Portrait of the Artist: Maupassant and Notre Cœur

Author(s): Edward D. Sullivan

Source: The French Review, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Dec., 1948), pp. 136-141
Published by: American Association of Teachers of French
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/382890
Accessed: 05-02-2019 14:16 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Association of Teachers of French is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The French Review

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST: MAUPASSANT AND NOTRE C(EUR

EDWARD D. SULLIVAN

Princeton University

It is difficult to understand how the legend was ever acce

Maupassant was the perfect example of the completely objecti
personal artist. Few readers of Fort comme la Mort and Notre C
be willing to grant the assertion of Pellissier, for example, that
is "passif et neutre.. . absolument impersonnel;" that, observin
who pass before his eyes, "11 les retrace, exempt d'amour et de
une fid6lit6 tout objective, sans que leurs peines ou leurs joies l'
sans qu'aucune platitude l'6cceure, sans qu'aucune vil6nie l'indig
make such a statement is to confuse the part with the whole; and
Maupassant was impersonal and detached in many of his storie
quently lays bare his own sympathies, his preoccupations, his an
to be sure, in the manner of a romantic confession, but as a novelis
posing himself into fiction. The myth of Maupassant's impassi
long since been exposed, and most readers and critics agree with Pol
who wrote: "Celui qui fut naguere l'impersonnel Maupassant ne s
t-il pas dans Fort comme la Mort, dans Notre Cour avec une com
persistante, qui d'ailleurs nous le rend plus cher?''2 Fort comme
more specialized, more concerned with a single theme, the fear o
old, while Notre Cceur is more inclusive, a searching examinat
artist and the man. The portrait of the artist in Notre Coeur is wor
ing because it is more complex, more profoundly and desperately
than one might think.
No one has failed to identify Maupassant with the novelist, G
Lamarthe, in Notre Caur. Even Pellissier quotes the well-know
describing Lamarthe, and applies it to Maupassant:

Arm6 d'un ceil qui cueillait les images, les attitudes, les gestes, avec u
et une pr6cision d'appareil photographique, et dou6 d'une p6n6tration,
romancier naturel comme un flair de chien de chasse, il emmagasinait
soir des renseignements professionnels. Avec ces deux sens tres simples
nette des formes et une intuition instinctive des dessous, il donnait a se
n'apparaissait aucune des intentions ordinaires des 6crivains psychologu

1 Georges Pellissier, Le Mouvement litteraire contemporain, Paris, Plo

1902, pp. 15-16.
2 Pol Neveux, "Guy de Maupassant, Etude," Preface to (Euvres complb
de Maupassant, Boule de Suif, Paris, Conard, 1926, p. lxxviii.
136

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAUPASSANT AND "NOTRE C(EUR"E 137

