A "sentimental education" means your first love, and if Frédéric’s not careful he isn’t going to learn shit from it. He’s an aimless, pointless little man, slowly failing to do anything whatsoever with his life. He’s in love with his friend’s wife, and you sortof wish they'd bang just so we'd all have something to watch.

“The story or the plot of a novel is quite indifferent to me,” though, Flaubert said. He wanted real life! He’s the champion of realism, the late 1800s movement away from moral lessons and towards the real world. It’s brilliant in Madame Bovary, his first novel. By the time he finished Sentimental Education 12 years later in 1862 he seems to have remembered something crucial about the real world: its plot is a fucking mess.

Frédéric hems and haws about Madame Arnoux, while having affairs with a trio of other women: a courtesan, the girl next door, a different friend’s wife. They have varying levels of intensity and consummation, from one to….maybe six? Frédéric doesn’t go all the way to ten. Will he get anything going with Madame Arnoux? Certainly not if he’s the one who has to do it. He can’t even get a job.

You hear “merciless” about Flaubert a lot, and I appreciate the mercilessness of this picture. There are a lot of dudes like Frédéric in the world, these Cabbage Patch AirPod holders, and Flaubert’s not going to let any of them get away with it.

But this is a book Henry James thought was boring. Called it “a curiosity for a literary museum.” Let that sink in for a minute, right? Henry James! If you're boring Henry James, you have a real problem. I couldn’t keep any of the male characters straight. The character arc is more like dropped spaghetti. And when Flaubert decided to write about the real world, he meant the real world, like not just what actually happens but what actually happened, and that means you’re getting the intricate details of the Insurrection of June 1848, which isn’t even France’s best revolution.

This isn’t France’s best novel about idle rich idiots fucking each other’s spouses, either. That’s Dangerous Liaisons by a mile. This one has its moments, but mostly it feels as aimless as Frédéric. As aimless as real life, even, and if I wanted that I wouldn’t be reading a book, would I?

Si Emma Bovary était une version féminine et romantique de Don Quichotte, Frédéric Moreau est peut-être une version juvénile, idéaliste et velléitaire de Don Juan. En tout cas, c’est l’un des personnages les plus fascinants de la littérature française ; à la fois portrait semi-autobiographique du jeune Flaubert, amoureux d’Élisa Schlésinger, et dans la lignée d’autres personnages fascinés par l’amour et l’ambition (signes extérieurs de la réussite) : avant lui, Julien Sorel, Rastignac ; après lui, le jeune Marcel de la Recherche.

Voilà donc un provincial qui « monte » à la capitale pour y faire carrière ; et sur le bateau entre Nogent et Paris, il a le typique coup de foudre romantique pour une inconnue, dont la pensée quasi-fétichiste ne le quittera plus par la suite : Marie Arnoux. Dès ce moment, la vie de Frédéric gravite autour d’elle, au travers d’innombrables noces, revers et vicissitudes, en ce mouvement de chute libre tourbillonnante qui ne parvient jamais au but ; et malgré ou à cause de cela, Frédéric deviendra aussi un coureur de jupons invétéré et sans scrupules (Mme Dambreuse, Louise Roque, la Maréchale, la Vatnaz…). Mais qu’importe ces badineries passagères, si cela lui permet d’avancer sa carrière ou gagner de l’argent, puisque c’est l’inaccessible Madame Arnoux qu’il aime et aimera toujours… Le lecteur d’appréciera.

En effet, comme Flaubert le désirait, L’Éducation sentimentale est un faux Bildungsroman, « un livre sur rien », un récit sans climax, ou les entreprises échouent, les paroles tombent à plat, les amours avortent, les duels ne tuent pas, les rendez-vous n’aboutissent pas, les révolutions ratent, les projets s’enlisent, les aventures font fiasco. Et pourtant, dans ce roman, que d’événements, que de personnages, que de rencontres, que d’angoisses, que d’espoirs et que de contrariétés, quelle foultitude de détails anodins de toute sorte ! C’est sans doute l’un des livres les plus ambitieux et les plus denses du post-romantisme français.

Car il s’agit avant tout, pour Flaubert, de peindre une époque, établir « l’histoire morale des hommes de ma génération », c’est-à-dire des hommes qui ont cru aussi bien à l’amour romantique qu’à l’idéal socialiste. La monarchie de Juillet et les soulèvements populaires de 1848, summum des turpitudes bourgeoises et de la stupidité populaire, briseront tous ces idéaux. Et lorsque Flaubert écrit L’Éducation, l’ironie acerbe de sa plume, ses assauts contre la médiocrité et la langue de bois, expriment le désenchantement de l’après coup. Au fond, cette éducation sentimentale de Frédéric Moreau, tout comme l’intoxication romantique d’Emma Bovary, n’est qu’un apprentissage semi-livresque et languissant qui n’aboutit à rien ; et ce « livre sur rien » est en fait un livre ou tout, le romantisme amoureux comme les turbulences de l’histoire, sont tournés en dérision.

