Monday, December 17, 2018
'How does Flaubert use the Agricultural fair at Rouen to further his satire of 19th century French society?\r'
'Gustave Flaubert wrote his novel Madame Bovary in the mid-nineteenth century as a satirical comment on the swiftness philia class, those who were just rich enough to take a leak to be rich. Flaubert loathed them and wrote his novel to defend them come to the fore as the fools that he thought them to be. His loathing for the upper middle class of 1850s France stemmed from the ideals which they held. Flaubert saw his fellows as a generation lost to the meritless and frivolous dreams of the cut Romantic travail.\r\n cut Romanticism was a work through all the creative arts towards idealising the creation which artists constructed. Although equally present in music and opthalmic art, Flaubert focused both his hatred and his satire on the literature of the judgment of conviction, this reactionary reputation earned him the form of address of a Ã¢â¬Å"naturalistÃ¢â¬Â. This was however something that Flaubert hated; the representational movement was one(a) that focused on spe cifics and on realism in a work, whereas Flaubert sought to make his story one that was applicable to any effectuateting. though his at extion to detail in places mirrors that of a realist or naturalist writer, this is non his essential suggest.\r\nFlaubert defies any tackle to fit his work to a particular movement or style in French literature, though in that respect is little doubt that his work Madame Bovary is a reactionary satire of French romanticism and of the burgher society that regurgitated the clichÃÂ¯ÃÂ¿ÃÂ½s of the movement. Each word in the novel is c arfully chosen, so the book becomes a painstakingly constructed trap which ensn ars the thoughts of the ref and guides them to the conclusions that Flaubert wants us to make. Although every(prenominal) word in the novel is vital to Flauberts purpose, at that place are certain key passages that are oddly pivotal to the book. Among these is his description of the agricultural fair at Rouen in Part II Chapter 8. whizz separate of this describes a conversation that occurs among Rodolphe and Emma in the boor fair that surrounds it.\r\nThe passage begins with a monologue from Rodolphe: what he expresses in the passage is a fairly clichÃÂ¯ÃÂ¿ÃÂ½ set of ideals from the romantic movement. He talks of Ã¢â¬Å"Striving soulsÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬Å" slaughter heartsÃ¢â¬Â . Particularly typical is the idea of cardinal souls matched by fate that cannot be drawn apart. stock-still despite the manner of speaking of the text the tone is not one of romance. Flaubert intentionally marrs Rodolphes words by introducing them with the clock period:\r\nÃ¢â¬Å"Rodolphe had moved in closer to Emma, he was talking in a low voice, speaking cursorilyÃ¢â¬Â\r\nThis has the effect that Rodolphe appears to be making a clunky attempt to seduce Emma, kind of than simply expressing dire sentiments. Another tool that Flaubert uses to make the entire detail still more comedic, is by consistently severalise the everyday provinciality of the agricultural fair with the frivolous fantasies in which the two Ã¢â¬Å"star crossed loversÃ¢â¬Â engage. This is used consistently through erupt the passage, but it makes its first appearance in introduction to this section: Flaubert talks of bleating lambs and cattle, accordingly unawares Rodolphe says:\r\nÃ¢â¬Å"Dont you find this social conspiracy revolting? Is there one sacred feeling that they do not condemn?Ã¢â¬Â.\r\nThis adds to the readers feeling that Rodolphe and Emma are completely in a world of their own with little or no connection to the reality of the bovine conspirators. The reader should note the over-punctuation which creates a disjointed tone:\r\nOh! fetch what may, sooner or later, in six months, ten years, they will be together, will be lovers, because depute ordains it, because they were born for one another.\r\nFlaubert runs the entire monologue into a single split. This has the effect that we are left with the feeling o f a clumsy attempt at conquering muttered quickly under the breath.\r\nIn the next paragraph Flaubert describes the sensations that Emma feels. He writes of Emmas observations of Rodolphe. Ironically much of the passage is give to describing the smell of Rodolphes pomade and to the fresh curve of the common ivy climbing a nearby house, but one can only imagine the onslaught of odours that would drift against ones nostrils in a rural agricultural fair. Flauberts authorship here mimics that of French Romanticism, his style is an exaggeration of the literary genre that he seeks to mock. This is perhaps also a reflection of the feelings that Emma wants to have as much as the feelings that she does have.