possibility of marrying, raising a family, or any of the other experiences a woman of her society might normally have. Worse yet, Madame de . . . says that, having broken the natural order, ' ' Ourika n'a pas rempli sa destinée; elle s'est placée dans la société sans sa permission; la société se vengera. ' ' ( 2) Ourika sees in a flash that his is true; she perceives her actual social position and foresees her future: total isolation and alienation, a useless and futile existence: . . . l'éclair n'est pas plus prompt: je vis tout; je me vis négresse, dépendante, méprisée, sans fortune, sans appui, sans un être de mon espèce â qui unir mon sort, jusqu'ici un jouet, un amusement pour ma bienfaitrice, bientôt rejetée d'un monde où je n'étois pas faite pour être admise. ( 3 )

39 In one moment, she loses all of her Illusions about herself and her society and comprehends - or rather is made to comprehend - her basic situation. She says simply that this conversation ' . . . ouvrit mes yeux et finit ma jeunesse'. (4 ) Ourika, extremely shaken, overwhelmed by the truth that has been revealed to her, reacts by feigning sickness in order not to have to face people and to have some privacy. As future events bring to reality, step by step, this vision she now has of her future, her reactions will again be those of sickness and withdrawal. While this first crisis has created in Ourika an understanding of what will be her life, its actualization is not immediate, but is rather delayed by the period of the Revolution and the Terror, which are for her times of some happiness. This period of social upheaval and her reaction to it serve as a contrast to her future solitude and despair and as a statement early in the novel that any true participation for her in society is impossible as that society normally is constructed. Charles' marriage to Ana Is de Thémines marks the first real step in Ourika's isolation and brings on her second more severe emotional crisis. His marriage represents the removal of Ourika's last meaningful human contact and renders her isolation nearly complete. This marriage, and the subsequent birth of a son symbolize to Ourika the happiness and sense of belonging that she knows she can never have. While Ourika reacted to her first crisis by feigning sickness, her reaction to Charles' marriage is characterized by a fever which prevents her from attending the marriage ceremony - or which prevents her from the pain of watching the wedding. She makes the following observation about this reaction which marks a new step towards her destruction: Jusqu'à l'époque dont je viens de vous parler, j'avois supporté mes peines; elles avoient altéré ma santé, mais j'avois conservé ma raison et une sorte d'empire sur moi-même . . . Enfin, jusqu'à l'époque dont je viens de vous parler, j'étois plus forte que mes peines; je sentois qu'à présent mes peines seroient plus fortes que moi. ( 5 ) Her reaction to his marriage is thus not only immediate and severe, ( 6 ) but, more importantly, is one which she is not able to control. It brings her, during her sickness, to thoughts of suicide not only to end her misery, but also for revenge, to hurt others as they have mortally hurt her. ( 7 ) Her first violent reaction passes, however, and she goes into ' . . . un état de langueur, où le chagrin avoit beaucoup de part. ' ( 8 ) Once again Ourika withdraws from others - just as they have withdrawn life from her. She sees that the only relationship possible with others is one of dependence and pity, ( 9 ) and rather than lower herself to those choices, she withdraws. Her final and total withdrawal and alienation are brought on by Madame de . . . , just as she played a key role In Ourika's first realization of her position and fate. She makes Ourika see that she is very much in love with Charles and claims that this is the basic cause of her langueur and unhappiness. Upon realizing that she does indeed love Charles, Ourika also perceives that her isolation is now complete and that her situation is hopeless. Guilty of an 'incestuous' and thus criminal passion, cut off now even from her immediate family, Ourika dares not even remain in a position to see Charles, her last real tie with humanity. Once again, this recognition or vision of her true feelings and position is so traumatic that, unable really to withstand it, she is thrown into a state of severe shock, ' . . . un accablement qui ressembloit i la mort', ( 10 ) manifested by fever and sickness, which lasts this time for two weeks. Ourika comes to see her only chance for salvation, redemption and establishing links with humanity as religion and the sisterhood. By entering the convent, Ourika withdraws completely from her own society in search of fulfillment through devotion of herself to God and to the idea of fraternity with all beings. Ourika finally does find a measure of peace, saying:

40

Ce nouveau jour sous lequel j'envisageois ma position fit rentrer le calme dans mon coeur. Je m'étonnois de la paix qui succédoit à tant d'orages: on avoit ouvert une issue â ce torrent qui dévastait ses rivages, et maintenant il portoit ses flots apaisés dans une mer tranquille. ( 11 ) However, this new found peace is not enough to inspire life in Ourika; she dies soon afterward. Thus every important step in Ourika's evolution and increasing recognition of the full meaning of her position is marked by a sudden insight and violent reaction on her part to her new knowledge, a reaction that becomes increasingly overwhelming at each step in her progression toward destruction. The action of Ourika is very simple, almost Bacinian, in that it is essentially interior and psychological in nature, and characterized by having 'peu de matière', in the Bacinian sense of the term. It is not the events in Madame de Duras' novels that a r e of interest, but rather the mentality of the characters and the crises they a r e going through. This is further reflected by the fact that, in Ourika and in Edouard, we know the outcome of the hero's life from the very beginning of the book because we are informed of it by the 'outer narrator' in the 'Introduction', It is typical of the roman d'analyse that the plot and dénouement of these novels have no importance in themselves, serving only as a structure for psychological study and social comment. Social comment is implicit in Ourika's fate and its sources and is expressed principally through the psychological analysis; we see the cruelty and injustice of a closed society and of racial prejudice through their terrible effects on Ourika. There is no event, character, or scene present in the novel that is not essential to our understanding of Ourika's inner state or to moving the story forward. Thus the plot is very simple. After Ourika's situation is briefly sketched, a series of external catalytic events brings Ourika to a realization of her actual position in relation to the world and move her to a true and total isolation and alienation from it. Each new event brings Ourika to a realization of her situation as well as herself, while at the same time moving her closer to her inevitable, unhappy end of solitude. The structure of Edouard as well includes only those elements which shed light on the social conflict at the base of his problem, and on his own psychological evolution. The social comment is implicit in and inextricably intertwined with the theme of an impossible love, a psychological study of a solitary, embittered individual and of the process by which he reached his position of alienation. We are then Interested primarily in the situation and developments which led to this alienation, then exile and death. Each major development in Edouard's passion is accompanied by a change in the social as well as the geographical setting, reflecting the complete interdependence between Edouard's love, his final fate and the social conditions and attitudes of his time. The first part of the novel takes place near Lyons, and establishes Edouard's background, his family, education and character. Edouard, because of his exceptional sensitivity, his unusual education and his father's friendship with Monsieur d'Olonne, is really different from most of his class. It is in this first part of the novel that Edouard is prepared for an unusually intimate - and, because of his birth, ill-starred - relationship with a noble woman. The second part of the novel, which takes place in Paris, merely brings on the specific situation or person for whom Edouard has been prepared. Soon after the death of his mother, he and his father move to Paris to the home of Monsieur d'Herbelot, Edouard's uncle. In Paris, because of his father's closeness to Monsieur d'Olonne, Edouard is thrown into close contact with noble society and, specifically, with Madame de Nevers, Monsieur d'Olonne's widowed daughter. It is here that their impossible love is born, (12) one against which they both struggle, one which they both try to hide. The death of Edouard's father and Edouard's and Natalie's separation for his funeral mark a new realization for both Edouard and Natalie of the depth of their feeling. Monsieur d'Olonne takes Edouard into his home at the time, throwing Edouard and Natalie into even closer contact, and giving their love an even greater chance to flourish. One of the most important scenes of the novel occurs here: the scene of the ball. Natalie

41

attends a ball to which Edouard, not of the aristocracy, has not been invited. He goes instead as a spectator, a situation symbolic of the difference in their class origins that will separate them always: 'Nous n'étions séparés que par la barrière qui isoloit les spectateurs de la société: triste emblème de celle qui nous séparoit pour toujours ! ' ( 13 ) Monsieur d'Olonne's sudden exile to his family estate called Faverange permits Edouard and Natalie's love to blossom and ripen without interference from the outside world. A new step in their relationship is accompanied by a change in social and geographical setting. Here, there are no visible manifestations of the social barriers that separated them in Paris, although Edouard and Natalie remain, of course, aware of society's sanctions against a serious relationship between them. It is significant that, this, the only happy period in Edouard's life, takes place away from society, away from the social prejudices by which one is judged according to birth, rank and profession. While relatively happy in Lyons, Edouard always felt incomplete there. The missing element was Natalie. In Paris, Edouard felt out of place in noble society and knew that his birth prevented him forever from marrying Natalie. At Faverange Edouard and Natalie declare their love, as the sun is setting, and for Edouard, all of nature, the scent of jasmine, seems one with the lady he loves. The lovers finally come to seriously consider marriage, an idea they had heretofore considered an impossibility. A third change in the setting triggers a new development in the action of the novel. Monsieur d'Olonne is recalled to Paris, and Natalie and Edouard must go with him. This of course means a return to the world in which Edouard is not considered really socially acceptable, a world which poses a very real threat to their relationship. No longer able to exist in this way, they resolve to marry. However, the plot is discovered by Monsieur d'Olonne, and Edouard is sent from his home. Thus, once back in Paris, and under the pressures and strictures of society, Edouard's and Natalie's relationship is not able to stand the strain, and a resolution of the problem by marriage is forbidden and prevented by society. Nor does society permit any redress or even a means for Edouard to take action: the Duc de L., whom Edouard accuses of having spoken slanderously of Madame de Nevers, refuses a duel because Edouard is not of the nobility. Edouard, then, is not merely the story of an unhappy love. The causes for Edouard's tragic outcome are social in nature. Moreover, his situation is not one limited to one society or one type of society. It is that of many heroes of the Romantic era, and beyond that of any era who feel alone, alienated, and impotent to act. These themes are expertly and inseparably interconnected throughout the entire novel. The structure of the book reflects at all times the interdependent developments of these themes and moves to the creation of a coherent and profound statement. The theme of a tragic love is better connected with the social theme on man's place in the universe in Edouard than in Ourika. In the latter work the love theme seems almost to have been added as an afterthought. ( 14) Ourika's basic problem, that of solitude and rejection because of her race, is not revealed to her through her love for Charles nor does it in any way depend on her love for him. This love for Charles merely adds to her full understanding of her situation. In Edouard, however, Edouard' s and Natalie's love is fatal only because of the particular social context in which they find themselves just as Edouard's final alienation and death are dependent on it. While Edouard was not educated and prepared for bourgeois life, his situation was not beyond hope from the very beginning as was Ourika's. It is his meeting and falling in love with Natalie, against all social rules, that doom Edouard. Thus the social criticism is implicit in the very social condition and fate of the hero and heroine with whom we sympathize and in the outcome of their love. As in Ourika and Edouard, the plot of Olivier is a linear, chronological progression of events in the life of the principal character, with every element or event being directly related to the struggle and outcome of Olivier. However, the story, unlike those of Madame de Duras' first two novels, is divided into three explicitly labelled parts which correspond to the major stages in Olivier1 s struggle with his impotence. Part I establishes Olivier's relationship with

42

Madame de Nangis which will bring his awareness of his problem to the point of crisis. From the beginning, we know that Olivier is reputed for his often mysterious and strange behavior; Madame de Nangis, who has long loved Olivier, is ripe for an affair as her husband Ignores her and she is feeling veiy frustrated and lonely. Over the course of the first part, their love grows and, at Rouvllle, away from the pressures of everyday life (like Edouard and Natalie at Faverange) they see each other every day; this is a brief period of happiness. At the end of Part I, Monsieur de Nangis dies, and Olivier and Louise are separated because of the funeral and then because of a misunderstanding. In Part n we reach a new step in Olivier's conflict: he cannot live without Louise. Louise and Olivier rejoin each other, vowing never to separate again. However, Olivier's impotence and fate are never f a r away; he soon becomes very nervous and jealous and leaves to a self-imposed exile In England. It is in P a r t nr that Olivier's conflict comes to a crisis and a resolution. No longer able to stand life without Louise, he asks her to join him. After a stay on the Isle of Wight, they return to Flavy. There, Olivier once again becomes jealous, irritable and nervous. Olivier's crisis and death came soon, and Louise, at the end of the book, is nearly dead. This is the only possible solution for Olivier, unable to live alone in exile, unable to live with Louise or in the society of other people, for not only Louise would eventually reject him for his fatal flaw. The very society into which Olivier had been born dictated that an acceptable male must be sexually competent. The very definition of a man entails sexual ability, and Olivier, knowing that he could not meet this demand of his sex role, became more and more aware that he could not be a part of his society. Unable to accept or surmount the objective fact of his impotence, and moreover unable to change the societally defined concept of a man, Olivier, like Edouard and Ourika, ends by being isolated and apart, his physical impotence translated into a social Impotence as he Is totally unable to affect or change his place o r lack of place In his world. The structure of Olivier, then, is very tight and spare. Every scene, every letter in this epistolary novel functions to reveal something about Olivier 1 s situation and struggle. It is a linear progression from the introduction to (or a suggestion of) Olivier's basic situation In Part I through a building in tension in Part n to a crisis and resolution of the conflict between Olivier's love and his impotence in Part IIL Thus, while the Immediate causes for Olivier's final exile and death and the analysis of his increasing realization of the full meaning of his true position are always placed in concrete social situations and contexts. In each of Madame de Duras' novels, then, every element of the plot i s present only as a means to reveal the social basis or ramifications of the principal character's dilemma and the progression in o r changes in his mentality. At no time is interest focused on an event or element of the story for its own sake or for interests of anecdote or local color. The result is a work which is veiy spare, very concentrated and tightly knit, and which at every moment is focused only on an analysis of the hero's crisis and its causes. If an examination of the kind of plot o r structure used in Madame de Duras' novels reveals their dual aim of psychological analysis and social cause, an examination of her narrative techniques will further reveal that every aspect of her works Is centered around the double interest of her works. NOTES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Madame Madame Madame Madame Madame Madame Madame Madame

de Duras, de Duras, de Duras, de Duras, de Duras, de Duras, de' Duras, de Duras,

Ourika, Ourika, Ourika, Ourika, Ourika. Ourika, Ourika, Ourika,

pp. 32-33. pp. 50-51. pp. 46-47. p. 41. pp. 125-127. pp. 122-124. pp. 131-138. p. 138.

