• PrintFriendly
  • Share/Bookmark

Vipers’ Tangle (1932) by Francois Mauriac

reviewed by John Murphy

François Mauriac, winner of the Nobel Prize and recipient of France’s Legion d’honneur, was among the last century’s most pre-eminent men of letters, and a devout Roman Catholic. Vipers’ Tangle is one of Mauriac’s most famous works, a book of bruising beauty that explores man’s capacity for love and hate, bitterness and forgiveness, sin and redemption, and his crippling dependency on God’s amazing grace to save a wretch like Monsieur Louis.

Vipers’ Tangle is structured as a lengthy confession—sometimes a confession, sometimes a polemic, sometimes an invective—from Monsieur Louis, a wealthy retired lawyer of declining health who feels surrounded by a nest of vipers, his family. Yet the vipers’ tangle is within as well as without.

The story bears a passing resemblance to Dickens’ classic, A Christmas Carol: a rich, “covetous old sinner” struggles against God’s grace to find redemption. But where Dickens’ tale had its author’s infectious good-humor and largeness of spirit, Vipers’ Tangle is an often disturbing journey to the heart of an odious man’s mystery. In both stories, however, the ultimate point is that God’s grace is accessible to anyone, even the most miserly old sinner.

Monsieur Louis writes, “True to my character of an old barrister, I want to get my brief sorted out, to docket and arrange the various exhibits in that lost cause—my life.” But who is the embittered lawyer building his case against—his wife, his children, or himself?

Standing at the edge of the abyss, Louis strips himself of all his old illusions as he prepares for his inevitable end. Taking a cold, hard look at his life, and at the consequences of his pettiness and solipsism, Louis begins to understand how a deliberate self-deception has shaped his life for ill, not for good. “Is it possible that a man can live for nearly half a century noticing one side only of the person who shares his life? Can it be that, from long habit, he picks and chooses from amongst her gestures and her words, keeping for use only those that feed his grievances and perpetuate his resentment?” These questions are reminiscent of Dostoevsky’s observation that “the second half of a man’s life is made up of nothing but the habits he has acquired during the first half.”

Louis has accustomed himself to despising those around him, to closing himself off from affection, to becoming the “monster” so many take him to be, almost as a duty rather than a compulsion. He confesses that “my passion for possession, and for using and abusing what I possess, extends to human beings.” The reader, perhaps sooner than Louis, comes to understand that his cruelty owes partially to his desire to be noticed, if not loved. He cannot imagine that anyone would love him. He feels his wife is indifferent to him, that she lavishes all her love on their children, and he resents her religious piety. The only child for whom he ever felt true love, Marie, died young—a symbolic death, the reader comes to learn, like Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross.

Through his barrister narrator, Mauriac is making a case of his own. By presenting the reader with a malevolent old man on his deathbed, the author’s case is simply this: no one is beyond the reach of God’s grace. Without romanticizing Louis, Mauriac expresses the tragedy of a wasted life, the tragedy of a man who has closed himself off from a community of love to wallow in his own despair. Louis is sinned against as well as sinning, but he reserves many of his harshest judgments for himself. He is honest, not hypocritical, and he often turns his cruelty inwards. There is a telling moment when someone asks the local priest if it is permissible to hate the Jews. He replies that “each of us has the right to hate one of Christ’s butchers, and one only—himself, but no one else.”

Vipers’ Tangle is an eschatological meditation on the final things, the moment of death. “Apocalypse” is a popular subject for many sensationalistic religious thrillers, but the fact remains that every person’s death is his or her own apocalypse—the end of the world. Though unsentimental, Mauriac’s vision of one lonely man’s last days is hopeful. As Death approaches Louis, the material universe begins to slough away, to diminish in importance as it recedes behind him. The essential drama of Catholic fiction (and why so many great writers are Catholic or have catholic sensibilities) is not whether a character dies—we all die—but whether a character dies in a state of grace. High stakes make for compelling stories, and no stake is higher than the condition of one’s eternal soul. Choices in this life have repercussions in the next.

