The Explicator

ISSN: 0014-4940 (Print) 1939-926X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vexp20

Stendhal’s Le Rouge Et Le Noir

Kim Robertson

To cite this article: Kim Robertson (1997) Stendhal’s Le Rouge Et Le Noir, The Explicator, 55:2,
76-78, DOI: 10.1080/00144940.1997.11484124

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00144940.1997.11484124

Published online: 22 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vexp20

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 12 June 2016, At: 09:09

 1983-85) I :223; and Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Commentary on The Bible (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1989) 816. In his commentary on Mary Magdalene, JCJ Metford notes
that "since the time of St Gregory the Great, she has become the conflation of three NT persons
... [including] the unnamed woman in the city, 'which was a sinner,' who brought an alabaster
box (or jar) of ointment...." See Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legends (London: Thames
and Hudson, 1983) 169. In some Bibles in Mackenzie's era, the heading of the passage mentions
Mary Magdalene's name. William Smith notes that the link between the penitent sinner and Mary
Magdalene previously had been widely accepted and that the chapter heading of the Authorized
Version of Luke 7 "seem[ed] to give a quasi-authoritative sanction." See Smith's Bible Dictionary,
II th printing (New York: Family Library, 1975) 381. Furthermore, whether the penitent woman
is actually named Mary Magdalene is not as important as whether Mackenzie correlates Emily
Atkins and the penitent sinner who visits Jesus.

Stendhal's LE ROUGE ET LE NOIR

The Explicator 1997.55:76-78.

La republique-pour un, aujourd'hui, qui sacrifierait tout au bien publique,

il en est des milliers et des millions qui ne connaissent que leurs jouis-
sances, leur vanite. On est considere, it Paris, it cause de sa voiture et non it
cause de sa vertu.

Napoleon, Memorial l

The republic-today for one who would sacrifice everything for the com-
mon good there are thousands and millions who know only their own plea-
sure and vanity. One is admired in Paris for his vehicle rather than his
virtue.

The title of this essay could be "Liberty and License: Or How to Get
Ahead" or, as aptly, " ... Or How to Lose a Head," as these are essentially the
poles of action for Julien Sorel in Stendhal's novel Le rouge et Ie noir. For
Julien can get ahead only by risking his neck in a high-stakes game where he
has little to lose, much to gain, and a hand that is all bluff. This paysan revolte
("peasant in revolt")-and often revoltant ("revolting peasant")-is more than
willing to sacrifice everything to advance his own "Republic of One," and his
Machiavellian intrigues and princely machinations bear witness to the true
"nobility" of an age in which the means (and the meanness) are always justi-
fied by the end achieved.
Julien has a truly acute sense of duty. However, it is a duty that is dis-
charged towards none but himself: "je me dois Ii moi-meme d'etre son amant"
[lowe it to myself to be her lover] (85). No such parvenu had been seen in
French literature since Tartuffe dispossessed Orgon of his home and usurped
his status in the community. However, it is ironic that Julien should identify
with Moliere's impostor, who is doomed to failure and is punished when his

76
 illegitimacy is finally exposed by a benign and enlightened philosopher king:
"Un prince dont les yeux se font jour dans les coeurs, I Et que ne peut tromper
tout I'art des imposteurs" [A Prince who sees deep into our hearts I And can-
not be fooled by tricksters' arts] (Le Tartuffe: 5:7:1907-1908).
Though Julien and Tartuffe advance in the world by much the same means
(seduction and equivocation), their respective chances of success are hardly
analogous. Tartuffe's attempts to subvert the Sun King's social order are
doomed from the start by his inability to dissemble and deceive. Thus, the
farce is funny, for this faux devot ("hypocrite") never represents a real threat
to the community. In 1830, however, the historico-political evolution of
France, as it moved from the ancien regime to revolution to Restoration and
then to revolution again, had made the determination of legitimate authority a
difficult one and clouded the distinctions between order and anarchy, master
and servant.
In the postrevolutionary realm of Charles X, Julien, the son of a peasant and
descendant of slaves, is justified in questioning aristocratic pretension and
The Explicator 1997.55:76-78.