\r\nThe next paragraph contains the concluding section of the Councillors speech. One should note the immediate change: Emma has been lost to the scent of Rodolphes hair, and then suddenly the councillor shouts out Ã¢â¬Å" resolution! Perseverance!Ã¢â¬Â, ideals which are in stark note to Emmas thoughts of desire. This serves to make Emma appear junior, concerned only with those matters that are emotive and frivolous.\r\nFlaubert makes another sly stab here, this time at the church service.\r\nEndurance! Perseverance! Heed incomplete the voice of habit, nor the over-hasty teachings of rash sensationalism! Dedicate yourselves in a higher place all to the improvement of the soil, to good manure, to the development of the respective(a) breeds, equine, bovine, ovine and porcine.\r\nIf one reads the opening sentences from the Councillors speech it becomes unfastened that his manner of oration is based on the classify of a Ã¢â¬Å"hellfire and damnationÃ¢â¬Â preacher: the analogy can perhaps be most clear seen in the way he cries out virtues, and in Ã¢â¬Å"Heed neither the voice of habit, nor the over-hasty teachings of rash empiricismÃ¢â¬Â a sentence that is quite biblical in its construction if not in its subjects. This is certainly a caricature of an evangelical preacher. This impression is aided by the Councillors introduction:\r\nÃ¢â¬Å"Ã¢â¬Â¦she could hearÃ¢â¬Â¦ the voice of the councillor psalming out his phrasesÃ¢â¬Â\r\nMimicking the style of a over-zealous padre serves to mock the church by imitation. Applying this same manner of speech to such a mundane topic as tillage rather than religion serves to demystify it, making it appear comical. Lieuvain then dismounts his pulpit and is replaced by another speaker.\r\nFlaubert takes the fortune of introducing the new orator to contrast the trivial nature of Rodolphe and Emmas discourse with the profound speech of Monsieur Derozerays. This is done by contrasting pairs of sentences throughout the paragraph, alternating between describing the lovers conversation, and describing the speech. This technique begins thus:\r\nAccordingly, praise of the government played a lesser role; religion and agriculture were rather more in evidenceÃ¢â¬Â¦ Rodolphe, with Madame Bovary, was talking dreams, premonitions, magnetism.\r\nWe at once move a little lower on the rogue and find a similar contrast:\r\nÃ¢â¬Â¦Cincinnatus at his plough, Diocletian planting his cabbages and the emperors of China bringing in the New Year by planting seeds, the juvenile man was explaining to the young woman that these irresistible attractions had their rootage in some previous existenceÃ¢â¬Â¦\r\nFlaubert clearly wants to make a mockery of the whole billet. He is trivialising these matters of the heart by comparing them to the hardworking pack of the fields, where the labourers are planting seeds for the New Year. Flaubert continues to alternate between describing the speech and describing the seduction. The contrasts between the two begin subtly but as we continue down the page they grow less and less so. By the time we reach the bottom of the page Flaubert has begun to intermingle the words of Rodolphe, speaking of love and destiny and of all the ideals of French romantici sm and Derozerays, who talks of money of work and of that which is cover and substantive:\r\nÃ¢â¬ Did you know that I would be escorting you?\r\nÃ¢â¬ lxx francs!3\r\nÃ¢â¬ A hundred times I wanted to leave, and I followed you, I stayed.\r\nÃ¢â¬ Manures!\r\nÃ¢â¬ As I shall stay this evening, tomorrow and the day after, all my life.\r\nFlauberts purpose in this entire extract is to satirise the seduction. to a greater extent importantly, it is to show that the ideals that are shared by the middle class and the Church concern matters that are emotive and are therefore trivial compared to those things concrete such as land, money and food. Flaubert trivialises the entire Romantic genre by setting a clichÃÂ¯ÃÂ¿ÃÂ½d romantic conversation, that proliferates with the wording and metaphors that permeate the literature that he is satirising. He then places this exaggeration of the Romantic movement into a situation that is overwhelmingly provincial and agricultural. This serves his purpose of mocking the petty bourgeoisie and the Romantic movement.\r\n'