Ce qui reste de tout cela, le cœur du roman, c’est sans aucun doute la langue de Flaubert, ses peintures, ses mélodies et ses tempos, les détails qui tuent, les juxtapositions de scènes sans solution de continuité, les ellipses qui sautent par-dessus les époques, les arrêts sur image où se déploient le chatoiement d’une fête, la succulence d’un banquet, la frénésie d’une émeute, la contemplation d’un paysage de campagne, l’éblouissement d’un regard, Paris. Et puis cette fin pathétique, à la fois risible et déchirante... Bref, L’Éducation sentimentale est avant toute autre chose une extase esthétique, l’idéal transmuté ; et Flaubert se trahit à nouveau comme le vieux romantique « encrouté » et sublime qu’il n’a jamais cessé d’être.

Comme souvent, lu en binôme avec Michelle. Qu’elle en soit remerciée.

in una delle scene più youtoubate di manhattan, woody allen colloca l’educazione sentimentale di flaubert al sesto posto, in ordine di comparizione, nell’elenco delle cose per cui vale la pena vivere. per dovere d’inventario, subito dopo i film svedesi («naturalmente») e prima di marlon brando e frank sinatra.
ed è un curioso contrappasso per questo immenso romanzo (e pace se il plot preferisce le slabbrature ai colpi di scena, e se qui dentro non si trova un eroe che sia uno: flaubert aveva in uggia il romanzesco in sé, e ci ha messo 5 anni per creare quest’opera a modo suo. ma ne è uscito, appunto, un immenso romanzo) dicevo che è un curioso contrappasso, la lista in cui allen inserisce l’educazione. perché girata l’ultima pagina, la prima cosa che ragionevolmente ci si chiede è proprio per cosa davvero ha vissuto frédéric moreau. per cosa, se il grande amore della sua vita è rimasto nella categoria miraggio, e se il dialogo che chiude le quasi 500 pagine sancisce che, per la strabenedetta educazione sentimentale del titolo, niente è stato più istruttivo di qualcosa avvenuto prima che tutto iniziasse. qualcosa che sembrava niente, ma aveva in sé l’entusiasmo non ancora corroso dalla disillusione. perché pur essendo stato pensato nella francia di metà dell’800, il protagonista frédéric fa la fine della giovane promessa di arbasiniana definizione. e per tutto il libro noi perdiamo leggerezza e fiducia a palate, insieme a lui.
(detto ciò: più flaubert per tutti, sempre).

فلوبر در یک نامه در 1852 به لوییز کوله می نویسد:

"دوست دارم کتابي بنويسم درباره هيچ، کتابي که بر هيچ چيز بيروني که خارج از خود باشد دلالت نکند، کتابي که بتواند به نيروي دروني سبکش، روي پاي خودش بايستد، درست بدان گونه که کره زمين بي هيچ تکيه گاهي خود را در فضا نگاه دارد... کتابی بی‌هیچ وابستگی به دنیای بیرون، کتابی که به یمن نیروی درونی سبکش، قائم به ذات باشد، همچنان که زمین خود را در خلاء فضا نگه می‌دارد و از هر پایه‌ای بی‌نیاز است، کتابی که کم‌وبیش هیچ موضوعی ندارد، یا دست‌کم موضوع آن نادیدنی است، البته اگر چنین چیزی ممکن باشد...هم از اين رو است که مي گوييم نه موضوع خوب وجود دارد و نه موضوع بد.» «ديگري» يا همان «تکيه گاه» مساله اخلاق است. «اخلاقي» زندگي کردن يعني زندگي مطابق معياري که «ديگري» تعيين مي کند. اين «ديگري» مي تواند ايده ها، اسطوره ها، باورها، جامعه يا حتي منافع معين يک طبقه و... باشد. علاوه بر آن در اخلاق «خوب» يا «بد» يا به عبارت دقيق تر خير و شر وجود دارد و نه برحسب آنچه فرد را خوش آيد يا خوش نيايد. ولي من مي خواهم کتابي بنويسم درباره هيچ که بدون هيچ گونه تکيه گاهي خود را در فضا نگاه دارد، يعني به خود و باورهاي خود و نيروي دروني اش(و نه ديگري) متکي باشد. بنابراين من پيشاپيش قصد نوشتن کتابي را کرده ام که مطابق تعريف گفته شده نمي تواند اخلاقي باشد زيرا به «خود» متکي است و هم از اين رو است که خود نيز بر اين مساله صحه مي گذارم که نه موضوع خوبي وجود دارد و نه موضوع بدي. کل ادبياتي که حاوي درس اخلاقي است، ذاتاً و اساساً کاذب است، از همان لحظه يي که اثبات مي کني، دروغ مي گويي. اول و آخر را خدا مي داند، انسان از وسط خبر دارد هنر مثل خدا بايد در بيکران معلق باشد، در خود کامل باشد، مستقل از خالقش باشد."
هر چند هنگام نوشتن این نامه،فلوبر سرگرم نگارش مادام بوواری بوده ، اما به نظر می‌رسد که در نهایت در "تربیت احساسات" است که تا اندازه به این خواسته‌ خود می رسد و یک رمان مینویسد که می توان گفت موضوع ندارد، یا البته درست تر است که بگویم یک رمان نوشته که موضوع آن نادیدنیست. در مادام بوواری آنچنان که یوسا در عیش مدام می نویسد موضوع کتاب بسیار روشناست. اما فلوبر در تربیت احساسات موفق می‌شود تا در نهایت یک موضوع را بهانه‌ چیزی بکند که در واقع می‌خواهد درباره‌ آن حرف بزند. در مادام بوواری، "اما بوواری" کاراکتر اصلی داستان است و تمام اتفاقها و حادثه ها و حتا تفسیرها ، ارتباط با او می‌شود و به او باز می گردد، اما در تربیت احساسات اینچنین نیست، چرا که "فردریک مورو" هراندازه هم که کاراکتر اصلی داستان باشد، به هیچ وجه آن جایگاه را ندارد که "اما " در مادام بوواری دارد. درواقع "فردریک مورو" بیشتر یک بهانه‌ است برای مشاهده‌ اتفاقها و جریانهایی که در حاشیه‌ زندگی فردریک در جریان هست در حالی که در مادام بوواری هر آنچه که اتفاق می‌افتد پیرامون کاراکتر اصلی هست و به او باز می‌گردد. بنابراین می توان گفت در تربیت احساسات هست که فلوبر موفق می‌شود برای اولین دفعه موضوع اصلی خود را به شیوه جدید روایت کند، آن را در میان کاراکتر فردریک مورو پنهان کند و در نهایت آنچنان که خود می گوید،یک رمان بنویسد که "قائم به ذات" باشد.
"تربیت احساساتی" یا آنچنان که "مهدی سحابی" آنرا "تربیت احساسات" به فارسی برگردان کرده ، داستان "تربیت سانتی‌مانتال" یا "تربیت احساساتی" نسل و جامعه‌ از فرانسه را نشان می‌دهد که خواسته‌ها و اهداف راستین خود را فراموش کرده و درگیر احساسات خود شده و چشمان خود را بر واقعیت کشور خود بسته است.
تربیت احساسات داستان زندگی "فردریک مورو" یک جوان احساساتی ‌هست که به طور اتفاق با خانواده‌ آقای "ژاک آرنو" آشنا می‌شود و دلباخته خانم آرنو می شود. "فردریک" که در ابتدای رمان یک جوان بامصمم، با اراده و با آرزوهای بزرگ تصویر شده است، کم‌کم از خواسته‌های خود دست می‌کشد و درگیر ماجراها و احساست که با خانم آرنو دارد، تمام آن‌ها را فراموش می‌کند. در نهایت،‌ فردریک که پیش از این به تحصیلات دانشگاهی‌ خود در رشته�� حقوق و همچنین نویسندگی علاقه‌ی زیادی داشته است و حتا همیشه می‌خواسته وزیر بشود، به هیچ‌کدام از آرزوها و خواسته‌های گذشته‌ خود نمی‌رسد و زندگی‌ او تمام در راه احساسات می رود. در همان حال، یعنی در همان‌ سال‌هایی که فردریک درگیر احساسات با ا خانم آرنو است، فرانسه تحولات و تغییرات سیاسی و اجتماعی مهمی را پشت سر می‌گذارد اما فردریک که به‌ دلیل درگیری احساسی‌ خود از تمام این جریانها به‌دور است، تنها مشاهده کننده آن‌ها هست و هیچ دخالت در سونوشت سیاسی و اجتماعی کشور خود ندارد. فرانسه در سال‌هایی که بخش بیشتری از تربیت احساسات در آن سال‌ها روایت می‌شود، در گیر جنبش‌ها و شورش‌های انقلابی هست. انقلاب ۱۸۴۸ فرانسه در همین موقع اتفاق می شود و در این میان شورش‌های زیاد در پاریس در جریان است و در نهایت پادشاهی لویی فیلیپ پایان می‌شود و "جمهوری دوم" فرانسه برقرار می‌شود.

