Exile and Narrative Voice in Corinne

ExileandNarrativeVoiceinCorinne PATRICKCOLEMAN ExilewasadecisiveexperienceforGermainedeStaël,shapingnotonlythe courseofherlifebutthecharacterofherworkaswell.Ifwomen'sfame,in Staël'sphrase,canbedefinedas"ledeuiléclatantdubonheur,"1herown reluctantcareer,outofwhichemergedsuchworksasCorinneandDe l'Allemagne,providesthemoststrikingexampleofthisintimateyet painfulconnectionbetweenseparationandsuccess.ForinStaël'smost importantbooksthephysicaldistancingofexileandthepsychological separationofmourningcombinetoproducenewconnectionsbetween political,moral,andliterarythought.InhermasterpiecesaboutItalyand Germany,geographicalbreadthgoeshandinhandwithaconcernforthe innerspiritofpersonsandnations.IwanttosuggestthatStaël'sresponse toexilemayalsohelpusunderstandherexperimentswithnarrativevoice. CorinneisinfactthefirstmodernFrenchnoveltouseanexternalnarrator inwhatmaybecalledtherealistmanner,anticipatinginmanyrespectsthe methodofhernineteenth-centurysuccessors.Exceptforbriefinterventions inthefirstperson(adevicethatwillreappearinLeRougeetlenoirand MadameBovary),Staël'snarratoroccupiesapositionclosetobutoutside theworldofthestory.Iwouldarguethatthespecialintimacyoftoneand theadoptionofanexternalstandpointgotogether,andthattheemergenceof thisinfluentialnovelisticattitudecanbetraced,atleastinpart,tothe culturaldislocationsthatshapedStaël'scareer. StaëlgavehermemoirsthetitleDixannéesd'exil.Inthatworkshe comparedexiletoakindofmoraldeath,claimingthat"onrencontreplusde bravescontrel'échafaudquecontrelapertedesapatrie."2Sheaddedthatthe threatofexilewasparticularlypainfulforwomen,"quisontdestinéesà souteniretÃrécompenserl'enthousiasme,"forevenmorethanmenwill 91 92/COLEMAN theystifletheir"sentimentsgénéreux,s'ildoitenrésulterouqu'ellessoient enlevéesauxobjetsdeleurtendresse,ouqu'ilsleursacrifientleurexistence enlessuivantenexil"(62).Yet,whatismostsignificantaboutStaël's experienceisthatitdoesnotconformtothisratherconventionalviewof women'srole.Ifweexcepttheearlyepisodeofherfather'sbanishmentin 1787,Staël'sforceddeparturesresultedprimarilyfromherownpoliticaland intellectualactivity.Furthermore,whilePariswouldalwaysbeStaël's emotionalandintellectualhome,andwhileshewouldsufferbecauseitwas difficultforhertoseethefriendswhocontinuedtolivethere,herexperience ofothercountriesandculturesinspiredaphilosophyinwhichthenotionof exileisredefined.InthepluralisticEuropeimaginedbytheCoppetcircle,3 thereisnoonecenter.Staël'sheroineCorinne,forexample,isathome (andinexile)inbothEnglandandItaly.Thepainofseparationmaynotbe lessintense,butthesorrow,whetherpersonalorpolitical,cannolongerbe tracedtoasinglesourceorrelievedbypursuingasinglegoal. TheexaggeratedconventionalityofStaël'srhetoricinDixannéesd'exil betraystheauthor'sdiscomfortwithamodeofexpressionthatshouldalso beleftbehind.WhydoesStaëlnotdoso?Onereasonisthatthesemem- oirswerecomposedin1811-1812torallyEuropeanoppositionto Napoleon.Underthecircumstances,Staëlfeltobligedtominimizeherown involvementintheFrenchRevolutionandinpoliticalactivitygenerally. AnotherisStaël'sambivalenceaboutwomen'spresenceonanypublic stage,evenaswitnessandwriter.Sheacceptstheneedtoexileherselffrom herownwork."Jemeflatte,"shetellsus,"demefairesouventoublieren racontantmaproprehistoire"(2).Staël'sdifficultiesinnegotiatingher participationinthepublicspherehavebeenablydescribedbyanumberof scholars.4ButIwouldalsosuggestathirdreasonthatappliestosomemale authorsaswell.ThesentenceIhavejustquotedisechoedinotherworksof theperiod,forexampleinBenjaminConstant'sAdolphe,whichisalsoa