avaient I'air de morceaux d'existence humaine arrach6s a la r6alitd, la

I'aspect, le mouvement de la vie meme.3

Yet, if we look at Lamarthe as he appears in the context of

in his relations with Mariolle and others, there is somethin
simple identification of the author with his character. Lama
Maupassant as he saw himself and as he judged himself: th
critical and ironical, a disillusioned comment on himself and hi
Lamarthe is roughly analogous to Gide's REdouard or J
Dedalus (in Ulysses as well as in A Portrait of the Artist as
both of whom have the same curious relationship to their
character represents the author, but the author is himself
though off-stage; and his detached critical attitude toward
clearly felt-even without the Journal des Faux-Monnay
analogy ends there. Notre Coeur can hardly be compare
Monnayeurs or to Ulysses; it has nothing of the breadth and
these two extraordinary novels. Maupassant simply was
technique and his temperament to conceal his own feelings
sible, yet was not nearly so successful as he thought. He is o
his work; his attitude toward his characters is evident, as i
Pierre et Jean. So, when he creates a character out of his o
he still retains his privileged position as the author and is
indirectly his criticism or his sympathy.
In 1890, the year in which Notre Coeur was published, Ma
in a letter: "On me pense sans aucun doute un des hommes
diff6rents du monde. Je suis sceptique, ce qui n'est pas la
sceptique parce que j'ai les yeux clairs. Et mes yeux disent
Cache-toi, vieux, tu es grotesque, et il se cache."4 This skept
on himself, when, weary and tormented by illness, he wrote w
his last novel. Lamarthe represents only a part of Mau
Maupassant as the latter saw himself as an artist, looking ba
and at what he had accomplished. To get the full portrait of
Notre Caeur we must go beyond Lamarthe: Andr6 Mariolle, w
love for Mme de Burne is the subject of the novel, expres
as he saw himself as a man, separate from the artist; and, final
tor Pr6dol6 symbolizes the artist uniquely devoted to his art, in
the world of society which had absorbed Mariolle complete
feebled Lamarthe. He is to Maupassant the unrealized id
a Maupassant, Notre Coeur, Paris, Conard, 1909, pp. 17-18. All quota
passant's works are taken from the Conard edition.
4Published by Pol Neveux, op. cit., p. lxxiv; and by Ren6 Dumes
Rtudes, Correspondance de Guy de Maupassant, Paris, Grund, 1938, p

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 138 THE FRENCH REVIEW

amine the novel from this point of view and

these characters had for Maupassant.
Lamarthe is introduced and described
passage quoted above. He is seen again a f
him through the eyes of Mme de Burne.
women are incapable of discerning true e
Maupassant was fond of elaborating, and
ce mot, l'art, il n'y a plus qu'a le mettre a
veals something about Mme de Burne, the
on the part of Maupassant, irony directed
position he held in the salons, a grim apprec
to what he held all-important. Yet Lamart
that his perspicacity deserts him, especial
Mme de Burne; he speaks "en homme int
un peu d6rout6 aussi, ayant l'esprit ple
d6ductions fausses." (p. 34) Lamarthe, in
success, is to some extent a failure, for he
tialities, he has deviated from the narrow
tion for Pr6dol6, the note of frank envy
speaks of the sculptor, reveal his awarenes
sant presents him as a rate, echoing in the
in his correspondence: "Le monde fait des
les artistes, de toutes les intelligences qu
sentiment sincere par sa fagon d'6parpille
le peu de flamme qui brile en nous." Sadde
sant is haunted by a sense of failure, of
futile diversions of the salons. As a novelist he sees what material this
milieu offers him; "Ah! j'en vois des totes, des types, des coeurs et des
Ames! Quelle clinique pour un faiseur de livres!" But he recognizes his in-
ability to deal with this wealth of material, and adds: "Le d6gofit que m'in-
spire cette humanit6 me fait regretter plus encore de n'avoir pu devenir ce
que j'aurais voulu etre avant tout: un satirique destructeur, un ironique
f6roce et comique, un Aristophane ou un Rabelais."5
In the manuscript of Notre Coeur is a passage which, although it was cut
out before publication, furnishes a key to Maupassant's conception of the
character of Lamarthe. It was intended to be part of the celebrated descrip-
tion of Lamarthe in the first chapter, and reads thus:

Apres avoir affirm6 pendant des ann6es qu'il ne ferait jamais partie de 1'Acad6mie
Frangaise, il s'6tait pr6sent6 et avait dt6 61u. Depuis lors il ne pardonnait cette
d6faillance de principe ni a lui-mime ni a ses collgues de 1'Institut. II avait baptis6

6 Pol Neveux, op. cit., p. lxxi; and Ren6 Dumesnil, op. cit., p. 422.

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAUPASSANT AND "NOTRE C(EUR" 139

cet endroit sa Ratiere parce que c'6tait, disait-il, une cage de Rat
prendre au tr6buchet, comme un Rat.'

