This one is often described as “the novel to end all novels” and I understand why – when you are reading it you say to yourself very frequently “if this is what novels are like I am never going to read another one in my entire life”.

From about page 50 until when I stopped, I was having these strong bibliocidal fantasies. I thought – maybe I will leave this accidentally on the bus to work. But I forgot to forget it, like that country song. Then I thought – maybe a column of army ants will chomp it up so that not a shred remains. But army ants are never seen in Nottingham, only the friendly variety who bid you good day as they pass by. I tried to donate my copy to Oxfam but the shop assistant, having turned very pale when she saw the title, summoned up a courage I had not thought her to possess and said they could not accept that particular title. When I asked why she referred me to the Oxfam standard operating procedures, something about health and safety, which includes of course mental health. They had accepted copies of Sentimental Education in previous years but there had been some incidents and now all shops had been explicitly warned not to.

I see that many of my most respected GR friends hand out the big four and five stars to this novel and describe it as brilliantly comic. I was trembling in my boots until I found that none other than Henry James was on my side. Here is his considered opinion:

Here the form and method are the same as in "Madame Bovary"; the studied skill, the science, the accumulation of material, are even more striking; but the book is in a single word a dead one. "Madame Bovary" was spontaneous and sincere; but to read its successor is, to the finer sense, like masticating ashes and sawdust. L'Education Sentimentale is elaborately and massively dreary. That a novel should have a certain charm seems to us the most rudimentary of principles, and there is no more charm in this laborious monument to a treacherous ideal than there is interest in a heap of gravel.

However I did notice something what Henry James did not notice, and felt quite smug about that. It is this – that the main part of the plot of Sentimental Education is almost the same as the plot of Shampoo, the Warren Beattie movie from 1975, which I saw only last week so it was fresh in my memory. In Shampoo, hairdresser George’s former girlfriend Jackie now has a rich sugar daddy boyfriend Lester, whose wife Felicia is one of George’s best customers. Naturally George is shagging Felicia as it would seem unkind not to, and, because he keeps bumping into Jackie as they move in the same social circles, he realises he never wanted to break up with her so he starts shagging Jackie as well. Then comes the really shocking scene – Lester’s daughter who I guess is supposed to be around 16 or so comes on to George when he’s visiting Felicia. And she is played by none other than 19 year old Carrie Fisher, two years before Princess Leia. What a shock that was. So in Sentimental Education Frederic, the world’s most dreary young bachelor, wants to shag the wife of Monsieur Arnoux, a publisher. And eventually this guy introduces Frederic to his mistress Roseanne who he’s got fed up with, the idea being that Frederic will take her over, I suppose they used to do this in those days as they did not have Tinder. So Frederic is nearly shagging the guy’s wife and nearly shagging the guy’s mistress at the same time. Just like in Shampoo, except that George the hairdresser was a lot less dreary. Also in Shampoo and Sentimental Education there are these long long long boring party scenes where I think the effect is supposed to be scintillatingly socially satirical.

I did not notice any specific Star Wars connections in Sentimental Education, but neither did Henry James.

If I am ever taken hostage and this is the only reading material available in my rat infested dungeon then I will definitely finish this.

L'Education Sentimentale is well known to be one of Woody Allen's favourite books, and it explores one of Allen's favourite themes. Whether life is a tragedy or a comedy depends on hair-fine nuances. Melinda and Melinda is probably the clearest example: the perspective constantly, and rather confusingly, shifts back and forward between comedy and tragedy. A bit later, he redid the idea in a more convincing way, as the linked pair Match Point (the tragedy) and Scoop (the comedy).

In the same spirit, here's a linked pair of reviews. I wrote the tragic one first, but then felt that I really needed to balance it with a comic version.

________________________

Tragic review

O Hamlet, speak no more:
Thou turn'st mine eyes into my very soul;
And there I see such black and grained spots
As will not leave their tinct.

I'm afraid it's not exactly a fun beach read. If L'Education Sentimentale doesn't make you feel uneasy, you're either a remarkably secure person or you decided to quit before reaching the end. And Flaubert does a good job of sneaking up on you: for the first hundred pages or so, I felt it was one of those books where nothing was going to happen, and it wasn't until I was about halfway through that I really began to feel disquieted. He's good.

On the surface, it's unremarkable, except for the lovely prose. Frédéric is a stupid and shallow young man in 1840s France. After a chance meeting on a boat, he conceives a passion for Mme. Arnoux, a beautiful married woman. He manages to insinuate himself into her husband's social circle, and becomes friendly with him. After a while, M. Arnoux trusts young Frédéric enough that he introduces him to his mistress, the charming and scatterbrained Roseanette. Frédéric falls for her too, and then his romantic life becomes even more complicated. I'll try to avoid dropping any more spoilers, but I thought I should convince you that it's definitely not a book where nothing happens: as in Madame Bovary and Salammbô, there's ample sex and violence.

So, why's it so disquieting? One way to explain is to compare with two other novels, which were written not long after and certainly, at least in part, were inspired by it. In Proust's Le Côté de Guermantes, Marcel becomes as obsessed with the Duchesse de Guermantes as Frédéric does with Mme. Arnoux, but by the end of the novel he's got over her; we get a detailed account of how her charm gradually fades away, so that he can finally see her objectively. It's disappointing, but extremely rational. And in Maupassant's Bel-Ami, Georges Duroy cleverly exploits his series of mistresses to become rich and successful; this time, you're shocked at how cold-blooded he is, but it's also rational.

I thought at several points that Frédéric was going to take one of these paths; he doesn't. The novel's extraordinary strength is to get inside his mind as he dithers between the various women he's involved with, and demonstrate how he simply isn't capable of any kind of rational thought whatsoever. He's with X, and Flaubert shows with his usual exactitude how blissfully in love he is with her. Then, a few pages later, he's with Y, and his protestations of eternal devotion don't come across as hypocritical: much worse, they're sincere! And, in the next chapter, with Z... well, you get the picture. It's horrifyingly well done.

In the middle of all this, the Revolution of 1848 breaks out. (By the way: if you're as ignorant about French history as I am, I strongly recommend getting an annotated edition. Flaubert assumes you know the story already, and keeps referring to people and events I'd never heard of - I was flipping to the endnotes like I was reading Infinite Jest). I did wonder for a moment what the politics had to do with the main story; alas, that rapidly becomes clear too. Like the eponymous hero of the Rabbit series, Frédéric is constitutionally incapable of seeing past the end of his own dick. The fact that France has been given a once-in-a-century chance to establish a fairer and more democratic government completely escapes him. There is a magnificent sequence where a major event has occurred, and people are shooting at each other in the streets; all Frédéric can think about is the fact that he's missed an important date with one of his loved ones. I was strongly reminded of the scene near the beginning of Shaun of the Dead, where Shaun, who's just been dumped by his girlfriend, stumbles home in a daze while somehow managing not to notice that London is being invaded by flesh-eating zombies.

You will gather that L'Education Sentimentale does not present a positive and uplifting view of human nature. If only it were ugly or hastily written, one could dismiss it. But no: as always with Flaubert, it's meticulously crafted and a delight to read. A lot of the time, it's even funny. You may occasionally want to fling it across the room; more often, you're going to react with a wry smile. He's witty and entertaining.

I started with a quote from Hamlet, arguably one of the book's ancestors, and I'll conclude with one from Cat's Cradle, probably a great-grandson, and also a very funny book. Here's Kurt Vonnegut on the same subject.

And I remembered The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon, which I had read in its entirety the night before. The Fourteenth Book is entitled 'What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experiences of the Past Million Years?'

It doesn't take long to read The Fourteenth Book. It consists of one word and a period.

This is it:

'Nothing.'