Mauriac asks the reader to bear with his bitter, cruel narrator. He even implicates the reader in Louis’ sin-ridden life by suggesting that love requires patience and understanding—a willingness to reach out to souls in torment. “Even the genuinely good cannot, unaided, learn to love. To penetrate beyond the absurdities, the vices, and above, the stupidities of human creatures, one must possess the secret of a love that the world has now forgotten.”

This sounds similar to Mauriac in his own note to the text:

“The man here depicted was the enemy of his own flesh and blood. His heart was eaten up by hatred and by avarice. Yet, I would have you, in spite of his baseness, feel pity and be moved by his predicament. All through his dreary life, squalid passions stood between him and that radiance that was so close that an occasional ray could still break through to touch and burn him: not only his own passions, but, primarily, those of the lukewarm Christians who spied upon his actions, and whom he himself tormented. Too many of us are similarly at fault, driving the sinner to despair and blinding his eyes to the light of truth.”

The Guardian essay on Joseph Conrad

The Guardian recently ran an essay on the works of Joseph Conrad to celebrate the 150th anniversary of his birth. The author, Giles Foden, embraces Conrad as one of the first and greatest modernists of the English language. Though that point is indisputable, Foden’s obsession with Conrad’s “moral relativism” as central to his enduring legacy seems overstressed, particularly since the observation strikes me as a weak one. Consider this excerpt:

“The idea of suicide is important in the novels, several of which defend it as a legitimate act in the face of an absurd world. They do so rather in the terms of French existentialism – there are links between Conrad and Camus – as a form of conviction when all other forms seem worthless.”

This seems strange to me. Decoud’s suicide in Nostromo, for example, is shown to be the final act of a man whose only defining characteristic is a lack of conviction, not the final act of a man expressing a “form of conviction.” I also have trouble reconciling the Foden’s claim that Conrad had an aversion to abstract moral principles—a suspicion, certainly, and perhaps a fascination, but not a downright aversion. What about Nostromo’s refusal to fetch a priest to hear the confession of his dying, surrogate mother? Nostromo, like Conrad, had no faith (at the time) in the efficacy of religious ritual—but N’s refusal haunts him as an act of moral cowardice. And what is an abstract moral principle if not the principle that a dying woman should have access to the last rites? (A similar conundrum also turns up in Romance, the book Conrad co-authored with Ford Madox Ford, where a group of criminals are hung and denied confession. This fact appalls the hero/narrator).

Foden, who takes care to ignore Conrad’s deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism, also harps on the importance of “context” to establishing character value. I don’t see how in Lord Jim the “context” impacts Jim’s decision to abandon a ship full of Muslim pilgrims, for example. His act, which shadows the rest of his life, could only be characterized in terms of abstract moral principles: heroism and cowardice. “I had jumped, it seemed.”

Though I disagree with some of the author’s points, it’s a thoughtful meditation on a writer whose “influence on subsequent authors has been so pervasive that Graham Greene, for one, wrote of having to stop reading Conrad for fear of becoming completely enslaved to his style.”

 

 

Dirda on Chesterton

Michael Dirda, a Pulitzer-prize winning columnist for the Washington Post, has recently authored a book called Classics for Pleasure, about the abiding joy of reading “duh classics,” as Tony Curtis would say. Included in Dirda’s book is an essay on G.K. Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday, which G.K. fans should be pleased-as-punch about. In an interview publicizing Dirda’s book, he spoke to his love of Chesterton’s Father Brown series and Thursday:

“I’m a great Chesterton fan, and own perhaps 40 of his books. Indeed, some years back I spoke at two successive Chesteron conferences in Toronto. The books you mention are his best fictions–along with The Napoleon of Notting Hill–and he’s probably not known because his style is so rich, dense with paradox, and because he espouses unpopular views, eg. he is religious, Catholic, and a supporter of an economic system called distributism. Not least, he was slightly tarred–wrongly so, for the most part–as anti-Semitic because of his association with Hilarie Belloc and his brother Cecil Chesterton, both of whom were, more or less.

But he’s an amazing writer–just the most brilliant journalist imaginable.”

As they say, it’s nice to have one’s opinion backed up by a competent authority.

Here’s the interview.