taleofwanderinganddispossession.Speakingofhisearlierself,the narratornotesthat"toutennem'intéressantqu'Ãmoi,jem'intéressais faiblementÃmoi-même."5Inanumberofpre-romanticauthors,talkof exile,mourning,orsomeotherformofloss,becomesawayofexpressinga discursiveproblem.How,inadislocatedworld,canoneacceptthecen- tralityofindividualexperienceinartisticcreationwhileassertingthesub- ordinationofthatexperiencetothesymbolicformsartmustproducetohelp repairthedamage,andwhich,tosucceed,musttranscendthelimitsofwhat CharlesTaylorhascalledthe"punctual"self?6 Oneinfluentialsolutionwastoviewthewriter'svocationasakindof secularpriesthood,endowinghisexperiencewithexemplary,evensacred meaning.Rousseauplayedacrucialrolehere,andPaulBénichouhastraced theextensionofthisideainthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenth centuries.7Butwhilepost-revolutionaryFrenchculturemayhaveproduced themostinflatedclaimsforthewriter'smission,culminatinginVictor Hugo'scosmicwill,italsofosteredthemostsceptical,evensystematically NarrativeVoiceinCorinne/93 reductiveconceptionsofthescopeofartisticaction.Thisismostapparent inthelongtraditionofacademiccriticismwhich,fromtheImperialperiod on,sawRomanticismasaperniciousforeignimportforwhichStaël deservedmuchoftheblame.Butitalsocanbeseeninthesometimes paralyzingself-doubtandsecondthoughtsofthosewriterswho,like ConstantandStaël,wonderjusthowpossible—orsociallyresponsible—it istoenhancetheordinarywithahigher,moreprivileged,poeticself.Her mixtureofenthusiasmandscrupleonthispointhasnothelpedStaël's literaryreputation.Frenchcriticsoftherightdismissedherworkas insufficientlyobjectiveandrestrained;thoseoftheleft,aslackingin practicalzeal.FormoresympatheticcriticssteepedinEnglishorGerman Romanticism,Staëlistoohesitantaboutembracingthesubjective impersonalityofthepoeticself.Inaninfluentialessay,GeorgesPoulet praisedStaël'ssearchforanewartisticconsciousnessinwhichtheselfs immediateconcernswouldbesubordinatedtoamoreauthenticapprehension ofhumanconsciousnessintime.8ButcriticsclosetoPoulet,suchasJean StarobinskiandPauldeMan,characterizedStaël'sreluctancetogiveupthe empiricalselfsdemandsandcommitherselftoartasaseriousflaw.9 Morerecentcritics,writingfromafeministpointofview,haveasked whethertheidealofaesthetictranscendencewasnotatrapforawriter strugglingtoovercomethehandicapofagenderroleinwhichaesthetic categoriesthemselvesbecameatoolforculturalmarginalization.Joande Jean,forexample,includesStaëlinherstudyoftheimageofSappho,the sufferingwomanwhosetranscendentlyricismhasbeenpraisedatthe expenseofherfemaleidentityandwhoseworkhassufferedevenmoreby theproblematicandreductiveequationofthetwo.10Fromthispointof view,artisticauthenticity,farfromgivingtheselfanewanchorinthe deepeststructuresofconsciousness,onlymasksanotherkindofexile.What isneededistosetStaël'sworkmorefirmlyinitsculturalcontextby analyzingitsrelationshiptothecircumstancesofitstime,tothe vocabulariesandimagesavailabletowomenforcreativeappropriationor subversion. Thesetwoviewpointsmayappearpolesapart,butIsuggestwekeep thembothinmind,forbothderiveinsomedegreefromStaël'sown discussionofliteratureinDelalittératureandDel'Allemagne.Eachof theseworkscombinesasociologicalapproachtoliteraturewithanidealist doctrineofartandattemptstoreconcilethemwithinabroadphilosophyof history.11InsketchinganinterpretationofCorinne'snarrativeformthat seekstorelatetheinnerdynamicofthenovel'sformtoitsculturalcontext, IhopetobefaithfultoStaël'sownexampleandtorecoversomeofthe literary-historicalsignificanceofherwork.12 Staël'schoiceofanexternalnarratorisparticularlyrevealinginthisregard