________________________

Comic review

["Sex and the City" theme tune. CARRIE is lying across her bed typing industriously on her laptop]

CARRIE: [voiceover] I read that over 60% of all American men cheat on their partners. That's a lot of cheating. It's happened to me. It's happened to my best friends. It may have happened to you. And, the other day, I started wondering [the title comes up as she speaks the words] When Men Cheat On Their Partners, What Are They Really Thinking?

[Dissolve to a trendy Manhattan restaurant. CARRIE is sitting alone at a table set for four people, reading a paperback novel. Camera zooms in to show the title, "Sentimental Education"]

CARRIE: [turns a page, and shakes her head reflectively] Jeez!

[CARRIE is so engrossed that she doesn't notice that CHARLOTTE, SAMANTHA and MIRANDA have arrived, and are looking at her curiously.]

CHARLOTTE: Good, isn't it?

CARRIE: [starts violently] Uh... yes! So you've read it too? Don't tell me how it ends...

SAMANTHA: [checking to see how far CARRIE has got] Oh, you're nearly finished. You know, this reminds me of something that happened to Charlotte and me a few years ago. [She gives CHARLOTTE a teasing look] You don't mind?

CHARLOTTE: Um...

CARRIE: [voiceover] Charlotte did mind, but Samantha steamrollered her.

SAMANTHA: [steamrollering her] Come on, babe, all ancient history now! But we need some cocktails first. [To waiter] Four Cosmopolitans!

CARRIE: [voiceover] This was during Charlotte's first marriage, a period she doesn't like to talk about. Her husband Jack was a lot older than her.

[Montage. CHARLOTTE'S FIRST HUSBAND evidently doesn't take her seriously.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Samantha hadn't yet discovered she had a talent for PR. She was wondering if she would make it as an actress.

[Montage. SAMANTHA's movie roles don't require her to wear much.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Samantha was also a close friend of Jack.

[Montage. JACK and SAMANTHA are having noisy sex. Dissolve back to restaurant.]

SAMANTHA: [smiles and pats CHARLOTTE on the arm] Of course, Charlotte and I didn't know each other yet.

CARRIE: [voiceover] Now Jack ran this publishing company. He had a cute intern called Fred. One day, Fred met Charlotte.

[Dissolve back to the past. Montage. FRED, very young and innocent, meets CHARLOTTE. He's obviously smitten.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Fred had never seen anyone so beautiful in his life. He immediately knew he could never love another woman. But how could he meet her again?

[FRED looks sad and pensive, then suddenly brightens up.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Fred needed to get friendly with Jack.

[Montage. JACK is talking, FRED is hanging on his every word.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Jack liked the attention. He started inviting Fred to his dinner parties.

[Montage. Dinner party at JACK and CHARLOTTE's. FRED gazes raptly at CHARLOTTE, while she ignores him.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Jack had really got to trust Fred. He started taking him to parties at Samantha's place too.

[Montage. A much wilder party. FRED looks embarrassed, but is clearly eyeing up SAMANTHA]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Pretty soon, Fred had fallen for Samantha as well. Oh, and somewhere around here he went back to Wisconsin for a couple of months and managed to get engaged to the girl next door.

[Montage. FRED is with the adoring GIRL-NEXT-DOOR, who's even younger and more innocent-looking than he is. Dissolve back to restaurant. MIRANDA is struggling to keep up with the story.]

MIRANDA: So, uh, let me see, he can only love Charlotte but he's got the hots for Samantha and he's engaged to the girl next door?

[CHARLOTTE looks like she wants to sink through the floor. She takes a large sip of her cocktail. SAMANTHA is having fun.]

SAMANTHA: [to MIRANDA] Don't worry, babe, it hasn't got complicated yet.

CARRIE: [voiceover] Fred made progress with Charlotte. She let him hold her hand while she told him about her problems. But that's all that happened.

[Montage. FRED and CHARLOTTE gaze soulfully into each other's eyes, go for walks hand-in-hand, pick flowers, etc]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Obviously, Fred wanted more. He made a date with Charlotte at the New York apartment he'd just started renting. This was going to be it.

[Montage. FRED, in an agony of suspense, is waiting outside the apartment block. He keeps looking at his watch.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Unfortunately, the date was September 11, 2001.

[Montage. The Twin Towers erupt in flames. People screaming in the streets. FRED is still looking at his watch as they stream past.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] Fred was so angry with Charlotte for not turning up. He went to see Samantha.

[Montage. FRED and SAMANTHA are having sex. Dissolve back to restaurant.]

SAMANTHA: [elaborate shrug] Well, I needed a fuck pretty bad.

CARRIE: [voiceover] Fred liked being with Samantha. But deep down, he never forgave her for making him betray his true love. He started seeing someone else, the wife of a rich banker.

[Montage. FRED is having sex with RICH BANKER WIFE. Back to restaurant.]

MIRANDA: [completely lost] So, he's sleeping with you and the banker's wife because he can't be with his true love? And what's with the fiancée?

SAMANTHA: [large sip of cocktail] That's it, babe. He thought it was my fault, and the banker's wife's fault. And maybe the fiancée's fault too, but I was never quite sure about that. Of course, it all ended in tears.

[Montage. SEVERAL WOMEN are yelling at FRED, throwing things, etc]

SAMANTHA: [back in restaurant] Your friend Stanford told Charlotte and me we should read Sentimental Education. He was right. It's just uncanny. Flaubert is a bit of an asshole, but he sure spills the beans on how men think when they cheat. It helped. [putting an arm around CHARLOTTE] And somehow, Charlotte and I ended up friends. Sorry babe. [She drains her glass. CHARLOTTE drains hers and hugs her back. There are tears in her eyes.]

CARRIE: [voiceover] I swear, I'd become a lesbian if I didn't like cock so much. And I wish I'd read Flaubert earlier.

[Theme music, credits]

Notes:

1. A beautiful book. Highly readable and gratifying. Too much description, but that was a convention of Flaubert’s day. The book is full of history, the abortive Revolution of 1848, the rise and fall of the French Second Republic and so on. The story of Frederic Moreau himself is the faux-biographical thread that ties it all together.

2. The Alhambra sequence here is reminiscent in the phantasmagoric “Nighttown” chapter in Ulysses. James Joyce knew Sentimental Education well. A later costume ball echoes the Alhambra scene, and it’s just as wild, just as frenetic. In other ways, in how it deals with the tribulations of Frederic’s desire, the book reminds me of Knut Hamsun’s Pan. At one point he’s running between three women — not unlike the protagonist of Isaac Bashevis Singer‘s Enemies: A Love Story. Love is mad.

3. Frederic Moreau has been pining away for years for Madame Arnoux, the wife of a wealthy gallerist. He earns his law license but after five years gives up. He admits that Madame Arnoux is unattainable. Much disappointment arises from his low income. He cannot remain on the same playing field as the Arnouxs if he is poor. He moves back to his mother’s house in the provinces. He takes walks with a four-year-old girl. His hygiene starts to go. He loses touch with his Paris friends, especially Deslauriers, with whom he had shared boyhood dreams. But then, when all hope is lost, he receives an enormous inheritance from his sourpuss uncle. Everything changes, so he feels.

Yet Madame Arnoux is out of his reach. She’s a good woman. He’ll never have her. He presses on making strange plans to further ingratiate himself and make him look even more pathetic. M. Arnoux starts borrowing money from Frederic. Strangely, our hero traipses about with the husband, the man he’s trying to cuckold, and is a witness to some of his extramarital affairs. Meanwhile Frederic remains a virgin. They’re being nothing to indicate he’s ever had a woman. Interestingly other characters can claim relationships with available women.

4. This novel uses Paris in the same way Woody Allen uses New York in his films. Here’s one colorful passage. It occurs when Frederic, flush with his legacy, is returning to Paris impatient to see Madame Arnoux.