Dirda’s book also includes essays on Edward Gorey, Daphne du Maurier, Cicero, Erasmus, Dashiell Hammett, and a whole host of others. Sounds like a great read, and I love his eclectic selection of reading material.

Nostromo (1904) by Joseph Conrad

order from Amazonreviewed by Rachel Murphy

In the fictional South American Republic of Costaguana, the small town of Sulaco is sheltered from the rest of the state by mountain and plainnear the edge of the sombre Gulfo Plácido whose still waters are protected from the ocean gusts—“as if within an enormous semicircular and unroofed temple open to the ocean, with its walls of lofty mountains hung with the mourning draperies of cloud.” In this strange “temple” known as Sulaco, an unholy deity sits throned in the depths of the land: the silver of the mine.

 

The mine, like a cicatrice in the earth, has already destroyed one life, the father of Charles Gould. Charles, born in Costaguana but raised and educated in England, has inherited the infamous “Gould Concession” (i.e., the upkeep of the silver mine) which had been imposed on his father as a fatal “gift” by the unstable powers-that-were. Having received monthly jeremiads from across the sea from a father utterly frustrated and “mine-ridden” ever since Charles was fourteen, Charles too becomes increasingly fascinated by the idea of the mine and its importance to the creation of a peaceful society and stable government (“I pin my faith in material interests”). Undertaking the workings of his fatal gift against his father’s request that he leave well alone, Charles is accompanied by his beautiful, graceful wife, whose character combines the elements of wisdom and empathy that make her the most humanly stable in the novel.

As the mine becomes increasingly a power in the land under the skillful hand of Charles Gould, it also becomes the desired possession of the would-be dictator Pedro Montero, and the town is once again threatened by revolution. For the prosperous of Sulaco, the only chance to save the silver and protect their “interests” is to instigate a counter-revolution of Separation from the rest of the state.

Other characters revealed in Conrad’s immensely complex novel of revolution are the cynical Decoud, a Frenchified dandy and cynic whose love for the beautiful Antonia drives every action of his hand and intellect in the cause of Separation—because, far from being a genuine patriot (or anything else), he is a man who believes in nothing except “the certainty of his own sensations”; or the fascinating and sardonic outcast Dr. Monygham, haunted by an act of betrayal under excruciating torture from years beforean event which bound his fate more irretrievably to the land than anything else could have doneand whose devotion to Mrs. Gould is the motivating fact of his present life; or the brave, bombastic (though rather dense) Captain Mitchell; or the steadfast old revolutionary Giorgio Viola (nicknamed “the Garibaldino” for his unstinting idolatry of Garibaldi), whose strength of character and snowy hair are almost as much a presence in the town as is the snowy head of Higuerota dominating the mountain peaks.

But throwing all else into shadow by comparison is the personality of the Italian seaman Giovanni Battista Fidanza, known as Nostromo. As reader, we are aware of the presence of Nostromo by sheer force of his well-earned reputation, long before we “see” him for any length in action. He is present to us in name from the second chapter, and flashes in and out of a scene like a magnificent ghost, but you must wait until almost halfway through the novel before he appears in any significant part of the action. Young, but with a forcefulness of character, experience and reputation of a man twice his age, he is the captain of the cargo-bearers for Sulaco’s Oceanic Steam Navigation Company run by Captain Mitchell. Nostromowhose very nickname is a corruption of the Italian for “our man”is “the lordly capataz de cargadores, the indispensable man, the tried and trusty Nostromo, the Mediterranean sailor come ashore casually to try his luck in Costaguana”; he is “the magnificent,” “the illustrious capataz”, “the incomparable”, and, above all, “the incorruptible” Nostromo; incorruptible as the silver itself. Riding high and haughty on his silver-grey mare, the silver buttons on his jacket gleaming as contemptuously as his white-toothed grin, with his broad shoulders, black whiskers and blacker looks that might strike terror into the bravest heart; he “was much of a man, that capataz.” While poor himself, he is the go-to man for the rich and prosperous of Sulaco, and as Decoud cynically comments, he “seems to have a talent for being on the spot whenever there is something picturesque to be done.” He is a man of the people, and, like the people, a beast of burden for the ricos.