privilege and asking of Napoleon's meteoric rise to emperor: "C'etait la des-

tinee de Napoleon, serait-ce un jour la sienne?" [It was the destiny of Napo-
leon, was it one day to be his own?] (70). This is, after all, a world in which
there is no longer any all-wise ruler to measure moral conduct, arbitrate con-
flicts, and adjudge litigation, for the execution of Louis XVI had decapitated
the authority of the state, and the rise of Ie petit caporal had allowed the pos-
sibility of "advancement through merit, the legitimation of class mobility,
legalized usurpation" (Brooks 68). This is no doubt why Stendhal felt that
social comedy a la Moliere was impossible in postrevolutionary France. In
"La Comedie est impossible en 1836" (Melanges, vol. 3 [1933]) he explains
that such comedy can only operate within the structure of a unified code of
manners and comportment, in which the audience agrees on what is conven-
tional and what is deviate. When the Revolution acknowledged the aspirations
of different social classes, it destroyed the unity of sensibility on which
Moliere's effects were predicated. Thus Stendhal believed that in 1836 Le
Bourgeois Gentilhomme was no longer comedy, at least not as Moliere had
intended, for half of the audience would laugh at Monsieur Jourdain, and the
other would admire and approve of him.
Julien's status as precepteur, or purveyor of precepts, grants him the
authority to establish a new code of conduct that will validate his rise from
slave and peasant origins and legitimate his ascension to the rank of Chevalier
de la Vernaye. Paradoxically, once he has consolidated his own position in
society, his "haine et horreur pour la haute societe" [hatred and horror of high
society] (40) can no longer be justified, and the very code that had allowed his
ascension threatens to undermine the authenticity of his new status and his
legacy to posterity. This is the reason for the elaborate fictions that beget his

77
 "legitimation through illegitimacy" (Brooks 79). Julien's "natural nobility"
cannot be explained by the conditions of his birth. His own doubts about his
paternity are strengthened by the thought that he might really be the natural
child of some aristocrat who had sought refuge in Franche-Comte:
Serait-il bien possible, se disait-il, que je fusse Ie fils de quelque grand
seigneur exile dans nos montagnes par Ie terrible Napoh~on? A chaque
instant cette idee lui semblait moins improbable .... Ma haine pour mon
pere serait une preuve .... Je ne serais plus un monstre! (451)
"Is it really possible" he asked himself, "that I am the natural son of some
great nobleman, banished to our mountains by the terrible Napoleon?"
Every moment this idea seemed to him less improbable .... "My hatred for
my father would be a proof.... I would no longer be a monster!"

The language of Julien's discourse betrays the shift in his values, for it is
clear here that Napoleon is the terrible and monstrous usurper who threatens
his newly acquired nobility. He quickly forgets that up to this point the "mon-
ster" has been his model. However, as purveyor of precepts Julien has the
The Explicator 1997.55:76-78.

power to invent rules and determine the propriety of action on the basis of the
fruit it bears. What then could be more appropriate in his position than to
rescind the rule of social mobility, thereby arrogating irrevocably his rank to
himself? It is of little consequence that this fiction of restitution ensures the
permanent destitution of that whole generation of young Frenchmen (to
which, of course, Julien belongs), whose fatal memory of Napoleon would
forever prohibit their happiness.
Julien's politics are self-serving: He recognizes no master but himself, no
rules but those that further his interests, and no higher cause than his own
higher calling. What he fails to realize, however, is that without law there is
no liberty, only license. Thus, while the outcome of the conflict between the
forces of reform and reaction may never be certain, it is clear that both require
a strict moral and civil code to which all members of society must submit.
Blind ambition cannot be tolerated, for it really can make us lose our heads.

-KIM ROBERTSON, University of Missouri

NOTE

1. Many of the seventy-five chapters of Le rouge et Ie nair are preceded by epigraphs. usually
ironic. from a variety of sources-Hobbes, Bamave, Machiavelli, Moliere, Shakespeare, Schiller,
Napoleon, and many more. This quote is from Napoleon's Memorial, and it precedes chapter 22
("La Discussion") of the second part. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.

WORKS CITED
Brooks, Peter. Reading for the Plot. New York: Vintage Books, 1985.
Melanges de litterature. Ed. Henri Martineau. Paris: Le Divan, 1927-37.79 vols.
Moliere. Le Tartuffe. Paris: Librairie Larousse, 1965.
Stendhal. Le Rouge et Ie nair. Paris: Gallimard, 1958.

78