becauseitseemstocontradictratherthanconformtoherideasaboutthe relationshipbetweenfictionalformandtheprogressofhumansensibility. ForStaël,themodernspiritfindsitsmostadvancedexpressioninthe 94/COLEMAN epistolarynovel.Thiswastheformshechoseforherfirstfull-length fiction,Delphine,andinDel'Allemagneshewouldclaimthattheepistolarynarrationisthetrulymodernform : Lesromansparlettressupposenttoujoursplusdesentimentsquede faits;jamaislesAnciensn'auraientimaginédedonnercetteformeà leursfictions;etcen'estmêmequedepuisdeuxsièclesquela philosophies'estassezintroduiteennous-mêmespourquel'analysede cequ'onéprouvetienneunesigrandeplacedansleslivres.Cette manièredeconcevoirlesromansn'estpasaussipoétique,sansdoute, quecellequiconsistetoutentièredanslesrécits;maisl'esprithumain estmaintenantbienmoinsavidedesévénementsmêmelesmieux combinés,quedesobservationssurcequisepassedanslecoeur.13 Staël'sstarkoppositionbetween"récit"and"observation"maynotbefair tothesubtletiesofanovelsuchasLafayette'sLaPrincessedeClèves (1678),butitdoesreflectthebroadhistoryofnovelistictechniquesin France.Intheseventeenthcentury,third-personnarrationwasmostoften linkedtoadisenchantedviewoflifeinwhichthechanceandoftenblindacts ofthecharacterswereframedbyakindoftranscendent,impersonal necessity.Theformalmostdisappearedintheeighteenthcentury,replaced initiallybythefirst-person,autobiographicalnovelthatfocusedonthe achievementofalimitedbutgenuineself-knowledge,thenbytheepistolary novel,withitsemphasisonwhatthecharactersthoughtandfeltatparticular momentsinrelationtoeachother.Ofcourse,acontrollingconsciousness wasatworkinalltheseforms,butitisasifthatconsciousnesscouldnot bemadeexplicitwithoutspoilingtheintegrityofthefictionalworld.I speakhereofFrance,becauseinEnglandFrancesBurney,tociteonewriter knowntoStaël,hadsetanimportantexampleinmovingfromthe epistolaryformofEvelina(1778)totheexternalnarratorofCecilia(1782). Burney'snovels,however,includeacomicelement,largelyabsentfrom Staël'swork,thatconnectsBurney'schoiceofnarratorwithalong- establisheduseofthethirdpersonforcomiccommentary.Themost famouseighteenth-centuryexamplewasTomJones,anovelStaëlad- mired,14butwhichwasquiteforeigntotheFrenchtraditioninwhichold distinctionsbetweencomicandseriousmodespersistedmuchlonger.Only intheironicnovelsofDiderotandSade(largelyunappreciated,ofcourse,in thepost-revolutionaryperiod)didthistraditionstarttobreakdown. ThusCorinne'sreintroductionofthedistinctionbetweentheworldofthe charactersandthatofthecommentaryinanovelofsentimentmarksanew stageintheevolutionofFrenchnarrative.Staël'snovelcontains,itistrue, alongletterinwhichtheheroinetellsherownstory,aswellaslengthy speechesinwhichthecharactersopentheirhearts,butitsoverallformdoes notfosterafeelingofimmediacy.Theebbandflowofcorrespondenceis replacedbyaseriesoftwentyclearlydivided"books,"eachwithitsown title.Thenarratordoesenterthestoryattheveryendofthenovel,butthis NarrativeVoiceinCorinne/95 final,first-personremarkonlyunderscoresthedistancebetweennarratorand character.SpeakingofOswald'sregretatabandoningCorinneinfavorof themoredocilebutvapidLucile,thenarratorasks:"separdonna-t-ilsa conduitepassée?Lemondequil'approuvaleconsola-t-il?Secontenta-t-il d'unsortcommun,aprèscequ'ilavaitperdu?Jel'ignore,etneveux,Ãcet égard,nileblâmer,nil'absoudre."15JudgedbyStaël's"modem"standard, theinabilitytosupplythisinformationisasignofaestheticinadequacy, notonlybecausewedonotlearnwhatOswaldfeels,butbecauseitis impliedwedonotneedtoknow:thestoryisover.AlthoughCorinneis hardlystingyinits"observationssurcequisepassedanslecoeur,"itends