Therefore, as the plot thickens in the novel’s midpoint and the silver of the mine is threatened by the invasion of the would-be dictator Pedro Montero and his troopsas well as the cruel and mercenary Sotillo who is to arrive by seathere is only one man who might have any chance to sneak the enormous hoard of silverthe result of six months of hard laborout of the town: Nostromo. It is here that Conrad’s world becomes deeper and more majestic as the lighter-boat filled with silver is cast out into the waters of the Gulf, to meet a northbound steamer that will take it out of reach of the Brothers Montero and of Sotillo; and it is here that the secrecy of the lighter’s presence is threatened by a cowardly man who had come aboard unobserved before the lighter had been put to seaand the suspense and adventure begin. It is here in the still waters that Nostromo, seeing his life as for the first time as if he were a soul suspended from itself, becomes aware of the hollowness of a life based solely on a reputation and fine words, and he is increasingly haunted by thoughts of bitterness towards the rich who use him as their jackal. It is here, too, that he decides to take an unexpected revenge.

Nostromo, during the first read, is slow to get going, and confusing in plot and narrative structure. Conrad has an unconventional way of going back-and-forth in time and point-of-view, as if trying to see an event from multiple angles. The politics, too, of this fictional Costaguana I found to be confusing on the first read. But I assure you that it is worth the furrowed brow that might become a permanent fixture during the first half of the novel; once Conrad gets you out to sea on the lighter, the reader is irretrievably drawn in. And the novel’s re-readability value is one of the greatest I’ve known—and, as Oscar Wilde comments, “If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all”—and the first half becomes more fascinating once one has experienced the whole thread of the narrative. (For an incomparable listening experience, check out Frank Muller’s Recorded Books reading of Nostromo, available through Audible. His deep, dusky baritone might conjure the very ghosts of Azuera from their shadowy haunts—and only such a voice as his could portray the magnificent capataz de cargadores.)

Conrad’s landscape is less one of revolutions and romance than it is of the soul itself. Every significant place and inanimate thing takes on, subtly, a semblance of supernatural life: the silver of the mine; the snows of Higuerota; the ghosts of Azuera; the Placid Gulf and Punta Mala “like a shadow on the sky”; the three Isabels; the lighthouse; the lighter. It is a masterful study of character and of their multifaceted motivations, light or dark; and the Silver itself is like a mirror of them all: Gould’s “subtle infidelity” that puts the silver of the mine over the happiness of his wife; Decoud’s nihilism; Monygham’s infatuation with Mrs. Gould, like an unlawful treasure; Nostromo’s bitterness. Reading it, the thought couldn’t help but cross my mind that the silver is like a precursor to Tolkien’s iconic Ring: a mirror and a tempter of the darker places of the soul. Conrad himself considered it to be his most successful novel, and it certainly must be one of the greatest novels ever written. The sheer beauty of language, complexity of theme and character, and perfection of haunting imagery and atmosphere prove that it is a work that will remain utterly applicable, fascinating, and, without irony, incorruptible.

 

The American by Henry James

reviewed by John Murphybuy from Amazon.com

“You are not afraid it may be rather a mistake for an American man of business to marry a French countess?”

The American man of business is certainly not afraid it’s a mistake; it seems only too natural. Christopher Newman, a captain of American industry in his mid-thirties, travels to Europe to become a new man. Part of that entails finding a suitable bride. He is an eligible bachelor, unquestionably: good-looking, well-spoken, amiable, and incredibly rich. He has his pick of the lot and he knows it. So he bides his time, confident in his ability to make a good investment. Money has purchased his every other amenity, why can’t it buy him the best wife Europe has to offer?

Newman has the misfortune of settling on Madame de Cintré as his potential partner in life. She is a young widow, a countess from an ancient French family, the Bellegardes. He considers her perfect in every way, fitting all his required qualities: “Goodness, beauty, intelligence, a fine education, personal elegance—everything, in a word, that makes a splendid woman.”

“And noble birth, evidently,” says Bellegarde, the brother of the bride-to-be.

“Oh, throw that in, by all means, if it’s there. The more the better!”