43

( 9) See Madame de Duras, Ourlka, p. 141. (10) Madame de Duras, Ourlka, p. 161. (11) Madame de Duras, Ourlka, p. 170. ( 12 ) Edouard says: 'Je me sentis troublé en la voyant, j'entrevis mon s o r t . . . , ' 1, 92. Tben he says: 'Une émotion de bonheur inexprimable s'empara de moi. ' Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 93. ( 13 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 206. ( 14) R. Tezenas du Montcel, 'Madame de Duras, cette Inconnue . . . , ' La Bevue des Deux Mondes ( 1er août 1968), 376.

V

NARRATIVE TECHNIQUE The narrative technique of a work, or the way in which the author tells his story and reveals his character's problems, is one of the most important tools an author has to bring the reader to see the events and characters of a work in a certain way. It focuses our view in particular directions and can to a large extent govern our reactions to the work. Madame de Duras uses two very different techniques in her novels: first person singular narration, typical of that used in the roman d'analyse in her first two novels, and the epistolary form in her third novel. A study of these techniques will reveal the true focus or interest of each novel: an intimate confession whereby the hero reveals his own psychological crisis and its social causes in Ourika and Edouard, and, in Olivier, a study of the principal character's crisis brought on by his impotence, which must remain a secret, and its social ramifications. The narrative structure of Ourika and Edouard is typical of that used in the nineteenth century roman d'analyse and novel of personal confession as exempr lifted by Chateaubriand's Atala and René, Benjamin Constant's Adolphe, and Fromentin's Dominique. All of these works have in common the basic structure of a first person singular, retrospective narration, a narration which is not necessarily an autobiography of the author. ( 1 ) This narration is presented as an exact transcription of the narrator's story as it was told to the author or person presenting the story, or as written down. A preface or introduction normally preceded the confession in which an 'outer' or 'secondary' narrator, or person claiming to possess the manuscript or to have been told the story, presents the circumstances by which he came to have the story and introduces the 'inner' or 'principal' narrator. The novel normally ends with a concluding word from this outer narrator in which he usually comments on the state of the principal narrator at the completion of his story or Informs us about the ultimate fate of the confessor. The effect of this structure on the reader is to create a feeling of confidence and intimacy with the hero as well as sympathy with the story he is recounting and the dilemma in which he finds himself. The confession is made directly to the reader, in effect; it is not filtered through a third person. The reader comes to feel, furthermore, that he is in a position of privilege and confidence in that the narrator is revealing his innermost thoughts and feelings to him. By seeing events through the eyes of the hero, then, the reader arrives at a very personal feeling for and understanding of the hero's experiences, present dilemma and world view. This choice of narrative structure is an attempt to create in us not only an intimate knowledge of the human effects of solitude and social exile, but also an awareness of a specific social injustice and its perniciousness. The outer narrator in both Ourika and Edouard serves as a frame for Oirika's and Edouard's narratives and functions as a reliable, relatively disinterested and objective person who ascertains particular facts about the principal narrator or hero. A witness to the physical and, to a certain extent, emotional state of the hero as he tells his story, the outer narrator also relates the final fate of the hero after his story is finished. While the outer narrator's Information is placed in a separate and clearly identified 'Introduction', and in Edouard, ' Conclusion1 as well, his narration underlines the central interest and theme of the book and thus forms an integral part of the entire work.

45 The outer narrator relates essentially the same kinds of information to us in the introductions of both Ourika and Edouard. Having identified himself as a doctor in Ourika, and a soldier in Edouard, he then says how he came to meet the hero. In both cases the meeting was a chance one: the doctor was called to care for a sick young nun ( Ourika ) ( 2 ) ; the soldier was returning to Baltimore on a merchant boat to rejoin his regiment and met Edouard, one of the three other passengers on the boat. ( 3 ) The doctor and the soldier both give a brief portrait of the hero of the novel. In each case, we have an image of the hero as he is upon telling the story - Ourika, physically ruined but possessing at least a certain peace of mind; Edouard emotionally ruined, a man who no longer desires to love or really have any further relationship with others. Thus, we see, from the very first pages of the novel, the outcome of the hero. The hero can then occupy himself primarily with an analysis of the causes of his present state. The principal interest of the book, then, is psychological analysis and, in both Edouard and Ourika, an analysis as well of the social causes for the hero's mental and physical collapse and finally his death. In relating how the hero came to tell his story to them, the doctor and the soldier establish that his story is really a confession, told in confidence and in the trust that the listener or reader is sympathetic to the hero. The doctor in Ourika concludes that the real cause for Ourika's sickness is her past, and that he cannot cure it without knowing it. ( 4 ) When she decides that the doctor is sincere, sympathetic and that she knows him well enough, she agrees to tell him her story. At this point the doctor also confirms the sincerity of the hero who is about to tell his story: 'Les chagrins que j'ai éprouvés, dit-elle, doivent paraître si étranges, que j'ai toujours senti une grande répugnance à les confier: il n'y a point de juge des peines des autres, et les confidents sont presque toujours des accusateurs. - Ne craignez pas cela de moi, lui dis-je; je vois assez le ravage que le chagrin a fait en vous pour croire le vôtre sincère. ' ( 5) Thus it is established by the doctor and Ourika in the 'Introduction' that the story she is going to tell is an intensely personal and painful one in which she reveals her innermost soul. The doctor relays to the reader the feeling that it is a privilege to be confided in by her; our frame of mind as Ourika begins her story is a receptive and sympathetic one. The soldier in Edouard goes through the same process, although it is longer and more difficult. Edouard agrees to relate his story only after the soldier has proven himself as an Individual who sincerely cares about him: he has been wounded in battle by a bullet meant for Edouard. ( 6 ) Like Ourika's story, his is a difficult one to recall and relate, so much so that he could not bring himself to talk about it. Instead, he spends several days writing it, and confides the manuscript to the soldier who then passes it on to us to read. As in Ourika, the outer narrator and the reader are aware, first, that they are special in being permitted to enter Into Edouard's most private world and feelings, aud secondly, that our relationship with him must be one of sincerity and above all sympathy for his ordeal, sympathy for his dilemma. Through this process, the reader becomes disposed to accept more easily the hero's view of the social injustice involved. While the doctor and the soldier both have a concluding passage at the end of Ourika and Edouard, respectively, this passage is handled somewhat differently in each novel. As the novel purports to be in Ourika a conversation taking place between the doctor and Ourika which the doctor is recounting to us, and in Edouard, an account just written by Edouard, which the soldier is relaying to us, a concluding statement by the outer narrator seems necessary to maintain the narrative pretense. The doctor in Ourika needs to bring us back from the end of Ourika's narrative to their conversation and to inform us about Ourika's death at which he hinted in the 'Introduction'. ( 7 ) While he does this very rapidly, in one concluding paragraph, the soldier in Edouard finishes the novel in a separate 'Conclusion'. There he recounts Edouard's death, at which he also has hinted in the 'Introduction', and in language strikingly similar to that of the doctor in

46

Ourlka when he foresees her death. ( 8 ) After relaying a newspaper article on Madame de Nevers' death and Edouard's burial near her, he finishes with a sort of moral: Il [ M. le Maréchal d'Olonne ] habita Faverange jusqu'à la fin de sa vie, qu'il consacra â la bienfaisance la plus active et la plus éclairée; mais, quoique sa carrière ait été longue, et en apparence paisible, il conserva toujours une profonde tristesse. Il disoit souvent qu'il s'étoit trompé en croyant qu'il y avoit dans la vie deux manières d'être heureux. (9) This allusion to the Maréchal d'Olonne's statement to Edouard earlier in the novel that one can be happy by one's own feeling of happiness or by the happiness one brings to others ( 10 ) is a final note that human happiness is not to be found through faith in an arbitrary and unjust social code. The Maréchal d'Olonne, in denying Edouard to his daughter, has, in effect, killed her. He realizes that no amount of good works on his part can replace her or bring him any real happiness. Thus, the 'Conclusion', like the 'Introduction', serves to underline the central theme of the book. If the outer narrator serves to frame the hero's story, his role in the novel is not limited to the 'Introduction' and concluding remarks made by him. While the outer narrator is not a character in the hero's narrative, we are aware from time to time throughout the novel of his presence as a listener to or recipient of the hero's confession. At certain moments of the hero's story, the outer narrator inserts a comment, or exchanges a word with the hero. This is done to verify the emotion or reaction of the hero upon recalling something especially moving, thus underlining the importance of the moment. The doctor makes the following comment when tears come to Ourika' s eyes as she recalls her hurt at Charles' profession of his love for Anafs: En achevant ces paroles, l'oppression de la pauvre religieuse parut s'augmenter; sa voix s'altéra, et quelques larmes coulèrent le long de ses joues flétries. Je voulus l'engager â suspendre son récit; elle s'y refusa. (11) The doctor then reports Ourika' s reflections on her present feelings about her life: 'Ce n'est rien, me dit-elle; maintenant le chagrin ne dure pas dans mon coeur : la racine en est coupée. Dieu a eu pitié de moi; il m'a retirée lui-même de cet abîme où je n'étais tombée que faute de le connaître et de l'aimer. N'oubliez donc pas que je suis heureuse; mais hélas! ajouta-t-elle, je ne l'étois point alors. (12) The narration then returns to the first person singular, a s she continues her story. The presence of the outer narrator may also be signalled simply try the hero's addressing him very briefly: 'Ce fut le lendemain de ce jour que je [ Edouard ] vis pour la première fois madame la duchesse de Nevers ! Ah! mon ami ! comment vous la peindre ?' ( 13 ) . . . il [le père d'Edouard ] poussa vin profond gémissement: il n'étolt plus! Comment vous peindre l'horreur de ce moment! Je ne le pourrois même pas. ' ( 14) 'Jusqu'à l'époque dont je [ Ourika J viens de vous parler . . . ' ( 15 ) This device is a distancing mechanism which emphasizes the importance and lasting effect of a given moment or event. It is also a means to maintain the narrative structure and pretense; the hero is confiding his stoiy to a specific individual who does not play a part in the story itself, but who plays a part in the recollection and recounting of it. The outer narrator is a reference point in time and is a means to distance us from the hero and his story. The principal narrative takes place in the past and is being told or written at a given moment in time to the outer narrator. While the outer narrator in turn relates everything to us as having taken place in the past, within the context of the narrative structure, the outer narrator exists and has a relationship with the hero in a more recent past than that of the story of the

47

hero. It is In this way as well that any allusion to him during the narrative of the hero distances us from the story. If the outer narrator in Edouard and Ourika is a reference point in time, he is also a reference point in the objective world outside the subjective one the hero presents. He verifies the effects the main character's experiences have had on him; he can also verify the results of a specific social injustice on an individual. He ascertains that what we know of the final condition of the hero is not simply the hero's own subjective perception, or indeed exaggeration or distortion of it. While the story the hero presents is his own interpretation of events, his final state is verified by an outside source. The use of a retrospective narration in Ourika and Edouard has an important advantage in that the principal narrator, while recounting his own life and experiences, in chronological order, is able to analyze and relate the significance of certain events whose importance he either did not or could not see at the time they occurred. Edouard is thus able to understand later the change in the attitude of the Prince d'Enrichemont and the Duc de L. toward him: Le prince d'Enrichemont me montroit une froideur qui alloit jusqu'au dédain; et le duc de L. avoit avec moi une sorte d'ironie qui n'étoit ni dans son caractère ni dans ses manières habituelles. Si j'eusse été moins préoccupé, j'aurois fait plus'd'attention â ce changement; mais M. le Maréchal d'Olonne me traitolt toujours avec la même bonté . . . La conduite du prince d'Enrichemont et du duc de L. me blessa donc sans m'éclairer. (16) Thus, the hero himself is really able to relate his story and analyze his own psychology in the past and the social and personal causes for his present state of collapse. The narrator's handling of description, setting, characterization of secondary characters, social and historical background is always to support the psychological analysis and social theme of the work. Madame de Duras uses portraits and tableaux de moeurs efficiently as means of characterization and of creating an image of social manners and customs. Her portraits are usually very brief, creating really a sketch of the person by indicating a few characteristics and facts of the individual involved, thus permitting us to place him immediately in the hierarchy of the society in question and to define his relationship to the narrator. In one sentence, the first in Edouard's portrait of the Prince d'Enrichemont, we see that he is a descendant of Sully, rich, of good reputation and that Monsieur d'Olonne wants him to marry Natalie. ( 17) Our interest is not in a profound study or knowledge of the other characters in the work. The portrait merely serves to give the minimum necessary information about another charact e r without distracting us from the principal interest of the novel: the causes of the hero's ruin. The tableaux de moeurs in Ourika and Edouard function in much the same way as the portraits: they exist only to shed light on the background of the hero's crisis. The scene of the ball at which Ourika performs an African dance is significant only as a portrayal of one of Ourika's last happy moments. Her costume, the dance she performs a r e of no interest in themselves. There a r e several scenes in Edouard of the conversation and language of the aristocracy and their salons, of their customs, such as the famous scene of the ball. ( 18 ) These elements a r e of interest, however, only to the extent that they reveal Edouard's inability to feel truly comfortable in that society and in that they underline the dichotomy between Edouard and the world in which he was brought up and the world to which Natalie belongs, one to which he can never belong. In the same manner, the setting in Ourika and Edouard is indicated very rapidly and briefly by means of a few details or perhaps a sentence of description. Ourila really contains no descriptive passages at all. The setting is noted with a detail or two; the focus of the novel is always rather on Ourika's evocation and analysis of her inner problems, the physical world around her having almost no Importance. The following example is typical of the way in which the setting is sketched in Ourika:

48 Mme de B. aimoit à marcher; elle se promenolt tous les matins dans la foret Saint-Germain, donnant le bras â l'abbé; Charles et moi, nous la suivions de loin. C'est alors qu'il me parloit de tout ce qui l'occupoit . . . ( 19) Greater attention is paid to physical surroundings in Edouard; for example, several pages are devoted to a description of the forge Edouard knew as a boy. ( 20) However, the descriptive passages here a r e still few, and they always are significant in t e r m s of the central theme of the novel. The description of the forge is used finally to reveal Edouard's rich imagination. The lack of importance accorded to description in Ourika and Edouard, the very spare use of tableaux and the very brief portraits reflect the spareness of style typical of Madame de Duras' works and the lack of any element that does not contribute directly to the analysis of the hero's crisis and mentality. Madame de Duras' techniques of reporting speech, thoughts and feelings are very basic and straightforward; the traditional methods of reporting direct and indirect discourse are usually followed. Speech, inner speech, thoughts, feelings a r e normally signalled a s such. On occasion, however, a given remark is ambiguous as to who made it, that is, it is at times unclear whether the remark was made by the narrator as a character in the past or is being made by the narrator in the present as he recalls a particular moment or event. For example, Ourika says, 'Hélas! je n'appartenois plus â personne; j'étois étrangère â la race humaine tout entière ! ' ( 21 ) It is perfectly conceivable that Ourika thought this upon p e r ceiving her situation; it is also possible that this is a quotation of an exclamation Ourika as narrator makes to the doctor upon recalling how she felt when realizing her position. However, this kind of ambiguity is unusual and certainly the exception in Ourika and Edouard. The third novel of the triptych, Olivier, raises some specific problems not inherent in the other two works. The basic pretense of the work that Olivier has a terrible secret which he must not reveal to anyone makes inevitable the impossibility of explicitly treating the subject. Thus, Madame de Duras must employ a different narrative structure than used in Ourika and Edouard in which the hero of the work tells his own story and analyzes the causes of his own downfall. For these reasons, then, the author could not choose a first person singular narrative; the form she uses is that of an epistolary novel, one she uses efficiently to portray Olivier 1 s dilemma without revealing his secret. Moreover, through the narrative form of the novel, Olivier's effect on others is explored more than his own perception of the world and of his life, since Olivier is composed of c o r r e spondence between the Comtesse de Nangis and the Marquise de C., with fewer letters written by Olivier himself than by Madame de Nangis. The fact that Olivier is the author of only a portion of the letters means that we see the events of the novel only partially through his own eyes; we also see the hero of the novel and his dilemma through other characters. Louise, for example, speaks of her own feelings most of the time, but they a r e feelings and_ reactions which center on Olivier. In Part I, she does speak of her husband and his lack of affection, but only as an excuse to love Olivier and to open herself to his love. The rest of her letters are occupied with Olivier and her relationship with him. Thus, the novel is also a study of the effect he produces on others, and of his struggle with his problem as manifested by his actions as well as a personal investigation and portrayal of his own inner world. It Is Olivier's mysteriousness that intrigues those who know him; his strange behavior and its causes a r e really the subject or focal point of the novel and are at times best studied by those who observe his behavior, feel and are affected by his mystery and are fascinated by its causes. The Comtesse de Nangis and the Marquise de C. also serve as reference points in 'normal', objective reality. They a r e sufficiently trustworthy to be accepted as witnesses and relaters of Olivier's actions and powers in that they do not share his bizarre behavior or aura of mystery. The Marquise de C. and the Comtesse de Nangis continue the pretense of the story: that we do not really

49

know the cause of Olivier's behavior. While the Marquise de C., the Comtesse de Nangis' sister, knows Olivier, she is living in Naples and is not actually present to observe Olivier's actions. She only knows what the Comtesse de Nangis relates to her and then reacts to his news in her letters. The Comtesse de Nangis herself just never perceives the impotence that Is the cause of Olivier's behavior. While the principal narrative in Ourika and Edouard is introduced by an outer narrator, such is not the case in Olivier. The novel simply begins with the first letter without any introduction. We learn the relationships between the letter writers from the letters themselves and from the heading of each letter which indicates who is writing the letter and to whom it is addressed. The letters, then, have been collected, placed in a particular order and are being presented by someone outside the story itself, but this person remains unidentified. The ways in which Olivier ends in the manuscript Madame Virieux has published and the one I read are different. In the Virieux edition, the novel ends by a letter written by the servant Julien to the Marquise de Nangis, followed by an 'Epilogue'. In his letter, the only one he writes in the novel, Julien recounts the way in which Olivier died. The Epilogue, written by an unidentified person, tells what becomes of Madame de Nangis after Olivier's death, and ends by stating that finally she had been forgotten by everyone. This Epilogue serves to underline the ruin that has come to the lives of two people and is in no way ironic. It verifies by an outside source and observer the effect of Olivier and his death on her and is a feasible manner to end on the note of her final oblivion without she herself having to state this in her diary or by a similar device. In the brief ' Conclusion' of the manuscript I saw, an unidentified person relates that Louise, after the events at the end of the novel, is herself very near death. This narrator goes on to say that Olivier's secret has never been discovered and he concludes by suggesting that Olivier's secret was perhaps that he was Madame de Nangis' brother. We can conclude, then, as in the Virieux edition, that the person presenting the letters is familiar with the characters and their story, although he does not actually play a role in the story itself. The ' Conclusion' of this version of the novel is really an ironic one meant to underline the true theme of the novel: sexual impotence and its effects on an individual and those close to him. Olivier's desperation results from his knowledge of the impossibility of his ever entering Into a full relationship with the woman he loves or of ever being able to be a member of society because of his impotence. By ironically stating that Olivier's secret is unknown when, in fact, it is known to all readers possessing the key, which most do, the narrator emphasizes the central meaning of the book; the 'Conclusion', then, brings this meaning to the fore again and like the Conclusions of Ourika and Edouard is an integral part of the entire novel. Thus, while Ourika, Edouard, and Olivier all come to have the same position of solitude, exile and impotence in their worlds caused by a fact of their person or background they could not control or change, a fact which ultimately causes their death, the emphasis is different in Olivier than in Ourika and Edouard. Olivier is not a novel of personal confession dominated by a feeling of Intimacy with the hero. We come to have an idea of what Olivier is thinking and feeling through the suppositions of the other characters about what he seemed to be feeling and through his own letters. The focal point, however, is his strangeness: the bizarre behavior which was a manifestation of the torment and dilemma of his affliction - and the fear of what public prejudice and ridicule would do to him were it discovered. If each of Madame de Duras' three novels treats the similar dilemmas of three characters who do not have a place in society, an accepted role to play or niche to occupy, the way in which these dilemmas are presented and treated differs considerably, as a study of her narrative techniques shows. The problems and its causes are related in Ourika and Edouard as a somewhat difficult confession, recounted by the main character himself, a technique which sets a tone of confidential intimacy and a feeling in the reader of understanding and sympathy for the character's positions and acceptance of the criticism of the closed society

50 in these novels. The use of the epistolary form in Olivier permits us to focus rather on the outward manifestations of the hero's struggle with his problem and also enables the author to avoid stating the nature of the hero's secret. In every case, the techniques are handled with brevity and efficaclty to create works marked for their delicate and moving evocations of the struggles of the characters involved and by a spareness and accuracy whereby eveiy element of the novel contributes only to the central goal or Interest of the work and is never present only for its own sake. A study of the kinds of characters and methods of characterization used by Madame de Duras will further confirm this qualify of her works. NOTES ( 1 ) Storzer, Gerald H., The Fictional Confession of Adolescent Love: A Study of Seven Romantlc Novels ( unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1967), p. 1. ( 2 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 8. (3) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 1. ( 4 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 15. (5) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 18-19. (6) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 19. ( 7) 'Je la rassurai, je lui donnai des espérances de guérison prochaine; mais en prononçant ces paroles consolantes, en lui promettant la vie, je ne sais quel triste pressentiment m'avertissoit qu'il étoit trop tard, et que la mort a voit marqué sa victime. ' Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 17-18. ( 8) ' . . . je ne sais quel pressentiment me disolt qu'il avoit fixé ce jour-lâ pour trouver la mort qu'il sembloit chercher. ' Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 18. (9) Madame de Duras, Edouard, H, 220-221. (10) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 93 -94. ( 11 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 124. ( 12 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 124-125. (13) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 91-92. ( 14 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 124. ( 15 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 125-126. ( 16 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 121-123. (17) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 106. ( 18 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 184-218. (19) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 97-98. ( 20 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 34-40. ( 21 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 58-59.

VI

CHARACTERIZATION A study of Madame de Duras' use of character in Ourika and Edouard will reveal that it reflects the double theme or interest of her works: psychological analysis and social statement. The dilemma of Ourika and Edouard is intimately connected with specific societal prejudices and general societal attitudes in that each character has a specific external characteristic which is unacceptable to a particular society and which is the source of his crisis and downfall. It is really impossible to separate the psychological study of the character from the criticism of social conditions inherent in the dilemma of the character. Madame de Duras' use of character and methods of characterization a r e designed to fulfill this double function. Both Ourika and Edouard are portrayed as veritable models of the ideal young man or woman, possessing all the qualities normally necessary for acceptance in society. However, in each case, there is a flaw which condemns them: for Ourika, race, for Edouard, social class. Ourika is beautiful, intelligent, educated, talented and has social poise. She says of her own appearance as a young woman: 'Vous aurez peut-être de la peine à croire, en me voyant aujourd'hui, que j'aie été citée pour l'élégance et la beauté de ma taille. ' ( 1 ) She had received a complete education to develop her various talents as well as her mental abilities: . . . j'apprenois pour plaire à Mme de B., tout ce qui devoit former une éducation parfaite. Elle voulut que j'eusse tous les talens: j'avois de la voix, les maîtres les plus habiles l'exercèrent; j'avais le goût de la peinture, et un peintre célèbre, ami de Mme de B., se chargea de diriger mes efforts; j'appris l'anglais, l'italien, et Mme de B. elle-même s'occupoit de mes lectures. Elle guidolt mon esprit, formoit mon jugement des lectures multipliées, celles des poètes surtout, commençoient à occuper ma jeune imagination . . . ( 2 ) Ourika was a self-confident young woman, sure of her abilities as well as of her acceptance by Madame de B. and her friends. She demonstrated her confidence and poise one night by performing the Comba, a difficult dance of her native Senegal, with skill and grace: La danse d'ailleurs étoit piquante; elle se composoit d'un mélange d'attitudes et de pas mesurés; on y peignoit l'amour, la douleur, le triomphe et le désespoir. J e ne connaissois encore aucun de ces mouvements violens de l'âme; mais je ne sais quel instinct me les falsoit deviner; enfin je réussis. On m'applaudit, on m'entoura, on m'accabla d'éloges: ce plaisir fut sans mélange; rien ne troubloit alors ma sécurité. ( 3 ) She later realizes, of course, that much of her seeming acceptance and success was due to her connection with Madame de B. Ourika says of the reaction to her performance of the Comba: Toute entière au plaisir du bal, je dansai la Comba, et j'eus tout le succès qu'on pouvoit attendre de la nouveauté du spectacle et du choix des spectateurs,

52 dont la plupart, amis de Mme de B., s'enthousiasmoient pour mol et croyoient lui faire plaisir en se laissant aller â toute la vivacité de ce sentiment. ( 4 ) As Ourika possesses all the qualities one could expect of a young noble woman of the end of the eighteenth century, it is only her blackness that causes her social and psychological crisis. The use of this external and arbitrary characteristic as the cause of her alienation and exile is a vehicle both for the psychological analysis of the principal character in crisis but also for the portrayal and criticism of a specified social injustice and in a more general sense the effects of a society which is rigid and closed on an individual who has no place in it. Madame de Duras' use of a black character as the subject of psychological analysis may be unique in the tradition of the French roman d'analyse: however, there did exist a long tradition of literature in French in which black characters were important. Unlike Ourika, these characters were almost always present in the work in support of the theme of slavery (pro or con) or for effects of exoticism. (5) In the literature condemning slavery, these characters are typically nègres généreux arid nègres révoltés. ( 6 ) The nègre généreux is a paragon of virtue who is corrupted by slavery and driven to revolt, but who, even in his moment of revolt, is capable of compassion. The nègre révolté, however, is a character whose goodness and humanity are destroyed by slavery and who is bent on revolt and revenge. A tradition of proslavery literature parallels this tradition, one which views black people as lowly, vicious animals, not really human, and therefore, who are fit to be enslaved. Black characters were also sometimes present in a work for effects of exoticism, as in Bernardin de SaintPierre's Paul et Virginie. Madame de Duras' Ourika is unique in that her blackness is associated neither with the theme of slavery nor with that of exoticism, but rather with a different kind of social criticism: that of a society which rejects and destroys a person for unjust reasons. Moreover, Ourika is a black character whose blackness is really of secondary importance in that she has been formed in and by white culture and is a person with a dilemma of isolation and a sense of meaninglessness which is similar to that of many other characters in the literature of the early nineteenth century, a dilemma which is not unique to black people. Oroonoko or the Royal Slave, written by Aphara Behn in 1696 and adapted into French by La Place in 1745 is one of the first works to appear in French to justify or exalt slaves who revolt. Oroonoko, only survivor of a line of kings, and extremely handsome, is betrayed by a Spaniard and sold into slavery. He finally organizes a revolt and returns to his native land to assume his throne. Oddly enough, however, although he institutes many reforms, he does not abolish slavery in his own land. While there is no explicit abolitionist theme, the hero's revolt and escape are at any rate justified and glorified. Saint-Lambert's Ziméo is another example of the type of the nègre généreux. Handsome, gentle, and accepting he is finally moved to revolt and revenge after many betrayals and horrible experiences inflicted on him by white masters. As leader of a revolt, he is pitiless until confronted with a good master defended by his slaves, when he spares the master and even becomes his friend. Thus, in both Oroonoko and Ziméo an instigation to revolt is implicit. ( 7 ) The tradition of Oroonoko and Ziméo is continued later by Itanoko, hero of Le Nègre comme 11 y a peu de blancs by J . Lavallée. Itanoko also is handsome, strong, gentle, and is betrayed, like Oroonoko, and sold into slavery. Itanoko leads a revolt against his master, and after many adventures, is finally free, but ironically becomes himself the owner of slaves. Here, then, as in Oroonoko and Ziméo, while the idea of revolt by slave against master is glorified, the institution of slavery is not necessarily attacked. Itanoko's adventures and difficulties are seen in terms of the individual; his revolt is a personl one, revenge for a wrong done to him. Several authors of the eighteenth century in France do, however, directly attack the institution of slavery and call for its abolition. Montesquieu, one of the first and best known of these authors, attacks slavery in 1748 in De l'Esprit des lois. (8) Florian as well calls for the abolition of slavery in his nouvelle entitled Sélico. The cries for an end to slavery were joined by the large and bloody Haitian slave

53

revolt at Santo Domingo In 1791. This revolt was, of course, met with many cries of barbarism aimed at the slaves' and black people's actions against their masters. While slavery in France and her possessions was abolished in 1794, Napoleon reinstated it in 1802, vociferously supported by proslavery forces, and it continued in French colonies at least until 1830. The hostile view of black people that is dominant in French literature for the twenty years that follow the Santo Domingo revolt reflects this climate. J. - B . Picquenard furthers the tradition of the nègre généreux in painting a rather patronizing picture of black people in Adonis ou le bon nègre, anecdote coloniale. Picquenard wonders whether liberty ought to have been accorded slaves in 1794, especially in view of the unhappiness it caused many Europeans and blacks as well. He feels that love and understanding can win over the most savage people and that black people are capable of goodness. The period of the Restoration in France was a time of renewed interest in the question of slavery and in black people. For example, Madame de Stael, upon her return to France during the Hundred Days, undertook a campaign for the abolition of the slave trade. ( 9 ) Thomas Clarkson in Le Cri des Africains, translated into French in 1822, still adheres to certain distorted views of black people, such as the notion that they are always passionate in whatever they do. Based on the voyages of the explorer Mungo-Park, Clarkson's widely read work was an ardent plea for an end to slavery. The choice of the subject for the Académie Française poetry prize in 1822, L'Abolition de la traite des noirs, further reflects the interest in the slavery question at this time. Inspired by a passage of Mungo-Park that was included by Clarkson in his Cri des Africains on the treatment of a slave by a cruel master, ( 10 ) Chauvet won the prize with his Néali ou La Traite des Nègres. Hugo's Bug-Jargal, published in 1821, continues the tradition of Oroonoko, Itanoko and the novels of the bon nègre and the nègre généreux. Bug-Jargal, handsome and strong, of royal blood, becomes a slave and is finally involved in the insurrection of Santo Domingo. The principal interest of Bug-Jargal is the adventures of the hero, and the historical era being evoked: the Santo Domingo revolt. The novel is not so much a psychological study of Bug-Jargal or even an attack on slavery, although, of course, it is these things implicitly and to a certain extent, but Bug-Jargal is rather the study of a particular historical event and its causes. While the image of the nègre généreux is an important one in French literature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the image of the black person as innately savage, animal-like, is also present throughout this period, as are proslavery sentiments. Raynal, for example, included a pro-slavery passage in his Histoire philosophique des Indes. Interest in the slavery question and black people continued after the publication of Ourlka. For example, Eugène Sue's Atar-Gull, published in 1831, continues the tradition of the nègre révolté. The hero, an African chieftain who becomes a slave, plots and has his vengeance on his masters and, furthermore, even is able to remain near his master in order better to torture him. A further example is Mérimée's Tamango, a very sympathetic portrait of a black man and his plight and adventures on a slave ship. Thus, Madame de Duras1 use of a black character in Ourika has many predecessors in French literature, and her interest in black characters is not unique in her period. However, unlike these predecessors, Ourika is not present in Madame de Duras' novel to create an effect of exoticism, nor is her presence connected to the slavery issue. She is, rather, the subject of a penetrating and sensitive psychological analysis with social statement. It is this kind of use of a black character that veiy much sets Ourika apart from black characters in the literature of the early nineteenth century in France as well as from the literature treating black people that preceded Ourika. Ourika's blackness is the basic cause of her social ostracism and is closely linked with her disappointed love for Charles in completing her alienation; her color, then, is a vehicle for the portrayal of the evil or racial prejudice as well as for the analysis of the mentality of the individual who finds himself an outcast

54

from society for a reason over which he has no control and victimized by a rigid societal structure. Madame de Duras' analysis of a black person isolated in a hostile white society and his psychological development from happiness upon realization of his true social position, self-hatred and finally despair, withdrawal and loss of the desire to live is a moving and remarkably accurate one. A well-developed character, Ourika is an especially well-defined and analyzed black character. The timeliness and accuracy of Madame de Duras' analysis can be Illustrated with documented parallels among twentieth century persons in similar situations. Her portrayal of the feelings of a black person who feels isolated In and from white society have been supported by contemporary American psychiatrists who have worked with black people in the United States. Dr. William Grler and Dr. Price M. Cobbs, psychiatrists who have long worked with American blacks, conclude that black people in the United States possess a ' . . . body of character traits which we call the Black Norm, composed of cultural paranoia, cultural depression and cultural masochism, cultural antisoclallsm. ' ( 11 ) Black living in America, a society ruled by whites, develop of necessity a cultural paranoia, which Grler and Cobbs describe in this way: We submit that it is necessary for a black man in America to develop a profound distrust of his white fellow citizens and of the nation. He must be on guard to protect himself against physical hurt. He must cushion himself against cheating, slander, humiliation and outright mistreatment by the official representatives of society. If he does not so protect himself, he will live a life of such pain and shock as to find life itself unbearable. For his own survival, then, he must develop a cultural paranoia In which every white man is a potential enemy unless proved otherwise and every social system is set against him unless he personally finds out differently. ( 12) Ourika, in fact, comes to have a very similar frame of mind. Profoundly stunned and hurt at the realization of her true place In her society, and having no alternative, no place to go, no new role to assume or society to join, she is confused, frightened and feels Immediately a strong sense of distrust and persecution: Ce mépris dont je me voyois poursuivie; cette société où j'étois déplacée; cet homme qui, à prix d'argent, consentirait peut-être que ses enfans fussent nègres! toutes ces pensées s'élevoient successivement comme des fantômes et s'attachoient sur mol comme des furies: l'isolement surtout... La veille encore . . . , j'avols besoin de ce que j'aimois, je ne songeols pas que ce que j'aimois n'avolt pas besoin de moi. Mais à présent, mes yeux étoient ouverts, et le malheur avoit déjà fait entrer la défiance dans mon âme. ( 13 ) She knows not only that she is the object of disdain because of her color, but also that his society will prevent her from entering Into and taking part in it; for her, then, every member of the society becomes a possible enemy. Because of the prevailing attitude toward black people, no one can be trusted without proving himself worthy. This fact, of course, increases Ourika's sense of persecution and victimization; she alone is bei ng persecuted by an entire society and thus, unless she knows differently, by every person in the society: Toutes les fois que je voyois arriver chez Mme de B. des personnes qui n'y étoient pas encore venues, j'éprouvois un nouveau tourment. L'expression de surprise mêlée de dédain que j'observols sur leur physionomie, commençoit à me troubler; j'étois sûre d'être bientôt l'objet d'un aparté dans l'embrasure de la fenêtre, ou d'une conversation à voix basse; car il falloit bien se faire expliquer comment une négresse étoit admise dans la société intime de Mme de B. Je souffrols le martyre pendant ces éclairclssemens . . . ( 14 ) She is obsessed by these disdainful faces and by society's attitude and intentions toward her:

55

J'étois poursuivie plusieurs jours de suite par le souvenir de cette physionomie dédaigneuse; je la voyois en rêve, je la voyois à chaque instant; elle se plaçoit devant moi comme ma propre image! Hélas! Elle étoit celle des chimères dont je me lalssois obséder ! ( 15 ) While Ourika, at this point, seems on the verge of mental collapse, later, when in the convent, she is able to see events more clearly and objectively. She moves then from a paranoia that is very personal and is characterized by terror and obsession to a state of mind that is more stable, characterized by an ability to recognize her fate as a black woman in her society without having hallucinations or hysteria or going into a feverish state of incoherence. This does not mean, of course, that she can accept her situation or even exist with it, for, finally her knowledge of her fate of perpetual solitude associated with her loss of Charles kills her. The second element of the Black Norm which Grier and Price describe is a cultural depression and a cultural masochism: Every black man in America has suffered such injury as to be realistically sad about the hurt done him. He must, however, live in spite of the hurt, and so he learns to know his tormenter exceedingly well. He develops a sadness and intimacy with misery which has become a characteristic of black Americans. It is a cultural depression and a cultural masochism. ( 16 ) That Ourika suffers from a cultural depression is obvious; it is the very subject of the book. She repeatedly expresses her despair, a despair brought on by a situation which has its roots in the fact that she is black in a whit society. That she suffers from a cultural masochism, or a sort of self-hate and self-punishment caused by her culture, is evident when she first realizes her plight and its cause. She goes through a period of self-hate had self-degradation: J'épuisois ma pitié sur moi-même; ma figure me faisoit horreur, je n'osols plus me regarder dans une glace; lorsque mes yeux portoient sur mes mains noires, je croyois voir celles d'un singe; je m'exagérois ma laideur, et cette couleur me paraissoit comme le signe de ma réprobation: c'est elle qui me séparoit de tous les êtres de mon espèce, qui me condamnoit â être seule, toujours seule! jamais aimée! (17) A real cultural antisocialism, the third element of the Black Norm, is less evident in Ourika's behavior. Cultural antisocialism defined by Grier and Cobbs is an inability or unwillingness to abide by laws in whose establishment or creation one has had no part and which are imposed by a hostile and dominant group. Ourika does not visibly disrespect the laws of her society per se. But, of course, she does finally refuse to try to live within that society and instead withdraws behind convent walls. Thus Ourika's mentality bears a close resemblance in several Important ways to that of most black people in America today, who are collectively assigned a lower position in society than most others, who are denied a full participation in the activities and rewards of their society, whose position then is very similar to that of Ourika's. Secondary characters in Ourika assume very little importance in themselves so totally does the story center on the main character. Madame de B . , Charles and the others are sketched very briefly to represent a stereotype, to play a certain role in the crisis of the heroine, rather than act as real characters or have any interest in their own right: Madame de B. as benefactress, Charles as her confidant. While psychological analysis is the central explicit function of the narration in Edouard and Ourika, social criticism is implicit in the heroes' situation and is an Integral and important aspect of the book. The psychological analysis is performed by the main characters themselves in their narrations. Thus, in these two novels, the narrative technique is an Important means of characterization, one which we

56

have discussed In another chapter. As in Ourlka, the use of character in Edouard very directly reflects and supports the theme of the novel. Edouard, born to the haute bourgeoisie, cannot be accepted into the aristocracy because of his birth. However, with the exception of his birth, Edouard is the equal of the other noble characters in the book a s he is educated, refined, and has some wealth. He is portrayed, then, as a sort of model of the attributes one would need to qualify as a member of the aristocracy and as a husband for Natalie. The narrator of the 'Introduction' describes him at the end of his life in the following manner: Je le connaissois assez; jamais un coeur plus noble, une âme plus élevée, un caractère plus aimable, ne s'étoient montrés â moi. L'élégance de ses manières et de son langage montroient qu'il avoit vécu dans la meilleure compagnie. Le bon goût forme entre ceux qui le possèdent une sorte de lien qu'on ne sauroit définir. Je ne pouvois concevoir pourquoi je n'avois jamais rencontré Edouard, tant il paraissoit appartenir à la société où j'avois passé ma vie. ( 18 ) It is evident that all Edouard lacks is a title. Natalie, a s the woman he loves, is portrayed in an even more favorable light: Je ne sais si d'autres femmes sont plus belles que Mme de Nevers; mais je n'ai vu qu'à elle cette réunion complète de tout ce qui plaît. La finesse de l'esprit, et la simplicité du coeur, la dignité du maintien, et la bienveillance des manières: partout la première elle n'inspiroit point l'envie; elle avoit cette supériorité que personne ne conteste, qui semble servir d'appui, et exclut la rivalité. Les fées sembloient l'avoir douée de tous les charmes. ( 19) An aristocrat, Natalie is the idealized embodiment of all that Edouard is seeking both at the level of his inner yearnings and his social pretensions. A great many of the secondary characters, while ranking above Edouard by birth, do not possess his virtues and education, underlining the falseness and emptiness of the criteria for social acceptance of such a society. These charact e r s are, in general, not well developed, functioning simply to underline the central theme. The Prince d'Enrichemont, for example, acts as a foil for Edouard. They a r e competitors for the hand of Madame de Nevers; while the Prince d'Enrichemont has all the necessary attributes in the eyes of Monsieur d'Olonne and is of an illustrious family and extremely well versed in the social graces, qualities Edouard does not possess, Edouard does have the sincerity and honesty that wins Natalie's heart. The Prince d'Enrichemont serves finally as a model of the emptiness of the social values of that society: Le prince d'Enrichemont ne se seroit jamais trompé sur le jugement qu'il falloit porter d'une belle action ou d'une grande faute; mais jusqu'à son admiration, tout étoit factice; il sa voit les sentiments, il ne les éprouvoit pas; et l'on restoit froid devant sa passion, parce que la vérité seule touche, et que le coeur méconnoit tout pouvoir qui n'émane pas de lui. ( 20 ) The Duc de L. is seen in a much more favorable way. It is precisely this quality of honesty and frankness, lacking in the Prince d'Enrichemont, that Edouard admires in the Duc de L. : 'Inconsidéré, moqueur, léger dans s e s propos, imprudent dans ses plaisanteries, il aimoit pourtant ce qui étoit bien, et sa physionomie exprimoit avec fidélité les impressions qu'il recevoit. ' (21 ) It is perhaps because Edouard took a liking to the Duc de L. that he is later doubly hurt when the Duc de L. not only spreads rumors that Madame de Nevers is Edouard's mistress and finally when he cannot lower himself to engage in a duel with Edouard because he is socially beneath the Duc de L. ( 22 ) Thus, the Duc de L. also is merely a prisoner of the social prejudices of his society. Even though he states that he is Edouard's friend, he would not think of breaking the social b a r r i e r against dealing with a person born into another class as an equal. Monsieur d'Herbelot, Edouard's uncle, serves as a contact in Paris and

57

especially as an example of the cynicism and corruption which pervades Edouard's world. It is he who sneers at Edouard's love and at his vision of Natalie as a paragon of virtue, thus serving as a foil for his idealism and underlining the hopelessness of his position as well as his feeling that he is bound to destroy her reputation either by marrying her or by remaining near her. Monsieur d'Olonne is a further example of the mentality of the aristocrats which destroys Edouard. He is glad to take Edouard under his protection but would never dream of accepting him as his equal, i. e., a son-in-law, because of his lack of noble title, principally. His love and respect for Monsieur d'Olonne make his position even more difficult as he does not want to betray his benefactor. Monsieur d'Olonne is really the final representative of the aristocratic morality and is symbolic of the ultimate power of the aristocracy over Edouard: he can permanently separate Edouard and Natalie and put him out of his home, thus destroying him and rendering impossible any solution to his problem. The social theme of Edouard is implicit in the structure of the novel and in Edouard' s own analysis of his love. In his relationship with Madame de Nevers, he is constantly haunted by a feeling of inferiority and, worse, by a sort of impotence, of being unable to fulfill the role of a man because of his social rank and his social inacceptability: 'C'est ainsi que tout me blessoit, et que, jusqu'à cette protection'bienveillante, tout portoit un germe de souffrance pour mon âme, et d'humiliation pour mon orgueil. ' ( 23 ) He knows that his presence in the society of the d'Olonne family is simply by grace of the generosity of Monsieur d'Olonne rather than by any accomplishments of his own. His entire being is devoted to Natalie, thus his entire existence is a very tenuous and unstable one that could be destroyed at any time by a mere word from Monsieur d'Olonne. Furthermore, there is no way he can render his existence more solid since he will never be accepted because of his rank. Edouard's position, then, is totally dependent on others and becomes a humiliating and frustrating one, just as Ourika's state was entirely dependent on the goodness of Madame de B. and her family. For both Edouard and Ourika, their only possible existence is one of dependence, inequality, humiliation and frustration, or complete isolation and death. Edouard says of his condition: . . . elle a voulu danser avec moi, pour me relever à mes propres yeux, pour me consoler de tout ce qu'elle sentoit bien qui me blessoit. Mais est-ce d'une femme? est-ce de celle qu'on aime qu'on devroit recevoir protection et appui? Dans ce monde factice tout est interverti, ou plutôt c'est ma passion pour elle qui change ainsi les rapports naturels; elle n'auroit pas rendu service au prince d'Enrichemont en le priant à danser. Il prétendoit â ce bonheur; il avoit droit d'y prétendre, et moi toutes mes prétensions sont déplacées, et mon amour pour elle est ridicule! J'aurois mieux aimé la mort que cette pensée . . . ( 24) Edouard sees that his only possible life in the society of Madame de Nevers is one of humiliation and sees that the only solution is to break the relationship, an act he cannot bring himself to commit: . . . je mis à fuir Mme de Nevers autant d'empressement que j'en avois mis â la chercher;1 mais c'étoit sans avoir le courage de me séparer d'elle toutâ-fait, en quittant comme je l'aurois dû peut-être la maison de M. le maréchal d'Olonne . . . (25) Unable to leave Madame de Nevers, Edouard becomes increasingly haunted by a feeling of persecution, which becomes a full blown paranoia when Monsieur d'Olonne, having discovered Edouard's and Natalie's love, demands that Edouard leave. Finally, after the Duc de L. refuses him a duel and thus vengeance for his insults and calumnies, because he is not a gentleman, Edouard says: Les furies de l'enfer sembloient s'attacher sur moi: le mal que j'avois fait étoit irréparable, et on me refusoit la vengeance ! Je retrouvois là cette fatalité de l'ordre social qui me poursuivoit partout, et je croyois voir

58

des ennemis dans tous les êtres vivants et Inanimés qui se présentolent â mes regards. (26) Thus, Edouard and Ourika arrive at a strikingly similar mentality of paranoia, a sense of impotence and total despair, which is resolved in both cases after loss of the one they love, by a total withdrawal and death. The seemingly predominant interest in both Ourika and Edouard is the analysis of a psychological crisis of the principal character. However, the crisis itself is so intimately connected with specific societal prejudices and general attitudes that it is really impossible to separate the psychological study from the social conditions and thus criticism inherent in the psychological analysis. The principal character tn each novel is designed therefore as a vehicle for both purposes in that he has a specific external characteristic which is unacceptable to a particular society and is the source of his crisis and downfall. In both novels, the secondary characters are really functions of this crisis and its causes. Most of the other characters, including the loved one, are just sketches, and function in some way with the crisis. Since we see everything through the heroes' eyes, we know only enough of the other characters to move the story along; we only see their role in the heroes' crisis. Olivier, a roman â. clé is ostensibly about a strange character with a secret that drives him to his ruin. All who have the key, however, realize that the true subject of the book is not a mysterious and bizarre behavior of the principal character, but is rather a struggle with sexual impotence. In order to maintain the pretense that Olivier's malady was a secret, it was necessary to use some very different means of characterization than are used in Ourika and Edouard where a lucid, self-conscious character recounts his own story and analyzes himself. This kind of character or narrator would hardly work in a roman â clé such as Olivier. The problem had to be evoked under a kind of guise-key: in this case, Olivier's mystery and strange behavior; it is necessary also that Olivier and his problem be evoked by others than Olivier himself. It is for these reasons that a great deal of the information that we have about him is Indirect, that is, we see him more often through the eyes of other characters, the Comtesse de Nangis and her sister, the Marquise de C. Since they do not know the nature of his secret, and since Olivier himself refuses to divulge it, we do not have any direct information on it and can only surmise. Furthermore, much of our information about him is received not through an impersonal or seemingly impartial narrator, but through the Comtesse de Nangis, who loves him; thus our information and impressions are further colored. The Marquise de C. is principally a sort of counsellor removed from the scene of the action and who is not directly involved in it. While Olivier's crisis has a less obvious connection with social criticism than does that of Ourika and Edouard, there are many similarities between the developments in their mentalities and their final outcomes. The narration of their crises begins at a point prior to the hero's realization of the true nature of his plight and of the meaning of the characteristic he possesses that renders him different and ultimately unacceptable by society. In each case some background information is given, and the effect of the hero's flaw begins to become apparent. For Olivier, this occurs when he begins to be in love with Louise, Comtesse de Nangis. The conflict between his impotence and his love grows as does his consciousness of the impossibility and hopelessness of his situation. He develops a very acute sense of persecution and paranoia, based on the fear that his secret will be discovered. He sees everyone as a possible enemy, as someone who wants to know his secret, a person who, were he to discover it, would immediately bring scorn, pity, and finally ridicule upon him. He comes to react almost violently to every rival for Louise, such as Monsieur de Hieux, who haunts him throughout the work. Olivier really sees himself as almost defenseless against other pretenders to the hand and love of Louise. While constantly reassured by Louise of her love, he fears he will not be able to consummate it and will lose her and destroy himself. Edouard has a similar kind of feeling about his rivals for Natalie, such as the Prince d'Enrichemont. He feels that because of his