Maupassant removed this paragraph because he realized it

preted as jealous vexation that he was not himself a mem
emy. But it seems likely that this outburst represents a
his thoughts: membership in the Academy is confirmation
than literary success, and it is "le monde" which dissipates
rat6s. In Notre Cewur Maupassant wrote not a social satire, bu
drawn in a period of despair. It is easy enough to equate
Maupassant, but we are surely leaving out a good deal if w
as that of a confident naturalist equipped with a photogr
turbably recording his observations.
If we can see in Lamarthe a critical self-portrait of th
Mariolle represents Maupassant the man, distinct from th
no art to cling to, Mariolle is completely engulfed by the
he moves, and is unable to achieve even the partial salvatio
Maupassant made his chief character a dilettante, a dabb
rather than an artist, in order to show more forcefully the d
of this society. Mariolle is gifted; he has written travel
siderable charm, has won praise for his sculpture, and is a
teur violinist; but he has no drive, no incentive. If he h
might have become something, says Maupassant. He is th
an art, and hence completely helpless when caught up in
movement of Michile de Burne's life. His enslavement to her is enslave-
ment to "le monde" which she symbolizes. She is a nineteenth-century
C6limbne, but the Alceste of the piece is neither Mariolle nor Lamarthe,
but both-that is to say, Maupassant, who sought the desert on his yacht
the Bel-Ami and never quite succeeded in finding it.
Mariolle suffers more than Lamarthe because, having no real interests
beyond his love, he is completely absorbed by Mme de Burne and the
forces of society. Lamarthe, who had gone through a crisis similar to
Mariolle's, was able to free himself partially at least and fall back on his
writing. He is, in a sense, dehumanized by literature, and his reactions are
those of a man of letters. Maupassant shows a curious preoccupation
throughout the book with "literature," meaning anything artificial, arbi-
trary, or false-sounding. Now Maupassant is himself, as Abel Hermant
pointed out in an admirable essay, "1'6crivain frangais le plus d6pouill6 de
litterature,"7 who refused to admit that there should be any distinction
between truth in literature and truth in life; but throughout Notre Coeur
6 Notre Cceur, Variantes, p. 302.
?Abel Hermant, "Guy de Maupassant," Essais de Critique, Paris, Grasset, 1912,
p. 384.

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 140 THE FRENCH REVIEW

he seems worried lest he fall into the falseness of "literature." When

Mariolle writes his first letter of adieu to Minme de Burne, she remarks:
"I1 6crit mieux que Lamarthe: ga ne sent pas le roman" (p. 45). Yet Maupas-
sant merely summarizes the letter, as if fearing it too might sound novelis-
tic. Almost never does he show us a line of Mariolle's letters, but contents
himself with stating that they are excellent, different from those of
Lamarthe "qui marivaude litt6rairement" (p. 64). Maupassant had noted
the duality set up within himself by the fact that he was a writer; the
novelist was constantly observing the man, analyzing his emotions even at
the moment he was experiencing them. The man of letters, he writes in
Sur l'Eau, "semble avoir deux ames, l'une qui note, explique, commente
chaque sensation de sa voisine, de l'dme naturelle, commune tous les
hommes." He is "acteur et spectateur de lui-meme et des autres" (pp.
81-83). In Notre Ceur he reveals both parts of his nature: Mariolle, who
feels and suffers; Lamarthe, who notes and observes, and is in turn observed
and criticized by Maupassant. At this period of his life, when his physical
and mental torment was greatest, Maupassant looks back with longing at
the time when he was able to cut himself off from the world behind a wall
of indifference. He had no illusions, he is resigned to the "n6ant de cette
vie," as he says in a letter; but he is tortured by memories: "Je ne peux avoir
aucune esp6rance, je le sais, mais je sens obscur6ment et sans cesse le mal
de cette constatation et le regret de cet avortement. Et les attaches que
j'ai dans la vie travaillent ma sensibilit6 qui est trop humaine, pas assez
litt6raire."8 Lamarthe has escaped suffering by being "litt6raire," by re-
maining the clinical observer of women: "De cette fa?on je ne serai jamais
vraiment pinc6 par elles" (p. 145). Mariolle is too human, uniquely so,
and can never free himself.
Maupassant, the least "literary" of writers, is torn by inner contradic-
tions in writing Notre Cceur: his suffering is real and human, but he is afraid
to transpose it directly into his novel lest it sound merely "literary."
He therefore puts something of himself into both Mariolle and Lamarthe,
yet retains an objective critical attitude toward both, and, unwilling to
betray himself, or perhaps uncertain of his own ability at the moment, sum-
marizes letters, conversations, and actions, instead of giving the reader
the material and letting him draw his own conclusions as he did in his
earlier works. It is extraordinary how much of the action in Notre Coeur is
skipped over, generalized, or summed up.
The sculptor Pr6dol6 is a highly significant figure in this interpretation
of the book, for he alone is saved, and his salvation is his singleness of
purpose, his unswerving devotion to his art. He is not presented until near
the end of the novel (p. 209) and is the central figure in a rather long scene,
8 Pol Neveux, op. cit., p. lxxvi; and Rend Dumesnil, op. cit., p. 423.