“They stopped a good while at the city gate, for it was blocked by poultry-farmers, carriers, and a flock of sheep. The sentry, his hood thrown back, walked up and down in front of his box to keep warm. The toll-clerk clambered on to the top of the coach, and a fanfare on a coronet rang out. They went down the boulevard at a brisk trot with swingle-bars rattling and traces flying. The thong of the long whip crackled in the damp air. The guard gave his ringing shout: ‘Look sharp there! Hullo!’ And crossing-sweepers stood aside, passersby jumped out of the way, and mud splashed against the windows. They passed wagons, carriages, and omnibuses, and finally reached the iron gate of the Jardin des Plantes.” (p. 115)

When Frederic returns to Paris he finds the Arnouxs in reduced circumstances. All the luxury and grandeur have gone. The husband‘s gallery has failed and he now lives with his family above his pottery shop; this as opposed to his former gallery “just beyond the rue Monmartre,” the family home in rue de Choiseul, and the country place in Saint-Cloud. Madame Arnoux is dressed with a simplicity Frederic has never seen before.

5. At times Flaubert’s description becomes cloying in its excess; a writer today could suffice with ten percent of it, if that. These descriptive flights are the only bits where one feels oneself slogging through.

6. This novel was published in 1869 and one thing is clear, capitalism has not changed, except perhaps in the variety of its cons. Frederic’s position in uneasy; he is at heart not social, and yet he is condemned to negotiate so-called high society. He’s such a timid little man. Everyone’s robbing him blind. When failed bomber Sénécal is released from Sainte-Pélagie for lack of evidence, Dusardiers gives a party in his flat to celebrate; it’s here that Flaubert eviscerates the socialist, ostensibly pro-Republic, mindset. The monarchists don’t come out much better; everyone gets it in the neck.

So eventually, at a restaurant, Madame Armoux’s honor is besmirched; Frederick throws a plate at Viscount Cisy, the besmircher, and a particularly hilarious duel ensues in the Bois de Boulogne. The duel is called with off when Cisy faints under pressure and accidentally cuts himself with the knife with which he was to have fought Frederic. Too funny. When Madame Arnoux learns about the duel she realizes she loves Frederic. They then enter upon a difficult platonic friendship; difficult because of their physical lust for each other. And who hasn’t at some time in life been in such a fix, forswearing sex for friendship? It’s utter torture.

7. It’s impressive how adroitly Flaubert incorporates the 1848 Revolution — also known as the February Revolution it ended the July Monarchy and led to the brief French Second Republic — into the narrative. It corroborates for the most part what I had recently read in Pages from the Goncourt Journals. The revolution begins, however, on the very day Frederic was to have taken Madame Arnoux to a love nest he had designed presumptuously without her consent. She never shows. Frederic is humiliated and angry. In something like retaliation he picks up the Marshall, a prostitute, and takes her to the love nest prepared for Madam Arnoux. This is Frederic’s first sexual experience; he is 28 or 29.

8. We watch Frederic enter the Imperial palace as it’s vandalized by the “common people.” Frederic is encouraged to stand for office by M. Dambreuse, an arch monarchist who hopes to control him in that role. Frederic prepares a speech and goes to deliver it at a ribald meeting. He steps up to speak and is called an aristocrat by his erstwhile friend, Sénécal, a sociopathic “revolutionary” who has him booed into the street. It’s hard to know what the gathering’s true purpose is since it’s such a zoo. For example, before Frederic is sent away, “A man in a cassock, with crinkly hair and a peevish expression, had already put up his hand. He mumbled that his name was Ducretot, and that he was a priest and an agronomist, the author of a work entitled Manure. He was advised to join a horticultural society.” (p. 329)

9. The street names and place names and palace names of Flaubert‘s day have for the most part not changed and can be easily looked up, but then many nineteeth century books are “illustrated” for us in this way.

10. The coda is lovely.

Фредерик Моро прожил пустую жизнь. У него было много шансов и стать богатым, и быть счастливым в любви, но все не складывалось. Он с одной стороны, был достаточно одарен, но всем его занятиям мешала лень, непоследовательность, неспособность завершить начатое, пассивность. Даже учиться он сам не мог, потребовался репетитор. В описываемый период он встречался с тремя женщинами сразу, плюс морочил голову богатой невесте Луизе Рокк из Ножана. Но любил только одну - Мари Арну, любил платонически, не надеясь на взаимность, всегда финансово выручая ее мужа, склонного к мошенническим сделкам.
В дни революции, он оставался равнодушным к судьбам родины, хотя предпринимал слабые попытки "заняться политикой", оставаясь для рабочих аристократом. Это, в общем-то, понятно. Кто же пойдет за человеком, который не озабочен проблемами протестующих, а на волне народного гнева думает о личных карьерных планах? В целом, Фредерик не вызывает больших симпатий, несмотря на верность и Мари Арну, и своему другу Делорье. Его любовь была полигамна, раз госпожа Арну не пришла, то со злости он зовёт Розанетту. Женщины для него - размен��ая монета. Дружба с Делорье тоже омрачена предпочтением отдать деньги Арну с очевидным невозвратом, чем на помощь другу. Понятно, что у него на это есть полное право. Самым лучшим воспоминанием в своей жизни Моро и Делорье с грустью констатируют тот день, когда они, еще юные, наивные провинциалы, нарвали цветов и пошли с букетами в бордель, где их осмеяли.
Я начала рецензию с резюмирования о пустой жизни Фредерика. Но чем же обусловилась пустота? Ничтожностью целей - материальное благополучие, карьера, мимолетные сексуальные утехи, любовь, которая была самообманом - ему не хватило решимости бороться за нее. Эти ценности не выдерживают испытания временем и остается ощущение разрушенных надежд. А скажите, пожалуйста, сколько людей живут в погоне за подобными целями? Этот роман ставит вопрос - для чего жить? Жить, чтобы не прожить ее впустую.
В романе есть интересные второстепенные персонажи, например, мадемуазель Ватназ, которая олицетворяет предшественницу феминизма, во всяком случае, ее высказывания имеют отчетливый феминистский вектор.
В целом, Флобер нарисовал читателю картину французского общества накануне и в период буржуазной революции 1848 года, настроения, дух эпохи, общественной психологии и нравов.

An exhausting thrill-ride through the zany world of womanising socialite Frédéric, or—for the first 300 pages, at least—wannabe womanising socialite Frédéric. Because Frédéric can’t make it happen with his mate Arnoux’s missus, nor his mate Arnoux’s mistress, this frustration is the bane of his existence as he falls in and out of money, society and love. Against the backdrop of the 1848 Paris uprising this novel heaves with ornate descriptive grandeur, political commentary and violence, a frenetic comic energy, and more love triangles than the HMS Hefner in Bermuda. A classic that delights, frustrates, amuses and teases in equal measure—what more could you ask for? Sex? Well, there’s no sex. You have sex on the brain, you do. Take a cold shower.

(Book 858 from 1001 books) - L'Éducation sentimentale = Sentimental Education, Gustave Flaubert

Sentimental Education is a novel by Gustave Flaubert.

Considered one of the most influential novels of the 19th century, it was praised by contemporaries such as George Sand and Emile Zola, but criticized by Henry James.

The story focuses on the romantic life of a young man at the time of the French Revolution of 1848.

تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز پانزدهم ماه آوریل سال 2009میلادی

عنوان: تربیت احساسات؛ نویسنده: گوستاو فلوبر؛ مترجم: مهدی سحابی؛ تهران، نشر مرکز، 1380؛ در632ص؛ شابک9643056465؛ چاپ دوم سال1385؛ سوم و چهارم 1388؛ شابک9789643056469؛ پنجم 1389؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان فرانسه - سده 19م

عنوان: تربیت احساسات (مکتب عشق، یا سرگذشت یک جوان)؛ نویسنده: گوستاو فلوبر؛ مترجم: فروغ شهاب؛ تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر، 1349؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، علمی فرهنگی، 1395، در بیست و241ص؛ شابک9786004360555؛

بر خلاف «مادام بوواری» که در زمان انتشار، بسیار دل انگیز و نامدار بود، بسیاری از هم‌دوره های «فلوبر»، «تربیت احساسات» را، شکستی ادبی دانستند، و اثر را از «دیدگاه اخلاقی» زننده؛ و از «دیدگاه سیاسی» کژاندیشانه، دانستند؛ این اثر سال‌ها در سایه ی درخشندگی «مادام بوواری» چشم به راه میماند، تا اینکه ناقدان آثار این دوران، ارزش ادبی «تربیت احساسات» را، دوباره پیدا میکنند؛ اثری احساسی و شخصی است، که در آن احساسات با شرح رویدادهای تاریخی، در هم می‌آمیزند، بازگشایی دلسردی‌هایی فردی، و نیز در واگویی یاس، و پژمردگی اجتماعی، در پی زوال توهم‌هایی که انگیزه ی تکانه های انقلاب بودند، نوشتارهای خیال بسیار درخشان هستند

شخصیت اصلی داستان، جوانی به نام «فردریک مورو» است، که در سفر خویش، با بانویی شوهردار به نام «ماری آنجل» آشنا، و دلباخته ی او میگردد؛ «فردریک» که ساکن شهری کوچک است؛ عمویی ثروتمند در «پاریس» دارد، و امیدوار هست تا از عمو به او ارث برسد؛ «فردریک» وارث ثروت عموی خویش شده، به «پاریس» میرود، و با خانواده ی «ماری آنجل» رفت و آمد میکند، و وارد زندگی «آنجل» میشود، اما از آنجایی که «ماری آنجل» زنی نجیب است؛ «فردریک» برای رسیدن به ایشان، شانسی ندارد، پس سرخورده از آن پیشامد، به سوی زنی بی بند و بار به نام «رزانت» کشیده میشود؛ «رزانت» زیباست و «فردریک» را دوست میدارد، و خواهان زندگی با اوست، اما «فردریک» نمیتواند «ماری آنجل» را فراموش کند، همچنین او کوشش دارد برای بدست آوردن ثروت، با بیوه ای «انگلیسی» پیمان ببندد، اما به یکباره، زمانی که متوجه میشود «ماری» پنهانی از آن شهر فرار کرده، و برای همیشه رفته است، او نیز هم «رزانت» و هم بیوه ی ثروتمند «انگلیسی» را رها میکند؛ سرانجام زمانی که «فردریک» به میانسالی میرسد؛ «ماری» به دیدن او میآید، و بگذشته ها را با هم مرور میکنند، و از او خداحافظی میکند؛ نویسنده در این کتاب در کنار عاشقانه ها، به رویدادهای تاریخی کشور فرانسه ی آن دوران و پژمردگیهای اجتماعی نیز میپردازند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 17/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 13/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

Ho letto l’ultima riga, ho chiuso il libro e sono stata colta da un’improvvisa tristezza, profonda come poche altre volte. Al contempo, però, sono soddisfatta perché ho letto un libro che non può non essere letto, imperdibile. E da ora in poi ne consiglierò a tutti la lettura. E’ “IL ” romanzo, per me. Perfetto, stupendo in ogni sua pagina, in ogni riga. Un mondo racchiuso in poco più di 500 pagine.
C’è il mondo di Frédéric Moreau, uno studente diciottenne che, intorno al 1840, lascia Parigi per tornare nel suo paese nativo, Nogent sur Seine, e nel battello lungo la Senna incontra colei che diverrà in un attimo il "grande amore" della sua vita, Madame Arnoux, la donna che dalla prima pagina del romanzo fino all’ultima, occupa i pensieri del protagonista, il quale, alla fine del romanzo, divenuto adulto
“Viaggiò.
Conobbe la malinconia dei piroscafi, i freddi risvegli sotto la tenda, la vertigine dei paesaggi e delle rovine, l’amarezza delle simpatie troncate.
Ritornò.
Frequentò la società, ed ebbe altri amori ancora. Ma il ricordo incessante del primo glieli rendeva insulsi: e poi la veemenza del desiderio, la freschezza stessa delle sensazioni era perduta. Anche le sue ambizioni intellettuali erano appassite. Passarono anni; e lui sopportava l’inoperosità dell’intelligenza e l’inerzia del cuore.”
Con queste parole Flaubert sintetizza una vita: un’esistenza fatta di desideri, di speranze, che riempiono la giovinezza e che si perdono per strada, nel corso delle variegate esperienze che la vita sottopone, appassiscono e muoiono rivelandosi illusioni e alla fine il ricordo tutto sopisce e spegne. Così è Frédéric: un irresoluto, volubile ed inetto, con tante belle idee per la testa e tante belle parole che rimangono tali, senza tradursi in azioni nè in sentimenti.Così come i suoi amici, giovani della sua generazione, idealisti e irresoluti, che insieme con il protagonista attraversano gli anni dei moti rivoluzionari adeguandosi al vento che tira; così come i ricchi borghesi parigini, che si sono arricchiti con la monarchia ma che, al primo anelito di idee rivoluzionarie, si buttano a capofitto nella nuova repubblica da fondare, cambiando le loro idee e i loro pensieri come bandiere al vento; così come le giovani mantenute che vivono in eleganti case pagate dagli amanti, che ogni giorno dichiarano il loro “amore”a un uomo diverso, a seconda dell’ampiezza o meno del portafogli.
C’è il genere umano nel suo aspetto più meschino, mediocre e codardo destinato a fallire, esaminato da Flaubert con occhio critico mai esente da ironia, che non solo si alterna a momenti di grandi liricità ma addirittura si inserisce nei toni romantici, con effetti ridicolizzanti, per evidenziare ancora di più come il sentimento amoroso, cui tutti aneliamo, non sia altro che una mera illusione. E dunque, l’educazione sentimentale del protagonista non può che avere termine laddove è iniziata, in un bordello frequentato goliardicamente in età adolescenziale dal protagonista e dal suo amico Deslauriers: “è la cosa migliore che abbiamo avuto!”.

Flaubert said of "L'Education Sentimentale": "I want to write the moral history of the men of my generation; "sentimental" would be more accurate. It is a book of love, of passion; but of desire such as 'it can exist, i.e. inactive ". I find that this paragraph perfectly illustrates the book's idea, namely that Flaubert offers us a book of Passions through this story, and who says Passions also says Suffering.
Indeed, the author sets up a wide range of characters, each more passionate than the other, and this by their actions or their ambitions: whether it is the fiery and sublime Passion between Frédéric Moreau and Mme Arnoux - but also carnal love with Rosanette, or interested with Mme Dambreuse, which nonetheless both remain passionate loves -, or that of Deslauriers for his career and glory, that of Arnoux for Money and Beauty, that of Pilgrim for Art.
But, like the silent and impossible love between the hero and Madame Arnoux, we see that each individual's search for the ideal and happiness is in vain. Moreover, in the novel's last pages, Frédéric and Deslauriers dwell on their past and note their failure: "And they summed up their life. They both missed it, the one who had dreamed of love [ Frédéric], the one who dreamed of power [Deslauriers]."
Not having heard, a priori, that novel's praise by Flaubert, I opened this book with many apprehensions and the fear of being bored during this reading. But it does not. There is nothing in the end! Of course, there are many lengths, but I enjoyed this read despite that. Fans of Flaubert's style will certainly not be disappointed by "L 'Éducation Sentimentale."

Best book I read in April 2021

“Yo había creído, cuando llegó la Revolución, que seríamos felices. ¿Se acuerda usted qué hermoso era aquello? ¡Qué bien se respiraba! Pero estamos peor que nunca.”

Esta novela me ha sorprendido mucho. Por una parte, porque hallé en ella más de lo que pensaba encontrarme. Y es que en cada sinopsis que leo casi siempre dice lo mismo: el interés amoroso que persigue Frédéric Moreau, un estudiante de primer año de derecho, hacia la señora Arnoux, una mujer casada, a quien conoce en una embarcación y de quien se enamora instantáneamente; y es verdad, ese es el hilo principal de la novela, pero en parte.

Yo diría que alrededor de la mitad del libro se centra en mostrarnos la situación política, social, y en algunos casos económica y cultural, en la que se encontraba Francia en el periodo en que se desarrolla la obra (desde 1840 hasta la Revolución de 1848 y unos cuantos años posteriores).
Me atrevo a decir, bajo mi punto de vista, que la historia de amor de nuestro protagonista es una excusa para hilar una crítica social, siendo más específico, a la sociedad parisina de dicha época. Una excusa perfecta, en mi opinión, porque cumple con la función de hacer un símil con la realidad que se vivía en esos momentos.

También se tocan puntos que conciernen a la educación superior y la postura de los estudiantes, por ejemplo, la huelga estudiantil, que si me pongo a pensar, los motivos que la provocaban no varían mucho a los que se dan en la actualidad.

Además, Frédéric se encuentra conviviendo entre dos mundos: por un lado hacia ciertas personas que conoce a través del banquero Dambreuse, individuos de la clase privilegiada y con buenas oportunidades; por otro lado, su grupo de amigos y conocidos, en especial Deslauriers, Sénécal, y Hussonnet, quienes tienen un par de ideas que cuestionan la vida y costumbres de los grupos privilegiados y la burguesía.

No es una novela que se lea rápido, incluso en algunas partes me tomaba mi tiempo al leerlas porque tenía que buscar nombres, lugares o simplemente el contexto histórico en el que se estaba dando una situación específica.

Lo que vale totalmente la pena, y la razón por la que Flaubert está entre mis tres autores favoritos, es indudablemente la narrativa. Su manera de escribir, su vasto número de descripciones a través del libro, son en mi opinión, difíciles de superar y la mejor parte de toda la novela. Por ejemplo, en la edición que yo leí hay una página, la 127, en la que Frédéric describe su sentir hacia la señora Arnoux, y desde que leí eso presentí que muy probablemente se convertiría en una de mis mejores lecturas del año.

Asimismo, no puedo permitirme dejar de lado la tercera parte, la que para mí, es la mejor y por sí sola, es la que más nos sitúa en el contexto histórico que gira entorno a nuestros personajes; ahora, siendo más específico, el final del cuarto capítulo, y todo el capítulo cinco... me es imposible describir todo lo que me hicieron sentir, además del sabor agridulce y los ‘pelos de punta’ durante la lectura, pero desde Moby Dick que un par de capítulos no me impactaban tanto.

Por mencionar otro punto, el final me pareció totalmente redondo; no deja ningún hueco sin rellenar, ni siquiera la ‘cabeza de vaca’ (al leerlo sabrán a qué me refiero).

En general, creo que si amaste Madame Bovary, recomiendo leer esta novela (no se parece en nada en cuanto a trama, pero sí comparte similitudes en la escritura). Si no te gustó Madame Bovary —en especial por la manera de estar escrita—, o te fue indiferente, mejor pensarlo dos veces.

P.S. No cabe la menor duda de que tendré que reencontrarme con esta obra dentro de unos cuantos años.

In the letter to his mistress, Louise Colet, Gustav Flaubert wrote:

“There are, literally speaking, two distinct people within me. The one is in love with bombast, lyricism, great eagle-like flights, sonorities of phrasing and the grandest of ideas; the other scratches and digs down into the truth as far as he can, loves acknowledging a humble fact just as much as a large one, wants to make you almost physically feel the things he shows you; this latter one loves to laugh, and delights in the animality of the human being.”

In this novel, both Flauberts work in a fabulous ensemble and achieve a very special result. I personally fell for attraction of Flaubert-2. There were many moments in this book he succeeded in making me “physically feel the things he showed”. He has infected me with the poetry of “a humble” moments as well as multitudes those moments tend to contained.

As a result, there will be a lot of quoting Flaubert in what follows as i just cannot restrain myself in my delight of his way with the words. For example, Paris:

“Pink clouds were floating like scarves above the rooftops; the awnings of the shops were being rolled up; water-carts were pouring a fine rain on the dust; and an unusual freshness was mingling with the smells from the cafés, where, through the open doors, between the silver and gilt decorations, bouquets of flowers could be seen reflected in the tall mirrors”.

This is timeless. It is a moment I could have enjoyed while in Paris almost two centuries later. Flaubert manages to make this image very vivid, very poignant and totally complete: it cannot be bettered by adding or taking a way a single word.

Another moment comes just after a insurrection was brutally put down on the streets:

“An old man in his shirtsleeves was weeping at an open window, his eyes raised towards the sky. The Seine was flowing peacefully by. The sky was blue; birds were singing in the trees of the Tuileries.”

This contrast of a crying old man versus blue sky and singing birds tells much more about the tragedy in one sentence compared to endless paragraphs of detailed descriptions someone else might have required. There is something of Chekhov in this phrase. Only Chekhov came later of course; so very likely this comparison should work other way.

But the main tool of Flaubert-2 is irony. The whole edifice of this novel is an exercise on the whole spectrum from the mildly comic to angry, sad or grotesque.

His reconstructions of various social gatherings are incredibly astute and very funny. They also have not dated at all in spite of internet age, post-truth, AI, etc. He describes parties, political meetings, banker’s dinners and a lot more. Other writers would create these scenes in a way that I would usually diligently skip. Not Flaubert. A costumed party given by a famous courtesan ends as follows:

“The Angel was still in the dining-room, tucking into a mixture of butter and sardines; and the Fishwife, sitting beside her, was smoking cigarettes and giving her advice about life. At last the cabs arrived and the guests left...But the Angel, a prey to the first symptoms of indigestion, could not get up. The Medieval Knight carried her to the cab. ‘Mind her wings!’ shouted the Stevedore through the window. On the landing Mademoiselle Vatnaz said to Rosanette: ‘Goodbye, my dear! It was a lovely party!’”

Some of those people were also present in this room, but in a different capacity, one might hope:

“There were a great many grey heads and wigs; here and there a bald pate glistened; and the faces, which were either flushed or very pale, revealed in their degeneration the traces of an immense weariness, for the men there were mostly in politics or business.”

The one of the funniest episode is a duel. Duel has been a trope of the European literature since the 17th century at least. It is always a tragedy, tragic mistake, an honourable act. Not in Flaubert hands. He subverts it revealing all the absurd of this tradition. In this novel, the duel is a comic farce with both participants look pathetic for different reasons, and no one gets hurt. Someone said that the distance between the great and the pathetic is really a single step. I was thinking about it a lot while reading this novel.

Occasionally his irony is getting angrier:

"She was one of those Parisian spinsters who, every evening, when they have given their lessons, or tried to sell their little drawings or place their pitiful manuscripts, go home with mud on their petticoats, cook their dinner, eat it all alone, and then, with their feet on a foot-warmer, by the light of a smoking lamp, dream of a love-affair, a family, a home, a fortune – all the things they haven’t got. Consequently, like many others, she had greeted the Revolution as the harbinger of revenge; she was devoting herself passionately to Socialist propaganda. According to Mademoiselle Vatnaz, the emancipation of the proletariat was possible only through the emancipation of women....And seeing that the Government did not recognize their rights, they would have to conquer force by force. Ten thousand citizenesses, armed with good muskets, could make the Hôtel de Ville tremble.”

One could say Flaubert is merciless. But i found this ability to laugh at serious issues a very valuable skill. Sometimes I feel it has been lost in some examples of our contemporary debates and also in literature. Can this loss be a side effect of achievement the wider democratisation of the western society in the last century or so? I doubt it follows. At least i hope not necessary. We still should be able to laugh.