byassertingtheprecedenceofa"récit"withitsowndistinctcoherenceand closure. ThenarrativeperspectiveofCorinneisnonethelessverydifferentfrom thatofLaPrincessedeClèves.Insteadofchanceandnecessity,Staël's bookdramatizescontingencyandprobability.Thecharacters'actionsare determinedbyanynumberofsocialorpsychologicalcauses,buttheir relativeweightcanbeassessedandtheirprobableeffects,inother circumstances,couldbepredicted.Therelationbetweenthenarratorandthe charactersisalsodifferent.Lafayette'sauthoritativenarratorlaysbarehidden motivesonlytoshowthatthehumanheartremainsunknowable.16The lastlinesofCorinneexpressadifferentrelationshipbetweenignoranceand knowledge.Onecould,intheory,findoutwhatOswaldfelt.Thelimitsto thenarrator'sknowledgedonotreflectanecessaryincapacity.Like everyoneelse's,thenarrator'sknowledgeisreal,butpreciselybecauseitis likeeveryoneelse'sitisonlyapartialperspective,notthewholetruth. Evenwithinitssphereofcompetence,itsuggestsratherthandefines absolutely. Yet,Staël'sstrategyshouldalsobedistinguishedfromthatofthe fictional"editor"ofanepistolarynovellikeLesLiaisonsdangereuses.Was Valmontalibertinerighttotheend?Laclos'editorinsertsafootnote sayingthatbecausenothinginthecorrespondenceentrustedtohimresolves thisquestionhehasdecidedtosuppressalastletterbyValmontexpressing remorseoverhisbetrayalofMadamedeTourvel.17Heretheuncertaintyis ostensiblyattributedtoalackofexternalevidenceinthe"society"which producedthecorrespondence.Laclosusesthatuncertainty,however,to damnValmontallthemoreeffectivelybyexcludinghisletterwhichin itselfisheldtopossessnoevidential,value.Staël'stentativenessisalso ironic—Oswaldisbeingjudged—butthetenorofthatironyisdifferent.In Laclos,theabsenceofexternalevidencemeansparadoxicallythattheeditor's decisioncannotbeappealed.Staël'snarratordoesnotattributeherignorance tothesamedefinitecause.Thekindofevidencethatmightormightnot resolvetheissueisleftanopenquestion.Butalthoughitsnarratorisless peremptory,Corinneisinonesenselessdependentonitssocialintertext thanLesLiaisons.Withinthefictionaltermsofthe"found"correspon- dence,thepossibilitythatotherevidencemightturnupstillexists—a 96/COLEMAN pretextusedbyothernovelistsofthetimetopublishsequelstopopular books.Lacloshasdonehisbesttoforestallthatpossibilitybycomposinga tightly-wovenplot,buttheeighteenth-centuryFrenchnovelsituatesitself withinalargercommunicativenetworkinwhichstoriesareexchangedand revised.18TheindeterminatebasisforStaël's"jel'ignore,"astatement whosesociallocationcannotbeidentified—or,ifso,onlyinthespace betweenFrench,English,andItaliansocieties—reallymeanswecanonly supportorappealthenarrator'sjudgmentbyreferringtothestoryitself. Incompleteandunrootedasitmaybe,thenovelinanimportantsense becomesitsowncontext. Staël'snarrator,atonceinsideandoutsidetheworldofthestory,freely assertinganindependentpointofviewyetrefusingtoassumeapositionof finalauthority,maybeseenasanattempttomediatebetweenthecentral andtheexiled,marginalselfwhosedualityliesattheheartofpre-romantic Frenchwriting.Thegoalofthismediationisneitherwhollyaestheticnor whollypractical.Rather,itistoredefinethesefieldsthroughthesymbolic constructofthework.Detailedevidenceabouttheformalgenesisof Corinneisstillunavailable,19butwecangetsomeinsightintowhatwasat stakefromareviewofthenovelwrittenbyAugustWilhelmSchlegel,who accompaniedStaëlthroughouthertravelsinItalyandplayedanimportant roleinheraestheticeducation.20Thislittle-knownessayissignificantin thatSchlegel,perhapsmindfulofthekindofthinkingthatledStaëlto praisetheepistolarynovelastheformmostexpressiveof"modern" interiority...