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAUPASSANT AND "NOTRE C(EUR" 141

discoursing eloquently but simply on his art, ignoring t

and manners of the elegant Mme de Burne and her
Ccour appeared in 1890, Augustin Filon9 thought tha
admirably done but detrimental to the action, a "merveilleux hors-
d'oeuvre." But the scene is essential to Maupassant's purpose. He was
deeply concerned with his presentation of Pr6dol6, and in the original
manuscript mentioned him in the first part of the book (p. 32, line 9),
when Mariolle and Lamarthe leave Mme de Burne's together. In the manu-
script they go to Pr6dol6's studio, but Maupassant changed this before
publication and reserved mention of Pr6dol6 until he could develop the
scene most effectively. Pr6dol6 was in his mind from the beginning of the
book, and the scene is no hors-d'oeuvre. Mme de Burne condemns herself
with her judgment of Pr6dol6: "Assez int6ressant, mais raseur," (p. 218)
while Lamarthe points the moral: "Quel homme heureux, ce Pr~dol6 ....
I1 n'aime qu'une chose, son art, ne pense qu'& cela, ne vit que pourcela,
et cela emplit, console, 6gaye, fait heureuse et bonne existence... il ne
s'inquibte gu6re des femmes, celui-la..." (p. 220). And as Lamarthe
launches into a familiar condemnation of the "modern" woman, his speech
is marked by an accent of envy--envy of Pr6dold, envy of the man he might
have been.
Nowhere, not even in Sur l'Eau, where he speaks directly for himself, has
Maupassant revealed himself more poignantly than in Notre Cour. But
there is more to the matter than a simple identification of the author with
the novelist in his story. Neither Lamarthe nor Mariolle is Maupassant,
but each expresses a part of him, while Pr6dol6 represents the unrealized
ideal. He is separate from his characters, for his method of presenting them
reveals a critical self-examining mind outside of them. He is objective
only in the sense in which Abel Hermant applies the term to him; for,
while Hermant sees Maupassant's personality in all of his works, "Ii
demeure entendu que Maupassant 6vite de se mettre en schne, A l'inverse
des lyriques, dont l'ceuvre n'est jamais qu'une confession franche ou
d6guis6e; Maupassant est objectif; mais avec cela, comme il nous est
impossible de concevoir l'objet ind6pendamment de notre sensibilit6, nous
sommes bien oblig6s de reconnaitre que le plus objectif des artistes n'ex-
prime encore en fin de compte que soi."'1 Notre Caur is the least objective
of his works, yet even here the artist transmutes his own reality into fiction,
nourishing with his own substance the characters he has created, while re-
maining independent of them, critical of them-and of himself.

9 Augustin Filon, "Courrier litt6raire,!' Revue bleue, 2 aolat 1890, p. 134.

10 Hermant, op. cit., p. 403.

This content downloaded from 77.141.178.28 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:16:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms