Madame Bovary. Reproduction au trait de l'original de 1857 annoté par Gustave Flaubert (review)

As the title indicates, this text presents the opportunity for contemporary readers to enjoy, for the first time in the celebrated history of the work, a reproduction of the first publication of the novel. However, an additional pleasure awaits those who read, or reread Flaubert's novel—the author's own annotations that record the changes suggested primarily by Léon Laurent-Pichat who, along with Maxime DuCamp, served as editor of La Revue de Paris. Fortunately, for admirers of Madame Bovary, Flaubert insisted on maintaining the integrity of his text, adamantly refusing to incorporate any of Laurent-Pichat's changes into his manuscript. In a very informative afterward, Yvan Leclerc describes the often heated exchanges between author and editor, which highlight the transformation of what were once private exchanges into discourse in the public sphere.

Early in his metatextual commentary, Leclerc calls attention to the initial personal nature of the annotated edition. He writes: "Il [the annotated text] n'est pas destiné à un lecteur particulier. . . . Au lieu de viser un futur lecteur ou une publication ultérieure, les annotations manuscrites portées sur le texte de Madame Bovary ont toutes un caractère rétrospectif: elles résultent d'un retour sur le passé proche de sa propre genèse manuscrite et éditoriale" (496). Indeed, this particular edition was destined for Flaubert's personal use but, when released to the public through the current edition, readers gain insight into a judgment passed on Madame Bovary before the trial in 1857, the trail of the novel presided over by the editors themselves. Yet as Leclerc observes, in an 1856 letter to Bouilhet Flaubert proclaims that Laurent-Pichat does in fact relent: "C'est fini. Pichat vient de me dire oui" (502). The rest, one might state, is history, as the result of the editor's complaisance is the version of Madame Bovary that readers have consulted in various editions ever since 1857.

Nevertheless, even though the changes were not incorporated into the novel, it remains true that they were suggested and preserved in Flaubert's personal copy. To this end, the utility of this new edition lies in examining what the result would be if one were to read Madame Bovary with these changes, an opportunity that produces a much different reading of Flaubert's novel. Many of the key sections that have engendered critical inquiries are altered or vanish completely in Laurent-Pichat's suggestions. For instance, if Flaubert had accepted the changes, the celebrated fiacre scene in which Emma commits adultery with Léon would be absent completely. Further, Laurent-Pichat had suggested that the comices agricoles be shortened. Flaubert writes in the margin of his text: ". . . selon Pichat, supprimer ou, du moins abréger considérablement refaire les comices d'un bout à l'autre!" (232) What is more, according to Flaubert, even the now-famous club foot episode was deemed useless. He states: "De l'avis général (à la Revue), le pied-bot était considérablement trop long, 'inutile'" (490). These are but three examples that embody the extent to which Laurent-Pichat's suggestions might have affected the general reception of Flaubert's novel. One might ask who could—or even would want to—imagine the work without the polyvalent layers of the comices agricoles scene, the metaphorical implications of the fiacre, or the sheer failure felt after Hippolyte's demise? For Laurent-Pichat, these alterations were necessary in order to avoid the very scandal that ensued at the trial. However, for Flaubert, these recommendations themselves represented the real scandal, an injustice much worse than the detractors of the novel during the trial because they serve as mutilations that render the work incomplete.

Given the critical impact on Flaubert Studies of the scenes mentioned above, it would be difficult to imagine Madame Bovary without them, yet that is precisely what readers may do with this new...