In extreme, Flaubert skilfully utilises the bombshell of grotesque:

“In the entrance-hall, standing on a pile of clothes, a prostitute was posing as a statue of Liberty, motionless and terrifying, with her eyes wide open."

Who can create more powerful and meaningful symbolism than a prostitute as a statue of Liberty. This symbol still has not lost its actuality and probably never will.

“Sentimental education” the main character, Frederic, gets through his life cannot escape the ironic gaze either. A few decades after the novel, Joris-Karl Huysmans said that the novel genre was somewhat in a crisis in the 60s as it mainly addressed “why did Monsieur So-and-So commit (or fail to commit) adultery with Madame So-and-So;”. On the surface this is exactly this novel. We are evidencing the shenanigans of Frederic between several women that are becoming (shenanigans, not women; but they are also actually) progressively more cynical and difficult to manage. Flaubert shows how the society and simple fact of experiencing life manages to “mould” an idealistic youth into a disillusioned man. But the irony is that he just about manages to get hold of an ideal. And when he faces the last and only chance to test it with reality, he choses not to do it. And his motivation, it seems, is pretty egoistic.

However, it is not only Flaubert-2 does heavy lifting. Flaubert-1 has also works hard. The novel is meticulously researched. Apparently, it took Flaubert more than five years to write it. He checked and researched all details including into the novel including production processes, political events, even shoes and type of china used. However, the research is never “sticking out from the stitches” or become an “information dump” as it is often happens in the novels written in our age. The dialogues of his characters discussing contemporary ideas sound like conversation not like a lecture in politics. These people were the children of the French revolution. By itself they’ve lived through the unrest of 1848-51; the majority have participated in it in some form or another. All of this forms the part of “big canvas” by Flaubert-1. However, interestingly, many of these debates and even the language of their discourse would not be out of place in our time.

This is the conversation between Frederic and his friend. To keep it nuanced, i will need a lengthy quote:

‘Because, just like the manufacturers who want to exclude foreign goods, these gentlemen (workers and other lower classes) demand the expulsion of all workers from England, Germany, Belgium, and Savoy. As for their intelligence, what good did their famous guilds do them under the Restoration? In 1830 they joined the National Guard, without even having the sense to get control of it! And, as soon as ’ 48 was over, didn’t the trade unions appear again with their own special banners? They even wanted their own representatives in the Chamber, who would have spoken just for them! Just like the beetroot deputies who never worry about anything but beetroot! Oh, I’ve had enough of those fellows! First they grovelled in front of Robespierre’s scaffold, then it was the Emperor’s boots, and after that Louis-Philippe’s umbrella. Scum, that’s what they are, always ready to serve anybody who’ll stuff their mouths with bread! People are always condemning the venality of Talleyrand and Mirabeau; but the messenger downstairs would sell his country for fifty centimes if you promised him a tariff of three francs for every errand he ran! Oh, what a mess we’re in! We ought to have set fire to every corner of Europe!’

Frédéric replied: ‘The spark was missing. You were just a lot of little shopkeepers at heart, and the best of you were doctrinaires. As for the workers, they’ve got every reason to complain; for apart from a million taken from the Civil List, which you granted them with the vilest flattery, you’ve given them nothing but fine phrases. The wages book remains in the employer’s hands, and the employee, even before the law, is still inferior to his master, because nobody takes his word. Altogether, the Republic strikes me as out of date. Who knows? Perhaps progress can only be achieved through an aristocracy or a single man. The initiative always comes from above. The people are still immature, whatever you may say.’

The debate is still ongoing it seems. But hopefully they are both wrong, at least partly in their conclusions.

This is the novel to revitalise my tainted belief that realism can be exciting and delightful if it is done by a great artist. However, I want to finish with Flaubert’s dream. In the one of his letters, he wrote:

“What seems beautiful to me, what I would most like to write, is a book about nothing, a book that is connected to nothing outside itself, one that would be held together strictly by the strength of its style, just like the earth which, hanging suspended in space, depends on nothing external to support it; a book that would have almost no subject, or at least one where the subject would be nearly invisible, if it could be done. The finest works are those that contain the least matter; the closer that the expression comes to the thought, the closer language comes to coinciding and blending into it, the more beautiful. I believe that the future of Art lies in this direction. .. This is why there is no such thing as an elevated or a degraded subject, and why one could almost set it up as an axiom that from the point of view of pure Art, there is no subject, style being in itself an absolute way of seeing things.”

I am not sure Flaubert has written such a book himself. But he has created the space. And in the 20th centuries the others like abstract visual artists and the writers like Borges, Beckett and Kafka could fill it in.

Finished. What an achievement. Writing it, not reading it.

I marvel that he has written a book with no character for which one could have a shred of sympathy and yet somehow we sit there caring what happens. I mean, really caring, reading through breakfast caring.

I kept thinking of The Great Gatsby when Nick says to Jay "They're a rotten crowd...You're worth the whole damn bunch put together." and isn't that what makes the book work, that there is somebody worthy of our caring. But here there isn't one character to redeem the story and yet, even so, even though they are rotten without exception, still Flaubert gets you to care. Amazing.

And then again, I marvel that the book is a complete shambles -

The rest is here.....

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpres...

آغازگر رمان مدرن

عصاره و فشرده‌ی تربیت احساست در دو کلمه قابل بیان هست:
شکست
سردرگمی
فلوبر که کوله باری از شهرت رو از بابت نوشتن مادام بوواری به دوش می‌کشید پنج سال ممتد درگیر نگارش تربیت احساسات بود و اغلب روزها حداکثر حجمی که نگارش کرده بود به زحمت به یک صفحه می‌رسید. بلافاصله بعد از انتشار اغلب مخاطبین و منتقدین نتیجه‌ی کار رو چیزی جز شکست نویسنده نمی‌دونستند. همینطور که هنوز هم مخاطبین اندکی دست به تحسین فلوبر می‌زنند. قسمت مهیج این برخورد سرد و مخرب اینجاست که فلوبر کاملا منتظر این وقایع بود و فرجام کارش رو به خوبی پیش‌بینی کرد.
در مقدمه مترجم می‌خونیم:

هانری سه‌آر، یکی از دوستان فلوبر، تعریف می‌کند که روزی در برابر ستایشی که او از کتاب تربیت احساسات کرد فلوبر اول شگفتی نشان داد، و سپس برایش توضیح داد که چرا گمان می‌کرد که خواننده عام این کتاب او را به راحتی مادام بوواری نپذیرد. به گفتۀ او، فلوبر با دو دستش در هوا شکل یک هرم را ترسیم کرد و گفت:«کتاب من این کار را نمی‌کند، هرم نمی‌سازد. خواننده کتاب‌هایی می‌خواهد که به توهم‌هایش دامن بزنند و آن‌ها را خوش بیایند، در حالی که تربیت احساسات عکس این‌کار می‌کند.» و با دستش هرم وارونه‌ای ترسیم کرد که حفره‌ای پدید می‌آورد و همۀ رویاها و توهم های خواننده را به کام می‌کشید.

اما دغدغه فکری فلوبر چه چیزی بود که موجب بوجود اومدن این حفره شد؟
فلوبر در نامه‌ای به ژرژ ساند نوشت:

«هر چه می‌کشیم از بلاهت بی‌نهایت است. کی می‌شود که از شر گمانه‌زنی‌های تهی و ایده‌های همه‌گیر رهایی یابیم؟ هر چه را می‌خوانیم، بدون بحث می‌پذیریم. مردم به جای آزمودن شنیده‌ها، مدام اظهار فضل می‌کنند. عنوان ثانویه‌ی کتابی که دارم رویش کار می‌کنم «دایره‌المعارف بلاهت انسان» است، عنوانی که می‌تواند خودم را هم به زیر بکشد و مرا جزوی از موضوعش کند.»

