Search Results

Intellectuals have imparted polemical contentiousness to French political controversy. Zola's role in the Dreyfus case had a literary legacy on both the Left and Right, with Surrealists and Communists or individuals like Sartre on the Left and Barrès and Maurras on the Right being prominent. Mounier's Catholic anti-liberalism met its reassertion by Aron. Decolonization prompted intellectual activism but Benda made the case against commitment.

This chapter studies the figure of the genius artist in the painter Claude Lantier, the central figure of Émile Zola's novel, L'Œuvre (The masterpiece, 1886). Genius may be a largely positive term for Zola the art critic who regards disruption as a virtue, but for Zola the novelist these “disruptions” are an ambivalent quantity that allows him to explore it both positively as central to the artistic enterprise and negatively as a sterile or destructive pathology. Like Mme de Staël and Balzac, he does so both from an objective external and from a sympathetically internal perspective. As a painter, Lantier offers less scope for identification on the part of the author than did Corinne or Lambert, but both author and painter are bound together by the issue of artistic creativity that is the novel's central concern.

Capellani was now the principal filmmaker at SCAGL. In 1913, he made a powerful adaptation of Zola’s Germinal, shot partially on locations. This film was particularly striking for the underplaying of its actors and its documentary style. He also adapted contemporary novels, such as La Glu (1913) with Mistinguett and his brother Paul Capellani, mixing tragedy and humor.

There are sound reasons for concluding in 1870–1. The Franco-Prussian War affected attitudes towards France, some of France’s major novelists died, a new generation of novelists led by Zola was on the rise, and the 1870 Education Act created fresh concerns about the composition and tastes of the reading public. Although interest in French literature did not begin in the 1870s, as many critics have claimed, the decade did mark a more defiant attitude towards supposed Victorian prudery, and a willingness to highlight and champion the transgressive qualities of French literature. It was in this period that censorshiptook centre stage, but those who resisted it were also ambivalent about the wisdom of allowing readers to access French works indiscriminately. As in previous decades, the critical discourse was often quietly challenged by reading practices.

This chapter explores how Émile Zola’s ekphrastic writings about Édouard Manet’s paintings functioned as a template on which the writer imposed his evolving theories of the naturalist novel. It argues that, while Zola championed Manet in his critical reviews of the artist’s works, he did so in the name of naturalism and the scientific objectivity and analysis naturalism promoted. Moreover, it seems likely that Manet would have read Zola’s 1868 preface to Thérèse Raquin where the author first mandated his naturalist theories. The chapter asks what Manet would have thought about Zola’s subjugation of painting to writing and his refusal of meaningful content in his art. It proposes that Manet painted Zola’s portrait in 1868 as a retort to the critic’s misinterpretation of the painter’s artistic method. Manet’s portrait of Zola also reveals how the artist, in turn, appropriated the writer and his writing to his own artistic agenda, the subsequent manifestations of which culminate in Manet’s final masterpiece, A Bar at the Folies Bergère (1882).

Flaubert chose to have his characters fail, often because of their limitations and ignorance rather than tragic flaws in their personalities. With this, the two interrelated issues are addressed in this chapter, the concept of failure and the concept of misreading. While Flaubert is expressing his own personal pessimism, he is at loggerheads with a realist vision in which, arguably, some characters do succeed, against all odds. The specific example, which might be considered a singular case of failure, is Emma Bovary's singular capacity for misreading. By inventing a scientific approach to his analyses, Zola might seemingly have avoided the same pitfalls as other authors before or since. Yet in a number of striking cases — the symphonie en blanc in Au Bonheur des dames, as well as Le Ventre de Paris and Germinal — the system implodes upon itself.

This chapter discusses the influence of the naturalist tradition on early French cinema, covering the pictorialist naturalist school of the 1920s, the cycles of Zola adaptations that appeared between 1902 and 1938, and the ‘social-realist’ cinema of Renoir. The categorical map of the significant realist French film production of the 1930–8 period is meant to be neither exhaustive nor definitive. The chapter emphasizes that La Bête humaine focuses on a disturbing and morally corrupt social order, which conforms closely to one of the most important features of the critical realist/naturalist tradition in its employment of an indeterminate aesthetic style. It concludes by accounting for Renoir's La Bête humaine in terms of the model of critical realism.

The aim of this chapter is to use the concept of “confusion” in the wide range of its manifestations in La Débâcle—military, historical, ideological, sexual, and so on—to unpack the several forms of ideological ambivalence at the heart of Zola's novel. No other text of Zola's uses the term “confusion” as often or to such patently critical effect, yet that critical thrust is curiously undercut by the novel's deployment of confusion to specific aesthetic ends. In the first section of this chapter, the author explores the tension between Zola's critique of confusion and his recourse there to in terms of a larger pattern of disavowal typical of Zola's plotting. This focus on disavowal leads, in the chapter's middle section, to an analysis of the melancholic ambivalence inherent in Zola's take on Republican ideology.