"امیل زولا" در باره این رمان گفته است :" تمامی آثار قبل و بعد از این رمان دربرابر واقعیت گرایی آن ، بیش از یک اپرای تراژیک نیست !"

Education is not a pleasant thing for the one who is subject to it. What does education mean?
Education means, simply speaking, taming, breaking, creating certain reflexes, correcting. However, to correct it is to break something and that is always painful at first. Of course after that it is fine, but at first it is not pleasant at all. If we go to school to be educated, it is because we have nowhere to go. Because our reflexes are crude, raw, virgin, because we can more easily change the nature of our passions.
But what about the grown-up man? A certain illusion is born in the mature man: I am as good as I am, I need nothing more. I'm coping with the way I am. This illusion is not at all unnatural and not at all condemnable. It is difficult to reconcile with the idea that you are unsuccessful, that you have stitches, that you are vicious, that you are tied to the senses, that your ideas are just prejudices and your feelings are confused and mediocre. It is difficult to accept because it is proper for man to believe in himself, without self-confidence he cannot have the feeling of fullness and freedom. For man to doubt himself, his own experience must restrain him. For example, he should believe himself in being unbearable to women and women, in dealing with him, to show him that he is unbearable, but not who knows what. He must believe himself intelligent, and in a determined circumstance to prove to him the opposite. It seems indisputable that in most cases things happen in this way, with the exceptions for which the educational precepts are not sufficient.

Literature is made for the vast majority of people and has an educational purpose. So, dear friend of my heart, I will want to reread your book someday..

<< ...I wanted to reread it (*ie, George Sand), my daughter-in-law has read it too, and some of my young people, all readers in earnest and of the first rank and not stupid at all (*thank you, George Sand!). We are all of the same opinion, that it is a beautiful book, equal in strength to the best ones of Balzac and truer, that is to say more faithful to the truth from one end to the other.
One needs the great art, the exquisite form and the severity of your work to do without flowers of fancy. However, you throw poetry with a full hand on your picture, whether your characters understand it or not. (Rosanette at Fontainebleau does not know on what grass she walks and nevertheless she is poetic.)
All that issues from a master's hand, and your place is well won for always. Live then as calmly as possible in order to last a long time and to produce a great deal. I have seen two short articles which did not seem to me to rebel against your success; but I hardly know what is going on, politics seems to me to absorb everything.
Keep me posted. If they did not do justice to you I should be angry and should say what I think. It is my right.>>

###

Dear good master,

Your old troubadour (ie, Gustave Flaubert) is vehemently slandered by the papers. Read the Constitutionnel of last Monday, the Gaulois of this morning, it is blunt and plain. They call me IDIOTC and COMMON.
Barbey d'Aurevilly's article (Constitutionnel) is a model of this character, and the good Sarcey's, although less violent, is in no way behind it. These gentlemen object in the name of MORALITY and the IDEAL! I have also been annihilated in le Figaro and in Paris, by Cesana and Duranty.
I most profoundly don't care a fig! but that does not make me any the less astonished by so much hatred and bad faith.
La Tribune, le Pays and l'Opinion nationale on the other hand have highly praised me... As for the friends, the persons who received a copy adorned by my hand, they have been afraid of compromising themselves and have talked me of other things. The BRAVE are FEW. The book is selling very well nevertheless, in spite of politics, and Levy appears satisfied.
I know that the bourgeois of Rouen are furious with me "because of pere Roque and the cancan at the Tuileries." They think that one ought to prevent the publication of books like that (textual), that I lend a hand to the Reds, that I am capable of inflaming revolutionary passions, etc., etc. In short, I have received very few laurels, up to now, and no rose leaf hurts me.
All the papers cite as a proof of my depravity, the episode of the Turkish woman, which they misrepresent, naturally; and Sarcey compares me to Marquis de Sade, whom he comfesses he has not read!
All that does not upset me at all. But I WONDER what use there is in printing my book? >>

###

As always, George Sand is the master of words and has the last of it:

<< I think that your school is not concerned with the substance, and that it dwells too much on the surface. By virtue of seeking the form, it makes the substance too cheap! it addresses itself to the men of letters. But there are no men of letters, properly speaking. Before everything, one is a man. One wants to find man at the basis of every story and every deed. That was the defect of l'Education sentimentale, about which I have so often reflected since, asking myself why there was so general a dislike of a work that was so well done and so solid. This defect was the absence of ACTION of the characters on themselves. They submitted to the event and never mastered it. Well, I think that the chief interest in a story is what you did not want to do. If I were you, I would try the opposite; you are feeding on Shakespeare just now, and you are doing well! He is the author who puts men at grips with events; observe that by them, whether for good or for ill, the event is always conquered. In his works, it is crushed underfoot.