59

inferior social rank, he does not have the right to have her and fears that others, because of their nobility, will win. He is thus defenseless if he is to be judged on his one fault, the lack of a noble title. Like Ourika and Edouard, Olivier is unable to live with his condition and his physical impotence becomes a total impotence as he finds himself less and less able to become part of his society, less and less able to gain acceptance for himself because of a condition of his existence which he cannot alter. His final solution, one of complete immobility and general lack of control over his life and society drives him mad and kills him. While Louise and the Marquise de C. provide much information to the story, they are not fully developed characters because they are always occupied with Olivier or with the effect Olivier has on Louise. They do not exist in their own right, but are rather functions of the effect of Olivier's impotence. In each of Madame de Duras' novels, the principal interest of the narrative is the analysis of the psychological evolution of the character. Especially in Ourika and Edouard the principal character is chosen and portrayed to be a vehicle for a fine psychological analysis as well as social statement. Madame de Duras' use of a black character enables her to present a model of acceptability with one obviously unacceptable quality, one which society will not admit, and further permits her to draw a fine, accurate and still very relevant image of a black person in a closed white-dominated society. Edouard, too, is a paragon of virtue, exactly what a nobleman should be except for his name; this also is an obvious 'flaw' that permits a critique of society in the form of psychological analysis. Olivier, also, has a specific and concrete flaw which causes his crisis, and, although social criticism is less important than in Madame de Duras' preceding novels, this unacceptable flaw in Olivier leads him, as those of Ourika and Edouard led them, to a social impotence and alienation in his society because of an unalterable physical fact of his person. In each of the novels, then, the choice and use of characters and methods of characterization are specifically aimed at portrayal of individuals who have basically similar plights with social implications. More importantly, all three characters resemble each other in some very essential ways: they all have strikingly similar mentalities, all three come to be in the same mental, emotional and social situation, and all are driven to the similar ends of complete alienation and death. NOTES (1) Madame de Duras, Ourika, p. 38. (2) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 34-37. ( 3 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 40-41. (4) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 39-40. ( 5) 'La plupart des ouvrages littéraires qui mettent en scène des personnages africains dans le dernier tiers du XVIIIe siècle relèvent plus de la propagande anti-esclavagiste que de l'étude du coeur. Face aux arguments intéressés des négriers et des commerçants, les esprits généreux dressent un tableau où les qualités de franchise et de noblesse des nègres sont opposées aux calculs égoïstes et cupides des Blancs, où le souci d'une peinture exacte s'efface devant le désir de faire triompher une thèse. ' Roger Mercier, 'Les Débuts de l'exotisme africain en France', Revue de Littérature comparée, 1962 (avril-juin), 208.-(6) Servais Etienne, Les Sources de 'Bug-Jargal' (Bruxelles: Publications de l'Académie royale de langue et littérature françaises, 1923), pp. 16-67, 86-103. I am most indebted to this work which was the most complete and of the most help in preparing this section on the black man in French literature. See also: Roger Mercier, L'Afrique noire dans la littérature française (Dakar: Université de Dakar, 1962), and E. Lucas, La Littérature anti-esclavagiste au XXXe siècle ( Paris: E. Brocard, 1930 ). ( 7 ) Etienne, Les Source de 'Bug-Jargal', p. 31. (8) Charles Louis Secondât, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Livre XV of

60

De l'Esprit des lois, Oeuvres complètes, texte présenté et annoté par Roger Callois (2 vols; Paris: Gallimard, 1949-51), n, 490-508. ( 9) Anne Louise Germaine, baronne de Staël-Holstein, Préface pour la traduction d'un ouvrage de M. Wilberforce sur la traite des nègres, and Appel aux souverains réunis à Paris pour en obtenir l'abolition de la traite des nègres, Oeuvres complètes ( 17 vols; Paris, Treuttel et WUrtz, 1820-21), XVII, 369-383, ( 10 ) Etienne, Les Sources de 'Bug-Jargal', pp. 89-93. ( 11 ) William H. Grier, M. D., and Price M. Cobbs, M. D., Black Rage ( New York: Basic Books, 1968, rpt. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1969), pp. 149-150. ( 12) Grier and Cobbs, Black Rage, p. 149. ( 13 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 53-55. ( 14 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 104-105. (15) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 106-107. ( 16 ) Grier and Price, Black Rage, p. 149. ( 17 ) Madame de Duras, Ourika, pp. 57-58. ( 18 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 23-24. ( 19 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 99-100. ( 20 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 107-108. ( 21) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 109. ( 22) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 191-193. (23) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 217-218. ( 24 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 220-222. ( 25 ) Madame de Duras, Edouard, I, 222-223. (26) Madame de Duras, Edouard, II, 195.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. WORKS BY MADAME DE DURAS. Duras, Claire de Kersaint, duchesse de. Edouard. 2 vols. Paris: Ladvocat, 1825. —. Olivier. MS. Paris: Private archives. —. Olivler ou le secret. Texte établi, présenté et commenté par Denise Virieux. Paris: José Corti, 1971. —. Ourika. Paris: Ladvocat, 1824. —. Pensées de Louis XIV extraites de ses ouvrages et de ses lettres manuscrites par Mme la duchesse de Duras. Paris: L. Passard,(1827). —. Réflexions et prières Inédites. Paris: Debécourt, 1839. II. A LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED WITH ANNOTATIONS TO BOOKS TREATING MADAME DE DURAS AND HER WORKS. Anon. 'Ourika', Le Diable Boiteux, no. 141 (1er dèe. 1823), 3-4. This enthusiastic review of Ourika judges the novel to be a 'petit chef-d'oeuvre'. Anon. 'Edouard', Globe, Journal Philosophique et Littéraire, II ( 26 nov. 1825), 983-985, The author of this favorable review of Edouard sees its style a s one which is always controlled and its theme aii one which is a reflection of prerevolutionary France. Anon. 'Le Livre mystérieux', l a Pandore, no. 141 (3 déc. 1823), 3-4. The author of this review praises the finesse of the psychological analysis and observations of the mores in Ourika and concludes that the work is a most touching one. Anon. 'Nécrologie—Duras (la duchesse de)', Revue Encyclopédique, XXXIX (juillet 1828), 276-277. After briefly mentioning Madame de Duras' family, the author judges that Ourika and Edouard have merit and adds that they were written to help charitable institutions. Abram s, Meyer Howard. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. Ancelot, Marguerite Louise Virginie Chardon. Les Salons de Paris: Foyers éteints. 2 e édition. Paris: Jules Tardieu, 1858. —. Un Salon de Paris: 1824 â 1864. Paris: E.Dentu, 1866. Barante, Amable Guillaume Prosper Brugière, baron de. Etudes historiques et biographiques. 2 vols. Paris: Didier, 1857. While the Baron de Barante does not treat the Duchesse de Duras, there are chapters on Louis de la Rochejacquelein and the Prince de Talmont, her daughter's father-in-law. —. Etudes littéraires et historiques. Nouvelle édition. 2 vols. Paris: Didier, 1859. A short chapter is essentially a repetition of the following article by Barante. —. Notice sur la duchesse de Duras. Paris: Imprimerie Parthmann, 1828. This notice on Madame de Duras is principally devoted to her biography with a brief sketch of the general nature of her writings, placing them among those of Madame de La Fayette and Madame Cottin by their feeling for liberty and simplicity of language. —. 'Nécrologie', Le Mercure de France au Dix-Neuvième Siècle, XX (1828), 238-241. This article is a reprint of the above Notice sur la duchesse de Duras.

62

—. Souvenirs du Baron de Barante. 2 e édition. 8 vols. Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1890. Bardoux, Agénor. Etudes sociales et politiques: La Duchesse de Duras.Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1898. The last work in a series by Bardoux on early nineteenth century French society and the influence of Chateaubriand, Bardoux's book treats her role in French aristocratic society and her works in the light of the way in which they were inspired and the influence of her life on them. Bearne, Catherine Mary Charlton. Four Fascinating French Women. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1910. Mrs. Bearne's treatment of Madame de Duras is principally a biographical one; comments on her literary works a r e basically limited to circumstances of composition and sources of inspiration. Biré, Edmond. L'Année 1817. Paris: Champion, 1895. In the four pages devoted to Madame de Duras, Biré speaks especially of her salon and quotes George Ticknor, an American visitor and writer, on the subject. Bordeaux, Henry. 'La Duchesse de Duras', Revue Hebdomadaire, V (avril 1898), 108-121. In this very general article, H. Bordeaux draws a sketch of her life and character as well as her relationship with Chateaubriand, mentioning her literary works only in that they reflect the events of her life and her attachment to the author of René. Brandes, Georg. Revolution and Reaction in Nineteenth Century Literature. New York, Russell & Russell, 1960. Chateaubriand, François-René. Atala; René; Les Aventures du dernier Abencérage. Introduction, notes, appendices et choix de variantes par Fernand Letessier. Paris: Garnier Frères,« 1962. This edition contains the portrait of Madame de Duras by Gérard, painted in 1820. —. 'Lettres de Chateaubriand â la Duchesse de Duras', présentées par Louis Thomas, Le Figaro: Supplément Littéraire, 13 janv. 1912, 1. In the eleven letters published here, Chateaubriand speaks of his work, his Itinéraire and Mofse, and asks favors of Madame de Duras, such as to obtain 100, 000 francs for him so he can go to Stockholm. —. Mémoires d'Outre-Tombe. Introduction, variantes, appendice et notes par Maurice Levaillant et Georges Moulinier. Nouvelle édition. 2 vols. P a r i s : Gallimard, 1957. Constant, Benjamin. Adolphe. Paris: Garnier Frères, n. d. Cook, Mercer. Le Noir; Morceaux choisis de vingt-neuf Français célèbres. American Book Company, 1934. ( Custine, Astolphe, marquis de. ) Aloys, ou Le Religieux du Mont Saint-Bernard. P a r i s : Vezard, 1829. —. Lettres inédites au marquis de la Grange. Publiées par le comte de Luppé. P a r i s : P r e s s e s françaises, 1925. Decreus-Van Liefland, Juliette Célestine. Sainte-Beuve et la critique des auteurs féminins. Paris: feoivin, 1949. Madame Decreus-Van Liefland compares Sainte-Beuve' s judgments of several female authors, among them Madame de Duras. The usefulness of this book is increased by the bibliography on Madame de Duras. Deschamps, Emile. 'La Guerre en temps de paix; Ourika—L'Académie', La Muse Française, onzième livraison (mai 1824), 264-279. In this article treating the confusion and bitterness of the débat between the romantiques and classiques, Deschamps devotes a paragraph to Ourika where he writes of its originality of subject, the picturesque quality of its tableaux and freshness of style and concludes that the quality of this novel places it above the great debate. Dessailles-Régls, 'Les Romans de Madame de Duras', Revue de Paris, IV (mars-avril 1842), 246-260. Dessailles-Régis treats Madame de Duras' novels principally as ones treating social problems and ones which reflect the social conditions of Restoration France. Etienne, Servais. Les Sources de 'Bug-Jargal' avec en appendice quelques sources de 'Han d'Islande'. Bruxelles: Publications de l'Académie royale de langue et de littérature françaises, 1923.