This chapter focuses on the imprisonment of Vizetelly, the first successful prosecution of a publisher of serious literature for obscenity. It questions, however, the idea that writers were straightforwardly fighting a culture war against ‘prudes on the prowl’ and argues instead that Vizetelly tried to make money by promoting Zola’s books as salacious.

Writing of the Dreyfus affair when at fever pitch, Carlos Blacker declared that ‘three beings alone knew the whole & entire truth, namely God & the two Military Attachés [the German attaché in Paris Schwartzkoppen and the Italian attaché Panizzardi]’. Blacker became the fourth such being when his intimate friend Panizzardi confided ‘the whole & entire truth’ to him. Together, the two developed a high-risk secret plan for establishing the innocence of Dreyfus and the guilt of Esterhazy. While thus occupied, Blacker received word from Constance Wilde that her husband had recently arrived in Paris and, concerned that he ‘does nothing now but drink’, asking Blacker to go and see him. At the highly emotional reunion that followed, convinced that the same intellectual and moral stimulus that had fired his own passionate commitment to Dreyfus’s cause would do the same for Wilde, Blacker was prompted to confide details of his secret plan to him. The subsequent disclosure by Wilde of Blacker’s confidences to his anti-Dreyfusard friends while resulting in his permanent estrangement from Blacker had at the same time a far-reaching effect on the course of events in the affair.

According to Joseph Reinach in his authoritative history of the Dreyfus affair, the influential ‘Lettre d’un Diplomate’, as it came to be known, published in the journal Le Siècle on 4 April 1898, was written in his home by two prominent Dreyfusards ‘based on notes provided by Zola’. As to the source of Zola’s notes, Reinach’s brother Salomon, in an anonymous report to the Cour de Cassation considering revision of Dreyfus’s court-martial, stated that ‘Zola got some of his information from Oscar Wilde, who had got it from Blacker, the intimate friend of Panizzardi. Wilde betrayed the confidence of his compatriot, but this did not lessen the great value of the information obtained.’ Absent a direct confrontation between Blacker and Wilde over the latter’s suspected perfidy, their estrangement proved gradual until their final meeting in early June. Faced with mounting attacks in the anti-Dreyfusard press, fuelled by information that Blacker became convinced could only have come from Wilde, Blacker left Paris with his family. In reply to an accusing letter from him, Wilde protested his innocence and demanded an apology in ‘a very strong letter’, which, as Blacker noted in his diary, ‘put an end to our friendship forever’.

This chapter analyzes some modern assumptions about sexuality, gender, class, race, and civilization that led to the production of the subject of the “lust murderer” or “sex killer,” of which Jack the Ripper is the exemplum, in a series of discursive fields. The ways in which nineteenth-century European medicine and sexual science figured male and female sexuality, and “specified as an individual” the murdering sexual pervert, is examined in the first section. The second considers a near contemporary French response to the Ripper case and to Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, and examines Zola's novel La Bete humaine, a work that functions as a fictional version of sexological and criminological discourse. The third section considers how Jack the Ripper provided the template for representing other sex-motivated multiple killers of both men and women that came after him.

This chapter examines the influence of Don Quixote on nineteenth-century authors in France, Russia, and Spain. It shows the literary debt that these authors owe to Cervantes by looking at how they render their Don Quixotes and how they use Cervantes' literary devices. The discussions include French authors Stendhal, Balzac, Flaubert, Daudet, Zola, and Proust; Russian authors Gogol, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Chekhov; and Spain's Benito Pérez Galdós.

The scene in this chapter is again set by a Proto-Miracle, this time entitled Water from the Rock. In both the Qur’an and the Old Testament Moses strikes a rock and produces water for his thirsty followers. The next section embraces Lourdes, Shrines and Healing and deals with the apparitions of the Virgin Mary seen by Bernadette Soubirous, the establishment of a large shrine on the site of these apparitions and the many miraculous healings claimed at Lourdes thereafter by those who visit the shrine and bathe in the waters there. This section also surveys three very different novels which deal with Lourdes by the atheist Emile Zola, the Jewish writer Franz Werfel and the contemporary novelist, Michael Arditti. A comparison is then made with the Islamic well and spring of Zamzam in Mecca and the healings associated with that place. This section outlines the story of Hajar (Hagar), Isma‘il and the miraculous appearance of the spring. The chapter once again concludes with an identification of major themes and motifs.

Chapter Four studies Émile Zola’s legendary support of the Jewish officer wrongly accused of treason in the 1890s, as well as Zola’s writing about Jews both before and after the Dreyfus Affair. Scholars have long acknowledged that Zola’s pre-Dreyfus novel L’Argent [Money] (1891) contains antisemitic elements, but this chapter shows that his essay Pour les Juifs, written during the Affair, and his post-Dreyfus novel Vérité [Truth] (1902), also voices a desire to see the Jews disappear as a people. In Zola we see how the defense of the Jews, and of republicanism, against opposition from the right resulted in the formulation of a hard-line universalism hostile to all forms of particularism. Zola’s brand of militant laïcité would reach its apotheosis in the 1905 law separating church and state and would become synonymous with French republicanism.