L'Education sentimentale has been a misunderstood book, as I have told you repeatedly, but you have not listened to me. There should have been a short preface, or, at a good opportunity, an expression of blame, even if only a happy epithet to condemn the evil, to characterize the defect, to signalize the effort. All the characters in that book are feeble and come to nothing, except those with bad instincts; that is what you are reproached with, because people did not understand that you wanted precisely to depict a deplorable state of society that encourages these bad instincts and ruins noble efforts; when people do not understand us it is always our fault. What the reader wants, first of all, is to penetrate into our thought, and that is what you deny him, arrogantly. He thinks that you scorn him and that you want to ridicule him. For my part, I understood you, for I knew you. If anyone had brought me your book without its being signed, I should have thought it beautiful, but strange, and I should have asked myself if you were immoral, skeptical, indifferent or heart-broken. You say that it ought to be like that, and that M. Flaubert will violate the rules of good taste if he shows his thought and the aim of his literary enterprise. It is false in the highest degree. When M. Flaubert writes well and seriously, one attaches oneself to his personality. One wants to sink or swim with him. If he leaves you in doubt, you lose interest in his work, you neglect it, or you give it up.

I have already combated your favorite heresy, which is that one writes for twenty intelligent people and does not care a fig for the rest. It is not true, since the lack of success irritates you and troubles you. Besides, there have not been twenty critics favorable to this book which was so well written and so important. So one must not write for twenty persons any more than for three, or for a hundred thousand. One must write for all those who have a thirst to read and who can profit by good reading. Then one must go straight to the most elevated morality within oneself, and not make a mystery of the moral and profitable meaning of one's book. People found that with Madame Bovary. If one part of the public cried scandal, the healthiest and the broadest part saw in it a severe and striking lesson given to a woman without conscience and without faith, to vanity, to ambition, to irrationality. They pitied her; art required that, but the lesson was clear, and it would have been more so, it would have been so for everybody, if you had wished it, if you had shown more clearly the opinion that you had, and that the public ought to have had, about the heroine, her husband, and her lovers.

That desire to depict things as they are, the adventures of life as they present themselves to the eye, is not well thought out, in my opinion. Depict inert things as a realist, as a poet, it's all the same to me, but, when one touches on the emotions of the human heart, it is another thing. You cannot abstract yourself from this contemplation; for man, that is yourself, and men, that is the reader. Whatever you do, your tale is a conversation between you and the reader. If you show him the evil coldly, without ever showing him the good he is angry. He wonders if it is he that is bad, or if it is you. You work, however, to rouse him and to interest him; you will never succeed if you are not roused yourself, or if you hide it so well that he thinks you indifferent. He is right: supreme impartiality is an anti-human thing, and a novel ought to be human above everything. If it is not, the public is not pleased in its being well written, well composed and conscientious in every detail. The essential quality is not there: interest. The reader breaks away likewise from a book where all the characters are good without distinctions and without weaknesses; he sees clearly that that is not human either. I believe that art, this special art of narration, is only worth while through the opposition of characters; but, in their struggle, I prefer to see the right prevail. Let events overwhelm the honest men, I agree to that, but let him not be soiled or belittled by them, and let him go to the stake feeling that he is happier than his executioners.

You must have success after that bad luck which has troubled you deeply. I tell you wherein lie the certain conditions for your success. Keep your cult for form; but pay more attention to the substance. Do not take true virtue for a commonplace in literature. Give it its representative, make honest and strong men pass among the fools and the imbeciles that you love to ridicule. Show what is solid at the bottom of these intellectual abortions; in short, abandon the convention of the realist and return to the time reality, which is a mingling of the beautiful and the ugly, the dull and the brilliant, but in which the desire of good finds its place and its occupation all the same. >>

Ništa tako ne unižava kao kad glupaci uspjevaju u poduhvatima u kojima pametan čovjek propada.

Od mladosti do starosti, od ljubavi do prezira, od mirisa cvijeća do mirisa baruta, od monarhije do republike; takvi su putevi Frederika Moroa.