63 Evans, David Owen. Social Romanticism In France. 1830-1848. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951. Falloux, Alfred Pierre Frédéric de Falloux du Coudray, comte de. Madame Swretchlne: Sa Vie et ses oeuvres. 2 e édition. 2 vols. Paris: Didier, 1860. Falloux publishes several letters from Madame de Duras to Madame de Swetchine; several letters by Madame de Svetchine in Vol. I treat the death of Madame de Duras. Fanon, Frantz. Peau noire, masques blancs. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1952. Favre, Jean. Précis historique sur la famille de Durfort Duras, dédié à Madame la comtesse de la Rochejacquelein, née de Durfort Duras. Marmande, 1858. A chapter of this work is devoted to a biography of Madame de Duras; the book also contains an engraving of the Château de Duras. Férard, E. -A. "Olivier' par Madame la duchesse de Duras: Pourquoi ce petit roman fut attribué à Henri de Latouche', Le Figaro, 25 janv. 1930, 6. See the following entry. —. "Olivier' par Madame la duchesse de Duras: Une lettre probante', Le Figaro, 1 e r fév. 1930, 6. Férard presents In these articles the case for the attribution of the Olivier published in 1826 to Madame de Durais rather than Latouche. Férard is one of the few twentieth century critics to take this stand. Fromentin, Eugène. Dominique. Introduction et notes par Emile Henriot. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1961. Gay, Delphine (Mme E.de Girardln). Oeuvres complètes. 6 vols. Paris: Pion, 1861. The first volume contains a poem entitled 'Ourika: Elégie', based on Madame de Duras' novel. Genlis, Stéphanie-Félicité Ducrest de Saint-Aubin, comtesse de. Mémoires inédits de Madame la comtesse de Genlls. sur le dix-huitième siècle et la Révolution française, depuis 1756 jusqu'à nos jours. 10 vols. Paris: Ladvocat, 1825. In the several pages Madame de Genlis devotes to Ourika, she praises it especially for its originality, truthfulness and directness. George, Albert Joseph. The Development of French Romanticism: The Impact of the Industrial Revolution on Literature. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1955. —. Short Fiction in France 1800-1850. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1964. Gilbert, Eugène. Le Roman en Fiance pendant lé XIXe siècle. Paris: Pion, 1896. Giraud, Victor, 'Madame de Duras et Chateaubriand', Passions et romans d'autrefois. Paris: Edouard Champion, 1925. Giraud speaks of Madame de Duras principally in light of the nature of her relationship with Chateaubriand. —. 'Une amitié féminine de Chateaubriand: Madame de Duras. Lettres inédites', Revue des Deux Mondes, LIH (15 oct. 1909), 791-829. This article is a collection of letters and excerpts of letters by Madame de Duras written to various people. The letters are interspersed with Giraud's commentary and illustrate her many activities, concerns and views both on her personal life and problems and on the issues and events of her times. Much of this m a terial was later published by Pailhès in La Duchesse de Duras et Chateaubriand. Grégoire, H. De La Littérature des nègres, ou recherches sur leurs facultés Intellectuelles, leurs qualités morales et leur littérature; suivis de notices sur la vie et les ouvrages des nègres qui se sont distingués dans les sciences, les lettres et les arts. Paris: Maradan, 1808. Grler, William H., M. D., and Cobbs, Price M., M. D. Black Rage. New York: Basic Books, 1968, rpt. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1969. Halda, Bernard. 'La Duchesse de Duras et Chateaubriand', Pensée Française, XVIII, no. 1 (janv. 1959), 15-20. A résumé of Madame de Duras' life and relationship with Chateaubriand, this article offers no new Information o r Interpretation. Henriot, Emile. 'Armance, Olivier, Stendhal, Latouche et Madame de Duras', Livres et portraits ( Courrier littéraire ). Troisième série. Paris: Pion, s. d., 193-199. Henriot offers here principally a brief résumé of the Olivier history and controversy.

64

—. Romanesque et romantiques. Paris: Pion, 1930. Herrlot, Edouard. Madame Réeamler et ses amis. 2 vols. Paris: Pion, 1904. In the three or four pages devoted to Madame de Duras, Herriot gives a brief description of her and her relationship with Chateaubriand. Hugo, Victor. Bug-Jargal; Le Dernier Jour d'un condamné: Claude Gueux. Présenté par Jeanlouls Co muz. Paris: Editions Rencontre, 1967. Hytier, Jean. Les Romans de l'individu. Paris: Les Arts et le Livre, 1928. Iknayan, Marguerite. The Idea of the Novel in France: The Critical Reaction 1815-1848. Paris: Librairie Mlnard, 1961. Jourda, Pierre. L'Exotisme dans la littérature française depuis Chateaubriand. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1956. L. C. de K. Eveline. Paris, 1824; Ladvocat. 1 vol. in-8 ;prix 3 fr 50 c. Edouard. Paris, 1825; le même. I vol. ln-8°. Se vend au profit d'un établissement de charité', Revue Encyclopédique, XXVIII (nov. 1825), 583-584. In this comparative review of the two novels, the author sees Edouard as the fuller, finer and definitely more touching work. Lamartine, Alphonse de. Cours familier de littérature. 28 vols. Paris: l'auteur, 1856-1869. Lamartine briefly treats Madame de Duras' salon as being a center of idolatry of Chateaubriand and'mentions her with others as an author of nouvelles de coeur. Latouche, Hyacinthe de. Olivier. Préface de Henri d'Alméras. Paris: Pour la Société des Médecins Bibliophiles, 1924. —. Olivier, Paris: U.Canel, 1826. Lebègue, Raymond. 'Chateaubriand et Gallatin: Politesses et frictions diplomatiques', Bulletin de la Société Chateaubriand, Nouvelle série II, 19. LeBreton, André. Le Roman français au dix-neuvième siècle; Première Partie: Avant Balzac. Paris: Société française d'imprimerie et de librairie, 1901. LeBreton contends that novels such as those of Madame de Duras and Madame de Souza are really the personal journals and confessions of the authors. LeBreton speaks specifically of Madame de Duras' novels only very briefly when he compares them to those of Madame de Souza, saying that while their styles are similar, the feellngs and ideas of Madame de Duras are of another age, one that has seen the Revolution and that is a contemporary of Chateaubriand and Madame de Staël. Lenormant, Madame Charles. Coppet et Weimar: Madame de Staël et la grande duchesse Louise. Paris: Michel Lévy Frères, 1862. Madame Lenormant discusses for several pages Madame de Duras' efforts to bring Madame de Staël and Chateaubriand together, quoting from Madame de Duras1 and Madame de Staël' s correspondence. Loménie, Charles de. Trois années de la vie de Chateaubriand (1814-1816): Son ROle et ses écrits à l'origine du royalisme parlementaire , extrait du 'Correspondant' revu et augmenté. Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1905. Madame de Duras is often mentioned in terms of her rapport with Chateaubriand; several of her letters are cited. Lucas, E. La Littérature anti-esclavagiste au dix-neuvième siècle: Etude sur Madame Beecher Stowe et son influence en France. Paris: E.Boccard, 1930. Luppé, Albert Marie Pierre, marquis de. Astolphe de Custtne. Monaco: Editions du Rocher, 1957. Luppé, in this study of Astolphe de Custlne's life and work, reports on Custlne's several connections with Madame de Duras: the many reported and rumored reasons for the rupture of Custlne's engagement to Claire de Duras, and the possible connections between this event and his novel Aloys, a work attributed at the time by several people to Madame de Duras. —. 'Autour de l'Armance de Stendhal: L'Olivier de la duchesse de Duras', Le Divan, no. 250 (avril 1944), 263-268. il this important article, Luppé describes an 'ébauche' of an epistolary novel in manuscript form In the archives of the Château de Chastellux. This ébauche is Madame de Duras' Olivier and its existence proves not only that her novel has never been published but also that the Olivier attributed to Latouche is definitely not hers.

65 - . Mérimée. Paris: Albin Michel, 1945. M. A. J. 'Ourika; publié au profit d'un établissement de charité. Paris, 1824; Ladvocat. In-12 de 172 pages; prix 3fr. 5 0 c . R e v u e Encyclopédique, XXII (avril 1824), 210-211. After a plot summary, the author concludes that the psychological observation in Ourlka is fine, but the central theme is not developed fully enough. He further states that the judgment that society should venge itself of Ourika for upsetting the order of things seems to dominate the work. Masse, Fernand. ' The Negro Race in French Literature', Journal of Negro History, XVIH (July 1933), 225-245. Mercier, Roger. L'Afrique noire dans la littérature française: Les Premières Images (XVne-XVIII e siècles), Dakar: Université de Dakar, 1962. Mercier traces the development in the use of black Africa in literature from that of simply a background for traditional characters to the beginnings in the late eighteenth century of an increasingly accurate and feeling study of black characters' emotions and problems. The work contains a useful bibliography. —. 'Les Débuts de l'exotisme africain en France', Revue de Littérature Comparée, 1962, (avril-juin), 191-209. Mérimée, Prosper. Romans et nouvelles. Introduction, chronologie, bibliographie, choix de variantes et notes par Maurice Parturler. 2 vols. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1967. Merlant, Joachim. Le Roman personnel de Rousseau à Fromentin. Paris: Hachette, 1905. One of the most thorough treatments of the roman personnel as a genre now available, Merlant's study of Ourika and Edouard is solid and valid. Milne, Vivienne. The Eighteenth Century Novel: Techniques of Illusion. Manchester: University Press, 1965. Montcel, R. Tezenas dji. 'Madame de Duras, cette inconnue . . . ' , La Revue des Deux Mondes, 1 août, 1968, 364-384. A general article on Madame de Duras's life, works and character, Montcel t r i e s to revive interest in her but adds no new information or interpretation. Montesquieu, Charles Louis Secondât, baron de La Brède et de. Oeuvres complètes. Texte présenté et annoté par Roger Callois. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1949-51. Neuville, Jean. 'La Duchesse de Duras commentatrice de Vigny1, Les Cahiers de l'Irolse, II e année-nouvelle série, no. 2 (avril-juin 1964), 93. Neuville quotes the 'Note' at the end of Edouard in which Madame de Duras speaks of honneur. Neuville points out that her conception of honneur is very similar to Vigny's and suggests that his note and Edouard might be sources for Vigny's Servitude et grandeur militaires. Pailhès, Abbé Gabriel. ' Chateaubriand, Mme de Duras et Mlle de Constant: D'après des documents inédits', Revue de Frlbourg, mai-juin 1903, 225-260; juillet-août 1903, 360-397. Pailhès publishes here miscellaneous letters by Chateaubriand. —. Chateaubriand, sa femme et ses amis. Paris, 1896. In the several pages devoted to Madame de Duras, Pailhès speaks of her as a political friend and protectrice in the Bourbon court, one of many other women he saw. —. La Duchesse de Duras et Chateaubriand d'après des documents inédits. Paris: Perrin, 1910. This work is without doubt the most complete and important written on Madame de Duras. In this book which is essentially a biography and study of her relationship with Chateaubriand, Pailhès publishes for the first time much of her correspondence with Chateaubriand, Rosalie de Constant, Talleyrand and others. One chapter is devoted to Ourika, Réflexions et prières and Edouard each; the works a r e treated principally as reflections of her life and in terms of Chateaubriand's influence, with information on the composition of the works and critical reaction to them also being included. Paulson, Ronald, ed. The Novelette before 1900. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Perez, Raoul M. 'Book Review. Ourika, by Madame de Duras, followed by

66 Delphine Gay's poem. Ed. with foreword, notes and vocabulary by Mercer Cook and Guiehard P a r r l s In the Atlanta University French Series', Opportunity, XV (Dec. 1937), 380. The author of this review concludes that Ourlka realizes her place is not in French society but rather in Africa, her original home, with her people. Peyre, Henri. Literature and Sincerity. Nerw Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. Peyre briefly mentions Madame de Duras' works saying they a r e less Insipid than most In the genre of the personal novel and a r e deserving of a monograph. Bat, Maurice, 'La Jolie Négresse Ourlka fut, à sa façon, une victime de JeanJacques', Figaro Littéraire, 11 juin 1960, 11. i l spite of the title, this article Is mainly a résumé of the story of Madame de Duras' Ourlka. Boux, Marie, marquis de. La Restauration. Paris: Arthême Fayard, 1930. The marquis de Roux cites Madame de Duras' Ourlka and Edouard a s novels reflecting the frustration created by the b a r r i e r s of Restoration society to social mobility. Sainte-Beuve, Charles-Augustin. Causeries de lundi. 15 vols. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1849-61. —. Galerie de femmes célèbres, tirée des 'Causeries du lundi'. Paris: Garnler,