تربیت احساسات شباهت چندانی با رمان های منتشر شده در عصر خودش نداره. همین تفاوت‌ها باعث عدم اقبالش شد. مهمترین تفاوت شاید عدم وجود خطی مستقیم و مشخص در روایت هست. منظورم پرش‌های متعدد زمانی یا مکانی نیست، بلکه داستان مرکز و محور ثابتی نداره. در واقع موضوع شفاف و روشنی هم نداره. بله ما داستان جوانی به نام فردریک رو پیش رو داریم و شکست های متعددی که در زندگی گریبانش رو می‌گیره که بی شباهت به فلوبر نیست اما این تنها قطره‌ای از دریاست و خلاصه سازی داستان به این راحتی قابل انجام نیست.
نقل قولی از خود فلوبر هم مهر تایید بر این حقیقت هست که این کتاب درباره هیچ هست. جایی که به معشوقه‌اش لوئیز کوله می‌نویسه که آرزو دارد:

کتابی درباره هیچ بنویسد. کتابی که خود به خود در هوا معلق بماند.

تفاوت بسیار مهم بعدی راوی نامرئی هست. با دقت در متن نامه فلوبر به ساند به صراحت می‌بینیم که فلوبر از اظهار فضل و گمانه زنی های سطحی کلافه بود. از طرفی قصد داشت حقیقت رو عیناّ و بی طرفانه بنویسه و خودش رو به هیچ وجه وارد داستان نکنه تا مشغول تفسیر و بسط تفکراتش باشه. چرا که عقیده داشت راوی نباید دخالتی در نتیجه گیری خواننده از داستان داشته باشه. به طور خلاصه می‌شه گفت فلوبر به عنوان یک مشاهده‌گر فقط مشاهداتش رو مکتوب کرده و از تهیه لقمه آماده صرف‌نظر کرد. ولی آیا خواننده کاملا رها شده؟ قطعا که خیر. کار درخشان فلوبر بسترسازی مناسب برای قرار دادن مخاطب در موقعیتی هست که برخلاف گذشته و سنت‌های پیشین و بدون نصیحت و پند دادن مستقیم میزان درک پذیری خواننده رو تا حداکثر بالا ببره. چون طبق عقیده اون دانستن بطور مستقیم با رفتار انسان در رابطه نیست و کوهی از دانسته‌ها سنخیتی با حماقت نداره و شرط کافی کاهش حماقت نیست. به عبارتی خواستن توانستن نیست.
و نکته پایانی در تفاوت‌ها عدم وجود یک گلوگاه یا نقطه عطف هست. بطور دقیق‌تر داستان حول یک نقطه اوج پی‌ریزی نشده تا با افزایش تصاعدی هیجان و بالابردن ضربان خواننده از همراهی اون اطمینان حاصل کنه اما خالی از نقاط اکسترمم هم نیست. به جای یک نقطه اکسترمم مطلق چندین نقطه اکسترمم نسبی کارگذاری شده که اوج درخشش فلوبر هست. اون با هوش و استعداد بی‌نظیر با نزدیک شدن خواننده به نقاط اوج عامدانه مسیر داستان رو مختل می‌کنه تا از جهت جدیدی به اوج نزدیک بشیم که بازهم نتیجه‌ای جز انحراف نداره. پر واضح هست که فلوبر با لبخندی شیطانی از این کار لذت می‌بره که مدام مانع خواننده در رسیدن به پاسخ مورد نظرش بشه.

فشرده داستان
در میانه سال 1840 فردریک سوار بر یک کشتی هست که به زودی ساحل پاریس رو ترک می‌کنه تا بعد از پایان تحصیلات مدرسه و ناامید از دیدار عمویی که از ارثش سهمی نخواهد داشت به خونه برگرده. در بین مسافران کشتی زنی متاهل و زیبا حضور داره که فردریک در یک نگاه بهش علاقه‌مند می‌شه(مادام آرنو). بعد از رسیدن به مقصد و گذر زمان این حس علاقه‌مندی رو به فراموشی می‌ره تا اینکه چندماه بعد با بازگشت به پاریس و شروع تحصیل در حقوق و بالارفتن درگیری‌ها و هیجانات در مخالفت با حکومت فرانسه فردریک در حال پرسه زدن در شهر بطور اتفاقی با تابلویی از یک فروشگاه محصولات هنری برخورد می‌کنه که روی اون نام آرنو چشمک می‌زنه.
فردریک مدتها در تلاش برای رابطه سازی و دوستی مصلحتی با افرادی هست که به خانواده آرنو نزدیک‌ترند. بلکه با این ترفند و ورود به این حلقه برای دیدار مرتب عشقش مانعی سر راهش نباشه. این نقشه تا مراتبی ادامه پیدا می‌کنه که فردریک تصمیم به یادگرفتن نقاشی می‌گیره و با خرید ابزار و لوازم و استخدام استاد وارد این مسیر می‌شه و کمی بعد مثل تحصیل در دانشگاه ملال‌آور به نظرش میاد و رهاش می‌کنه.
در خلال یک مهمانی، صحنه‌ای که فردریک تنها تماشاگرش هست امیدواری رو به وصال مادام آرنو در اون زنده می‌کنه. برخلاف ظاهر شیک و بی نقصِ خانواده آرنو فضای داخلی حاکم بر اون متزلزل و پر از چالش های متعدد هست. خیانت های بی پایان آقای آرنو به همسرش و ضعف شدید مالی بارها اونها رو تا مرز جدایی می‌بره.
فردریک هم در مقابل با ورود به حلقه بزرگان و یک خوش شانسی ثروت اندکی رو صاحب می‌شه. اون که در مهاجرت به پاریس آرزوهای بزرگی رو در سر داره و محدود به تصاحب خانم آرنو نیست رفته رفته از مسیر موفقیت و محقق شدن آرزوها دور و دورتر می‌شه.
در همین مسیر فردریک که گوش شنوایی نداره و خودش رو کاملا رها کرده وارد روابط عاشقانه عجیبی می‌شه بلکه خلاُ درونیش رو پرکنه و شکست در وصال عشق اول رو جبران کنه اما بازهم اون‌طور که باید خوشحال و موفق نیست. ثروتش رو خرج پرداخت بدهی های آرنو می‌کنه تا فشار مضاعفی بر خانم آرنو نباشه اما کارساز نیست و بازهم مشکلات ریز و درشتی مانع شکل گیری رابطه بین اونها میشن. نه فقط پول بلکه فردریک به هر ریسمانی که دستش می‌رسه چنگ می‌زنه و شانسش رو قربانی می‌کنه تا نتیجه دلخواه رو بدست بیاره ولی گریزی از سرنوشت نداره.
جامعه فرانسه در عصر تربیت احساسات روز به روز ملتهب‌تر از روز قبل به پیش می‌ره. وضعیت زندگی مردم نابسامان و بلاتکلیف هست چون ارزش‌ها و هنجارهای حاکم بر جامعه در حال زیر و رو شدن و بازتعریف هست. به عبارتی جامعه در سردرگمی دست و پا می‌زنه تا مسیر جدید خودش رو پیدا کنه تا اینکه در 1848 لویی فیلیپ از پادشاهی عزل و جمهوری دوم اعلام شد. به همین جهت جامعه همسو با فردریک سردرگم هست و به جای کمک در خلاص شدن از این وضع به فرورفتن بیشترش در این منجلاب دامن می‌زنه.
بعد از گذشت تقریبا بیست سال زنگ خانه فردریک به صدا درمیاد و پشت در کسی نیست جز خانم آرنو. حالا که مانعی پیش‌رو نیست و خانم آرنوی سفید مو به ��ردریک پیشنهاد ازدواج می‌ده با جواب رد رو‌به‌رو می‌شه.