Sentimentalno vaspitanje istorijski predstavlja jednu epohu koju oblikuju tadašnji naraštaji kroz ljubav i politiku. Priča romana živi i danas. Fobler svjedoči o jednom vremenu gdje je postojala jaka volja, nada i ambicija. Sve se to vuklo kroz njegove likove, u njima tinjalo, ali je onda polako počinjalo da se gasi. Istina je nadvladala iluzije. Slatkoća i gorčina i dalje su ujednačene. Svi likovi i događaji su opisivani kroz vizuru Frederika Moroa. Njegov mikrokosmos obasjavaju velelepne ulice Pariza, pompa određenih kutova, stravstveni ljubavni podvizi, dok je predstojeće varvarstvo negdje iznad gravitiralo i čekalo svoj trenutak. Danas bi ovaj roman možda bio okarakterisan kao jedna obična sapunica, možda čak i kao bledunjav, pa ipak on je kristalno jasan. Strogim koracima je koračao ka onome što je zbilja neminovno i uzvišeno u takvoj stvarnosti, i što estetski ironično upotpunjuje jednu tačku proživljenosti.

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، من این کتاب را با نامِ "آموزهٔ سهش ها" یا "آموزش عاطفی" میشناسم.. ولی آنچه برجسته است این است که هدفِ اصلی <گوستاو فلوبر> از نوشتنِ این کتاب، بیانِ احساساتِ بسیار زیادِ فرانسوی ها و همچنین برآیند ها و پی آمدهایِ شکستِ عشقی میباشد.... فلوبر چیزی در حدودِ هفت سال از عمرِ خویش را پایِ نوشتنِ این رمان نهاد
-------------------------------------------
‎شخصیتِ اصلی داستان، جوانی به نامِ <فردریک مُورو> میباشد.. فردریک در سالِ 1840 میلادی همراه با مادرِ خود به شهرِ "نوژان سور سن" سفر کرده و در آنجا با زنی زیبارو به نامِ <خانم آرنو> آشنا میشود.. در همان نگاه نخست، یک دل نه صد دل، عاشق و دلباختهٔ این زن میشود.. ولی مشکل آنجاست که او شوهر کرده است
‎فردریک با داغی که بر دل دارد به پاریس باز میگردد، ولی نمیتواند عشقِ به <خانمِ آرنو> را فراموش کند... ناامیدی و سبُک سری در زندگیِ او موج میزند... تمامِ وقتش را بر گشت و گذار و رفت و آمد با دانشجویان و بازاریان و هنرمندان میگذراند... او در زندگیِ خویش معشوقه هایی دارد که از نظر سنی از او بزرگتر هستند.. <خانم دامبروز> که زنی ثروتمند است و <خانم رزانت> که تمام وقتش را در آتلیه و نمایشگاه ها سپری میکند... جالب است بدانید که از برخی جهات شخصیتِ فردریک شبیه به شخصیتِ نویسندهٔ کتاب است... <گوستاو فلوبر> نیز در جوانی سه معشوقه داشت که همگی از نظر سنی از او بزرگتر بودند
‎فردریک با شوهرِ خانمِ آرنو آشنا میشود... او مردی خوش گذران و خیانتکار و هوس ران است و شغلش خرید و فروشِ تابلوهایِ نقاشی میباشد و با زنهای زیادی در نمایشگاه ها آشنا شده است... رزانت نیز معشوقهٔ او بوده است و سپس با فردریک آشنا میشود... فردریک افسوس میخورد که چرا مردی با خانم آرنو است که سپاسدارِ این زن نمیباشد و چرا نباید او به جایِ آن مردِ هوس باز، با خانمِ آرنو زندگی کند
‎فردریک پس از مدتی از همه چیز و همه کس دلزده میشود و رابطه اش را با زن ها نیز قطع کرده و حتی با <لوئیز> که او را میپرستد و با او قصدِ ازدواج دارد نیز قطع رابطه میکند
‎در سالِ 1848 میلادی، شورش و انقلاب سراسر فرانسه را زیر و رو کرده است.. دوستانِ فردریک همچون <سرنال> در این شورش ها شرکت میکنند. ولی فردریک هیچگونه علاقه ای به این کارها نشان نمیدهد و خود را از دوستانِ انقلابیِ خویش جدا میکند.... در همان روزها به طور اتفاقی با خانمِ آرنو، برخورد میکند... ولی هرکاری میکند نمیتواند به او بگوید که تا چه اندازه دیوانه وار دلباختهٔ او میباشد... او به جایی رسیده است که دیگر برایِ رسیدنِ به آرزوهایش هیچ تلاشی نمیکند
‎سرانجامِ آن انقلاب و شورش ها، پایانِ حکومتِ <لویی فلیپ> و آغازِ جمهوری دومِ فرانسه است... فردریک نسبت به سرنوشتِ سرزمینش و هیجاناتِ انقلاب بی تفاوت است
‎بیست و هفت سال از نخستین دیدارِ او با خانمِ آرنو میگذرد... فردریک به همان شهری که دلدادگی اش از آنجا آغاز شده، باز میگردد و داستانِ زندگی اش و آن عشقِ نافرجام و غم انگیز را برایِ دوستش <دلوریه> بازگو میکند
--------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ شناختِ این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروزباشید و ایرانی>

About A Sentimental Education Gustave Flaubert wrote, "I want to write the moral history of the men of my generation—or, more accurately, the history of their feelings. It's a book about love, about passion; but passion such as can exist nowadays—that is to say, inactive." And the feeling of love and inactive passion of Frederic Moreau is the resulting story.