TZ

—. Oeuvres: Poésies complètes. 2 vols. Paris: Alphonse Lemerre, 1879. —. 'Poètes et romanciers modernes de la France. XIL Mme de Duras', Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 juin 1834, 713-727. This article treats Madame de Duras' works from other than biographical or historical viewpoint and Is thus useful. —. 'Mme de Duras', Portraits de femmes. Paris: Garnier, 1845. This article is a reprint of the above one with some notes added. —. Vie, poésies et pensées de Joseph Delorme. 2 e édition. Paris; N. Delangle, 1830. This work contains several allusions to Madame de Duras' Edouard, one which places it with Werther, René and Adolphe, the other, In SainteBeuve's poem 'A Mon Ami Paul L . . . ', a reference to Edouard as a source of inspiration. Saint Pierre, Bernardin de. Paul et Virginie. Texte établi et présenté par Maurice Souriau. Paris: Editions F. Roches, 1930. Saintsbury, George. Essays on French Novelists. London: Percival and Co., 1891. Saintsbury merely alludes to Madame de Duras in this book, saying she falls at the end of tradition of sensibilité as seen in Madame de LaFayette, Madame Riccoboni, Chateaubriand, Goethe and Constant. S[alm], Princesse Constance de. Vingt-Quatre HeureB d'une femme sensible, ou Une Grande Leçon. Paris: Arthus Bertrand, 1824. Société Chateaubriand. Bulletin. 1930Souza, Adélaide-Marie-Emilie Filleul, marquise de ( Madame la comtesse de Flahaut). Oeuvres. Précédées d'une Notice sur l'auteur et ses ouvrages par M. Sainte-Beuve. Paris: Charpentier, 1840. Staël-Holstein, Anne Louise Germaine, baronne de. Oeuvres de Mme la baronne de Staël. Publiées par son fils; précédées d'une notice sur le caractère et les écrits de Mme de Staël, par Madame Necker de Saussure. 17 vols. Paris: Treuttel et WUrtz, 1820-21. Stendhal, Marie Henri Beyle. Armance ou Quelques Scènes d'un salon de Paris en 1827. Texte établi et annoté par Raymond Lebègue. Préface d'André Gide, Paris: Champion, 1925. —. Armance ou Quelques Scènes d'un salon en 1827. Texte établi avec Introduction, bibliographie, notes et variantes par Henri Martineau. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1962. —. Correspondance de Stendhal ( 1800-1824 ). Publiée Ad. Paupe et P. A. Chéramy. 3 vols. Paris: C. Bosse, 1908. —. Oeuvres. Etablissement des textes et préfaces par Henri Martineau. 32 vols. Paris: Le Divan, 1930-37. The volumes of the Courrier Anglais: New Monthly Magazine are sprinkled with comments and judgments on Madame de Duras and her times, her salon and works. Stenger, Gilbert. Grandes Dames du XIX e siècle: Chronique du temps de la Restauration. Paris: Perrin. 1911. In the chapter devoted to Madame de

67

Duras, Stenger sketches her biography, her salon, her connection with Chateaubriand and gives a brief résumé and comment on Ourika, Edouard and Réflexions et prières. Storzer, Gerald H. The Fictional Confession of Adolescent Love: A Study of Seven Romantic Novels. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1967. Tapié, Victor-L. Chateaubriand par lui-même. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955. Thévenin, Paule. 'Pages oubliées: La Négresse de Mme de Duras', Les Lettres Nouvelles, 21 oct. 1959, 40-42. This article consists essentially of a r e counting of the story of Ourika with the aid of many quotes. Thorslev, Peter L . , Jr. 'Incest as Romantic Symbol1, Comparative Literature Studies, n, no. 1 ( 1965 ), 41-58. Ticknor, George. Life, Letters and Journals of George Ticknor. 2 vols. Boston: J. R. Osgood, 1876. Ticknor recounts his visits to Madame de Duras1 salon and especially several conversations with her and Talleyrand. Tlssot, P . - F . 'Ourika', Le Mercure du Dix-Neuvième Siècle, m, (1823), 483488. Tlssot's article consists of a résumé of Ourika. Turaell, Martin. The Art of French Fiction. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1959. Ullmann, Stephen. Style in the French Novel. Cambridge: University Press, 1957. Van Tieghem. Le Mouvement romantique. Paris: Librairie Vuibert, 1923. Vier, Jacques. 'Pour l'étude du Dominique de Fromentin', Archives des Lettres Modernes, IV (oct-nov. 1958), 1-56. Vier's article is a thorough study of the parallels between Madame de Duras' Edouard and Fromentin's Dominique and of Edouard as source for Fromentin' s novel. Villemain, "ÂEëï -François. Souvenirs contemporains d'histoire et de littérature. 2 vols. Paris: Didier, 1862. The pages Villemain devotes to a detailed discussion of Madame de Duras' salon are among the most complete available on this subject. Wellek, René. Concepts of Criticism. Edited with an introduction by Stephen G. Nichols, Jr. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. —. and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. Second edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1955. Whitmore, Rosalie Ophelia. A Study of Madame de Duras. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Atlanta University, 1944. This thesis is an overview of Madame de Duras' works, concentrating especially on their historical and biographical background and content. Wood, John S. ' Sondages dans le roman français du point de vue social ( 1789-1830 )' Revue d'Histoire Littéraire de France, janv.-mars 1954, 32-48. —. Sondages, 1830-1848: Romanciers français secondaires. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965. Z. 'Edouard', Le Mercure du Dix-Neuvième Siècle, XI (1825), 214-220. Citing the originality and subtlety of Edouard, the author of this article has nothing but praise for Madame de Duras' novel.

de proprietatibus litterarum Series Practlca 50 Metcalf, A.A.i Poetic Diction in the old English Meters of Boethius 51 Knowlton, M.A. : The Influence of Richard Rolle and of Julian of Norwich on the Middle English Lyrics 52 Richmond, H.M.: Renaissance Landscapes 34 54 Celler, M.M.: Giraudoux et la métaphore 55 Fletcher, R.M.: The Stylistic Development of Edgar Allan Poe 57 Nelson, T.A.: Shakespeare's Comic Theory 59 Dugan, J.R.: Illusion and Reality 61 Couchman, G.W.: This our Caesar 63 Schulz, H.-J.: This Hell of Stories 69 Godshalk, W.L.: Patterning in Shakespearean Drama 71 Kostis, N.: The Exorcism of Sex and Death in Julien Green's Novels 72 Woshinsky, B.R.: La Princesse de Clêves 49 75 Hewitt, W.: Through Those Living Pillars 49 78 Ferrante, J.M.: The Conflict of Love and 49 Honor83 Jones, L.E.: Poetic Fantasy and Fiction

Dfl. 28,28,28,FF/ 22,34,18,26,32,20,50,22,FF/ 32,FF/ 32,FF/ 32,20,-

Series Dldactlca 1

Swaim, K.M.: A Reading of Gulliver's Travels

38,-

de proprietatibus litterarum Series Minor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13

Eaton, T.: The Semantics of Literature Koch, W.A.: Recurrence and a Three-Modal Approach to Poetry Sullivan, N.: Perspective and the Poetic Process LoCicero, D.: Novellentheorie Uehling, T.E. Jr.: The Notion of Form in Kant's 'Critique of Aesthetic Judgment' Waldrop, R.: Against Language? Shibles, H.A.: An Analysis of Metaphor in the Light of W.M.Urban's Theories Lengyel, C.: The Creative Self Will, F.: The Knife in the Stone Eaton, T.: Theoretical Semics Champigny, R.: Ontology of the Narrative Prince, G.: A Grammar of Stories

Dfl. 12," 10,10,16,-

18,18,18,18,22,20,18,20,-

Series Major 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 26

Hester M.B.: The Meaning of Poetic Metaphor Delasanta, R.: The Epic Voice Gray, B.: Style Belgardt, R.: Romantische Poesie Sexton, R.J. : The Complex of Yvor Winters' Criticism Wood, T.E.: The Word "Sublime" and its Context 1650-1760 Thompson, E.M.: Russian Formalism and AngloAmerican New Criticism Hale, D.G.: The Body Politic Gallo, E.: The Poetria Nova and its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine Miller, D.M.: The Net of Hephaestus Ryding, W.W.: Structure in Medieval Narrative Shmiefsky, M. : Sense at War with Soul Raffel, B.: The Forked Tongue Levitt, P.M.: A Structural Approach to the Analysis of Drama Hagiwara, M.P.: French Epic Poetry in the Sixteenth Century Braun, J.T.: The Apostrophic Gesture Guggenheimer, E.H.: Rhyme Effects and Rhyming Figures Ingram, F.L.: Representative Short Story Cycles "of the Twentieth Century Barasch, F.K.: The Grotesque Nichols, J.W.: Insinuation Brockett, O.G. (ed.): Studies in Theatre and Drama Schludermann, B. et al (eds.): Deutung und Bedeutung Benoit, R.: Single Nature's Double Name

40,22,23,45,88,40,30,28,-

44,32,34,30,32,-

22,40,32,42,42,36,24,64,98,30,-

de proprietatibus litterarum series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 IS 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 38 40 41 43 45 47 48

Practica

Cohn, R . G . : M a l l a r m é ' » M a s t e r p i e c e H i e a t t , C . B . ! The Realism o f Dream V i s i o n Hogan, J . J . : Chaucer and the Theme o f M u t a b i l i t y Nusser, P . : M u s i l s Romantheorie P e r l o f f , M . : Rhyme and Meaning i n the P o e t r y o f Yeats Cusac, M.H.i N a r r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e i n the N o v e l s o f Sir Halter Scott Newton, R . P . i Form in t h e 'Menschheitsdämmerung' W o r t l e y , W . V . : T a l l e m a n t des R6aux Swanson, D . R . : Three Conquerors Gopnik, I . : A Theory o f S t y l e and Richardson s Clairiata Feldman, S . D . : The M o r a l i t y - P a t t e r n e d Comedy o f the Renaissance M i t c h e l l , G . : The A r t Theme i n J o y c e C a r y ' s First Trilogy Ebner, 0 . : Autobiography i n S e v e n t e e n t h Century England B a l l , D . L . : Samuel R i c h a r d s o n ' s Theory o f Fiction Raymond, M . B . : Swinburne's P o e t i c s Powers, D . C . : E n g l i s h Formal S a t i r e Schick, E . B . : Metaphorical Organicism in Herder' s E a r l y Works Wood, H . : The H i s t o r i e s o f Herodotus Magner, J . E . : John Crowe Ransom L a a r , E.Th.M.van d e : The I n n e r S t r u c t u r e o f fathering Heights Einbond, B . L . : Samuel J o h n s o n ' s A l l e g o r y Harder, W . T . : A C e r t a i n Order Vernier, R . : 'Poésie ininterrompue' e t la 39 FF/ p o é t i q u e de Paul Eluard Hennedy, H . L . s U n i t y i n B a r s e t s h i r e McLean, S . K . : The "B'ànkelsang" and the Work o f B e r t o l d Brecht I n n i s s , K . : D.H.Lawrence's B e s t i a r y George, E . E . : H o l d e r l i n ' s "Ars P o e t i c a " Sampson, H . G . : The A n g l i c a n T r a d i t i o n i n Eighteenth-Century Verse B l a k e , R . E . : The "Essays de m é d i t a t i o n s 49 FF/ p o é t i q u e s " o f F r è r e Z a c h a r l e de V i t r é Jakobson, R. and L . G . J o n e s : S h a k e s p e a r e ' s V e r b a l A r t i n Th'Expenae of Spirit Silverman, E . B . : P o e t i c Synthesis in S h e l l e y ' s "Adonais" Dougherty, A . : A Study o f Rhytmic S t r u c t u r e i n the V e r s e o f W i l l i a m B u t l e r Y e a t s E u s t i s , A . : M o l i è r e as I r o n i c Contemplator Champigny, R . : Humanism and Human Racism Kopman, H . : Rencontres w i t h t h e Inanimate 31 FF/ i n P r o u s t ' s Recherche H i l l e n , G. : Andreas Gryphius ' Cardenio md Ce linde Ewton, R.W.: The L i t e r a r y T h e o r i e s o f August Wilhelm S c h l e g e l Todd, J . E . : Emily D i c k i n s o n ' s Use o f the Persona

Dfl. 24, 18, 30, 22, 48, 24, 34, 24, 24, 22, 18, 18, 22, 36, 36, 30, 25, 32, 18, 40, 18, 28, 25, 28, 54, 28, 96, 48, 32, 10, 20, 38, 40, 18, 20

-

22

-

22

-

22