فردریک و احساساتش
فردریک به عنوان نقش اصلی در داستان حضور داره که شمایل کامل یک ضد قهرمان موفق رو داره اما اغلب شخصیت های اصلی و حتی گذرا در روند داستان تاثیرگذاری غیرقابل انکاری دارند و صرفا نظاره‌گر و سیاه لشکر نیستند. یکی از مهمترین افراد نزدیکترین دوست فردریک، دلوریه است که دوستی اونها به دوران کودکی برمی‌گرده و نقش مقابل فردریک رو به عهده داره. شخصی که در عین دوستی عمیق با فردریک بارها به علت کدورت ازش فاصله‌ای طولانی مدت گرفته. اگر فردریک نمادی از یک شخص پایبند به تصمیمات احساسی در نظر گرفته بشه دلوریه نمادی از یک شخص پایبند به منطق هست. سرنوشت هردو چیزی جز شکست نیست و از نقاط و لحظات تاریک متعددی پر شده. در واقع در کنار فردریک و مادام آرنو، دلوریه به نوعی در پله سوم سلسله شخصیت های این کتاب هست و مشابه فردریک شخصیتی نامتعادل و صفر و صدی همینطور که دلوریه در آخرین خطوط تربیت احساسات در پاسخ به فردریک که «چرا به اینجا رسیدیم؟» گفت:

من زیادی منطقی بودم و تو زیادی احساساتی.

هر دو به دلیل ناکامی‌شون پی بردن ولی بسیار دیر و بعد از مرگ سهراب. یادآور یکی از رباعیات خیام عزیز که می‌گه:

قومی متفکرند در مذهب و دین، قومی به گمان فتاده در راه یقین
می‌ترسم از آنکه بانگ آید روزی، کای بی‌خبران راه نه آن است و نه این

احساساتی بودن فردریک رو می‌تونیم هم‌ارز بدونیم با تأثیرپذیریش و در ادامه تقلید از اطرافیانی که همواره مورد تحسینش هستند. یکه‌تاز این جمع آقای آرنو هست که در برخورد اول کاملا فردریک رو مسحور خودش می‌کنه در کنار اینکه به عنوان همسر خانم آرنو به موفقیتی دست پیدا کرده که آرزوی اون هست. پس بیشترین تأثیرپذیری فردریک از آرنو سرچشمه می‌گیره و به جایی می‌رسه که معشوقه آرنو رو تصاحب می‌کنه و در همین بین در مهیای خیانت به اون با شروع رابطه با فرد ثالثی هست. در همین مسیر و مصائبش، طی سالها فرآیند تربیت احساسات فردریک رخ می‌ده و البته که باید در پایان این مسیر پاسخ اون به خانم آرنو همین باشه که در داستان رخ داد. قاطعانه خیر!

فردریک مورو = گوستاو فلوبر
با کندوکاو در زندگی فلوبر شباهت های زیادی رو بین فردریک با اون می‌بینیم که اتفاقی نیست. با داستانی روبه‌رو هستیم که پر از نکات اتوبیوگرافیک هست و شکل گیری شخصیت‌ها و وقایع با الهام گیری از تجربیات زیسته‌اش انجام شد.
فردریک تقریبا هم سن فلوبر هست. در زمان وقوع داستان با مهاجرت از شهر محل زندگیش به عنوان دانشجوی حقوق ساکن پاریس شد و بعد از گذشت مدتی بدون اتمام دوره تحصیل رو رها کرد. پس به خوبی با سلسله وقایع منجر به انقلاب آشناست چون از نزدیک مشاهده‌گر شلوغی و اغتشاشات بود.
از طرفی روابط عاشقانه فردریک هم شباهت غیرقابل انکاری با حقایق زندگی فلوبر داره. هردو تا انتهای عمر ازدواج نکردند هرچند که درگیر چند رابطه عاطفی و بعضا طولانی مدت شدند. اما در این بین معشوقه‌های شاخص برای هردو خانم هایی بزرگ‌تر و متاهل هستند.
عشق اول فلوبر الیز شلزینگر فردی متاهل بود و سالها بزرگ‌تر از اون که به سرانجام نرسید. طبق نظر اکثر منتقدین الیز الهام‌بخش فلوبر برای شکل دادن به شخصیت مادام آرنو هست. عدم موفقیت فلوبر در رابطه با الیز هرگز مانع دوری اون‌ها نشد و برای مدتی طولانی روابط نزدیک و دوستانه‌ای با اون و همسرش داشت که بازهم انطباق قابل قبولی با احوال فردریک و خانواده آرنو داره.

عنوانی که شاید غلط باشد!
در باب عنوان این رمان بحث های مفصلی شکل گرفته بیشتر به این علت که واژه Sentimentale از انگلیسی وارد فرانسه شده و معنای اون بعد از ورود به فرانسه دچار تغییراتی در جزئیات و مفهوم شد و در زمان استفاده فلوبر از این عنوان مدت قابل توجهی از ورود این لغت سپری نشده بود. پس فضا برای برداشت های متفاوت و متعدد باز شد. یکی از مشهورترین بررسی‌ها مربوط به پروست هست که از این عنوان «عنوانی زیبا به لحاظ استحکام» یاد می‌کنه. در ادامه با شرح بیشتر ادامه می‌‌ده که:

عنوانی بسیار زیبا که از لحاظ دستوری چندان صحیح نیست. اولین اشتباه رمان تربیت احساسات، اشتباهی است در عنوان و مربوط به زبان فرانسوی. این عنوان، عنوانی است مبهم و گنگ چرا که مفهوم تربیت احساس را از آن برداشت می‌کنید. اما برداشت من به گونه‌ای دیگر است: تربیتی صرفا احساساتی که بر اساس آن مربیان در نزد مرد جوانی که مورد تعلیم‌شان است به سراغ چیزی نمی‌روند مگر احساس. پس بی‌راه نیست اگر ادعا کنم این عنوان بیشتر مناسب رمان مادام بواری است، در مورد این قهرمان هیچ شک ندارم که او قربانی تربیتی احساساتی است.*

سخن پایانی
فلوبر خیل عظیمی از تحسین کنندگان رو داره که در بین اونها شاید نویسنده مورد علاقه ما جا گرفته باشه: پروست، زولا، موپاسان، دوده، اورول، پاموک، بارنز و...
آپدیت: کافکا هم ظاهراً از پیروان پروپاقرص فلوبر و تربیت احساسات بوده(بر اساس تذکری که یکی از دوستان کافکا دوست در پیام خصوصی داد!)
آپدیت مجدد: یوسا هم به لیست اضافه کنید.
پ‌ن: دیگه لیست بسته شد!
تربیت احساسات رمان راحتی نیست. سخت نه به معنی زبان ثقیل و طاقت فرسا بلکه شروع کردنش با شماست و پایان دادنش با روزگار. من تقریبا دوماه پروسه خوانش رو بسط دادم و به نظرم این دلیل موفقیتم در نیمه رها نکردنش شد. البته قصدی برای طولانی‌تر کردن این بازه نداشتم و مشغله شدید باعثش شد که الان از بابتش خوشحالم. ذره ذره و راحت جلو رفتم و هرجایی که درگیر ملال می‌شدم به راحتی کتاب رو کنار گذاشتم تا بعد از مدتی دوباره برم سراغش و ادامه بدم.
ترجیحا اگر رمانی از فلوبر نخوندید و احتمال می‌دید بخواید ازش چنداثر بخونید تربیت احساسات رو به صدر لیست منتقل کنید یا از خیرش بگذرید چون مرتب در مقایسه با باقی آثار و ضعیف‌تر دیدنش ازش کلافه و دلسرد خواهید شد. هرچند که تربیت احساسات ضعیف نیست ولی فضای متفاوتی داره و شاید مورد پسند همگان نباشه، چیزی که با برسی چندین ریویو ازش متوجه شدم.
تربیت احساسات اولین مواجهه من با فلوبر بود و حتما بازهم سراغش خواهم رفت.

* تاریخچه یک عنوان - پی‌یر مارک دو بزی ترجمه مهسا بخشایی
هشت دی صفر سه