Setting in the time of the 1848 French Revolution which resulted in the formation of the nation's Second Republic, Gustave Flaubert writes a grand love story of Frederic Moreau, borrowing heavily from his personal experiences. When young Frederic falls in love with an older married woman at the age of 18, his "sentimental education" begins. Being at the impressionable, idol-worshipping age, the lady becomes the center in everything Frederic does. He knows that it is a love that would be frustrated and a romantic passion that would never be fulfilled, yet he hopes against all odds and is steadfast in his love. He stands by her through all her troubles without expecting any reward in return. When however after a long separation they meet again under favourable circumstances, Frederic is dismayed to see his idol thrown from his pedestal, and his life's love withers away under the change, completing his "sentimental education".

The protagonist, Frederic Moreau, is a sort of anti-hero. He is not industrious and wastes away in idle pursuits living on his inheritance. His great love doesn't shield him from the power of seduction and he has his fair share of mistresses. He is a good-hearted man nevertheless and lets every Tom, Dick, and Harry take advantage of him. Nothing major happens in his life except for his great love and inactive passion, and he stays much the same throughout the story pinning all his failures on "being sentimental". Frederic exasperated me to no end, and I disliked him in the beginning. But when the story progressed, I could come to better terms with him. And I truly felt sorry for him at the end.

A Sentimental Education is not only a love story, but also a historical account. There is a true account of the political failures of the Monarchy and the growing frustration of the intellectual youth that led them to take arms. I'm unaware of Flaubert's political allegiance, but I perceived satire on both the Monarchy and the Republic that followed.

Flaubert's writing is truly masterful. But it is something I didn't understand at once. The tone was so matter of fact at the beginning that I felt the whole thing is emotionally barren. I had to stop a little quarter way to breathe and repose. When I resumed, I found some mysterious enticement in Flaubert's words as he slowly worked his way on the different passions and sentiments of the characters bringing more warmth and feelings into the story. I was very much surprised by his style initially, but when I pondered over it, I realized that it was because Flaubert didn't want to define the characters nor the situation. He leaves it entirely to the readers, himself being detached from them. When the readers have sufficiently acquainted themselves with the characters and the situation of the story, Flaubert digs deeply into the lives and circumstances of the characters bringing out their inner feelings and passions. Although Flaubert took me on a ride, I was very much impressed by the ultimate destination to which he brought me.

There is nothing further to say. I'm sure you who read this review now understand why I enjoyed this book very much.

Floberovo "Sentimentalno vaspitanje" je knjiga koja počinje u ranoj mladosti, a završava se u ranoj starosti jednog pametnog, ali previše osećajnog Francuza sa umetničkim senzibilitetom, Frederika Moroa, na čijem primeru se pokazuje i kako ne tako surove životne okolnosti (izuzimajući Revoluciju koja je na nivou epizodnog lika u očima Frederika) vrlo lako mogu da ubuđave mladalačke snove i ambicije.

Istina, Frederik nije baš nevina žrtva: nije da se ne angažuje u cilju te propasti, sve i da je taj angažman nekakava samopovodljivost ni za čim, gotovo strastvena ambivalentnost (da, sve paradoksi), on lebdi iznad i izvan života, menjajući stvarnost za iluzije a iluzije za život. Na kraju nema lekcije, a mi nemamo osećaj kruženja po istoj putanji.

Frederik je od onih likova koji, naizgled, sve rade pogrešno, ali za čije postupke ne nalazite alternativu (u tom smislu, roman je hermetički zatvoren). Svakako među najzanimljivijim književnim likovima za koje znam.


Iako je glavni motiv (momenat iz Floberove biografije takođe) celoživotna ljubav prema jednoj ženi, u roman su uklopljene još 3, koje Ingrid Šafanek poredi sa 4 elementa koja bi mogla da čine nekakvu celinu Frederikovih potreba. Pogrešno bi bilo sklapati od njih idealnu jednu, to nije namera.

Ovo nije ljubavni roman, makar ne u mom shvatanju. Pre bih ga svrstala u grupu onih što postavljaju pitanje "šta bismo menjali kad bismo živeli u svetu najboljem od svih?".
Kažu da je Flober hteo da prikaže izgubljenost svoje generacije, ali se namestilo da su i potonje izgubljene u sličnoj meri i na sličan način, pa mu je vanvremenost došla gratis. Doduše, sa zakašnjenjem, budući da ni kritiku ni publiku Sentimentalno vaspitanje nije fasciniralo. Ali jeste Džojsa, Hamsuna, Prusta, Kafku (koji se nije odvajao od francuskog izdanja ove knjige).

Struktura romana, jezik i stil su nešto o čemu ne treba govoriti: sumnjam da išta može biti toliko sivo i gorko u toj količini sjaja i slatkoće.
Velika preporuka!

“Tutto ciò che la gente critica nei romanzi come delle esagerazioni, voi me l'avete fatto provare»

Parafrasando stupidamente Calvino: a volte uno si sente incompleto, ingenuo, ipocrita, inconcludente, insopportabile, illuso… e invece è solo il giovane Frédéric Moreau creato dal sempre spietato genio di Gustave Flaubert.

Che capolavoro incredibile.

Protagonist Frédéric Moreau becomes infatuated with an older married woman, Marie Arnoux. Moreau is shallow, self-absorbed, and indecisive. Unable to court Madame Arnoux, he forms relationships with three other women (a mistress, a country girl, and a woman of social standing) but has trouble with commitment. He flits from one to another, always returning to his obsession with Madame Arnoux. He cannot decide on a career, vacillating between writer, painter, poet, politician, and lawyer. He is lucky in inheriting money but finds many ways to squander it. He is always searching for love but rarely finding it.

While Flaubert’s characters are not particularly likeable, with a few exceptions, they are believable. Flaubert indicts the moral vacuity of these characters. He infuses the narrative with a strong sense of irony. Published in 1869 and set in France in the 1840s, it covers a turbulent time in French history when events led to the abdication of Louis-Philippe, rise of the Second Republic, and rule by Napoleon III. Unlike many 19th century novels, the prose is not overly elaborate. I am always looking for opportunities to read about period history from those who lived it. I found it surprisingly relevant to today’s world.

Translated from French by Douglas Parmee
Narration by Jonathan Fried

جایی خواندم که فلوبر آرزو کرده بود که روزی بتواند رمانی بنویسد که هر چه بیشتر به زندگی واقعی شباهت داشته باشد. از طرفی می گویند این رمان آغازگر رمان مدرن است. یعنی بدون سوژه‌ی پررنگ مرکزی، داشتن قصه‌ای کمرنگ و نزدیک شدن به ویژگی‌های زندگی در جهان مدرن: یعنی پرتاب شدن مداوم به وضعیت‌ها و موقعیت‌های مختلف، تلاش برای فهمیدن موقعیت و مجددا پرتاب شدن به وضعیتی دیگر. جهانی پر از امکان‌های دست‌نیافتنی. این را بگذارید کنار چیزی که یوسا در کتاب عیش مدام می‌گوید: نامرئی شدن راوی. فلوبر تمام تلاش خود را می‌کند تا از شرح و توصیف به سمت داوری نرود..
نکته‌ای دیگر که به ذهنم می‌رسد شیوه‌ی پرداخت شخصیت‌ها است. فلوبر هیچ شخصیتی را به طور کامل مثل رمان‌های کلاسیک پرداخت نمی‌کند. یعنی تنها بخشی از شخصیت افراد را در موقعیت‌های مختلف نشان می‌دهد. واکنش‌ها، رفتارها و داوری‌هایشان را. این به نزدیک‌تر شدن رمان به زندگی واقعی بسیار کمک می‌کند. ما هیچ‌کس را نمی‌توانیم جز از خلال تجربه آنها در موقعیت‌های مختلف بشناسیم. هیچ‌کس نمی‌آید در ابتدا خودش را برای ما تمام و کمال توصیف و شرح دهد. این شامل وقایعی که در زمینه تاریخی داستان رخ می‌دهد هم می‌شود، انقلاب فرانسه. که شما فقط با جزئیات و جنبه‌هایی از آن مواجه می‌شوید که در حضور شخصیت‌ها در جریان است. نه تصویری کامل. این را مقایسه کنید با رمانی مثل جنگ و صلح تولستوی یا شیاطین داستایوفسکی یا باباگوریو. آنها تا مطمئن نشوند که شما همه چیز را کامل فهمیده و درک کرده‌اید ولتان نمی‌کنند، اما فلوبر شما را با جزئیات رها می‌کند، آن گونه که جهان واقعا تجربه می‌شود، تنها جزئیاتی از وقایع.
نکته آخر این که وقتی فهمیدم ترجمه درست‌تر عنوان "تربیت احساساتی" است، گویی ارتباط بیشتری هم با کتاب برقرار کردم..