Newman’s ignorance is almost endearing. He doesn’t realize that his nouveau riches are so much water breaking on implacable ramparts: European pride. The Bellegardes are not best pleased by an American businessman making overtures of marriage to a prized family possession, no matter how padded his wallet.

Newman will not be dissuaded. Once he gets hold of an idea he cannot let go, and Madame de Cintré’s seeming “superiority,” her snobbish connections, and her ancient family name, only increase her material value in Newman’s eyes. He wants to purchase a valuable wife, like a collector in rabid pursuit of an ancient, unattainable Greek vase. In surely one of the least romantic declarations of love on record, Newman confesses to Madame de Cintré: “You have been holding your head for a week past just as I wanted my wife to hold hers. You say just the things I want her to say. You walk about the room just as I want her to walk. You have just the taste in dress that I want her to have. In short, you come up to the mark; and, I can tell you, my mark was high.”

Newman speaks as if he’s picked her off a store shelf, turned her over a few times in his hands and, finding no flaws in the make, takes her to the counter to purchase. But courtship is a complicated business in the Old World of Europe, where maintaining the honor of the family name may take priority over the family’s cash flow.

Madame de Cintré’s brother warns Newman: “Old trees have crooked branches, old houses have queer cracks, old races have odd secrets. Remember that we are eight hundred years old!”

Old trees have crooked branches, and James’s story takes a crooked turn late in the plot. (The American, an early entry in James’s illustrious career, suffers from overwrought melodrama in its third act.) I cannot proceed without addressing what the casual reader may perceive as an unmistakable strain of anti-Catholicism on James’s part. To do so, I cannot proceed without addressing major plot points. SPOILER WARNING!

Newman’s offer of marriage to Madame Cintré is denied. She tells him she is going into a convent, no doubt at the behest of her scheming older brother and wicked old mother.

“The idea struck Newman as too dark and horrible for belief, and made him feel as he would have done if she had told him that she was going to mutilate her beautiful face, or drink some potion that would make her mad.”

The reader is expected to share in Newman’s horror, his utter disbelief, that the young and beautiful Madame de Cintré could be consigned to living death in a convent. “That this superb woman, in whom he had seen all human grace and household force, should turn from him and the brightness that he offered her—him and his future and his fortune and his fidelity—to muffle herself in ascetic rags and entomb herself in a cell, was a confounding combination of the inexorable and the grotesque.”

But wait a moment. Examine that passage again. James is far too subtle a thinker to traffic in anti-Catholicism for its own sake. (Convent = tomb.). Rather, James uses Catholicism to suggest deep waters, ancient and dark, where a hard-headed pragmatist like Newman is clearly out of his depth. Newman is still focused on himself; he cannot conceive that his potential bride could “turn from him and the brightness that he offered her—him and his fortune and his fortune and his fidelity…”

Later, when Newman visits the convent where Madame de Cintré has taken her vows, he listens to the “strange, lugubrious chant, uttered by women’s voices. It began softly, but it presently grew louder, and as it increased it became more of a wail and a dirge. It was the chant of the Carmelite nuns, their only human utterance. It was their dirge over their buried affections and over the vanity of earthly desires…”

Was Madame de Cintré only ever a vanity of Newman’s earthly desires? If so, it would change the complexion of James’s superficial-seeming swipe at the Church. An important scene to consider is among the last of the book: Newman visits the cathedral of Notre Dame and there decides to jettison his plot for revenge against the scheming Bellegardes. “Whether it was Christian charity or unregenerate good nature—what it was, in the background of his soul—I don’t pretend to say; but Newman’s last thought was that of course he would the Bellegardes go…”

Addendum: The villains of the piece – the smug, self-satisfied Bellegardes – are lightweights compared to Gilbert Osmond of James’s Portrait of a Lady, one of literature’s more chilling specimens. The Bellegardes seem like studies for the fully-realized portrait of Old World evil in Osmond. Osmond’s icy evil could freeze vodka, whereas the Bellegardes are a more lukewarm enemy.

Bad Behavior has blocked 482 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Wordpress Seo Plugin

copyright © 2007-2010 by Idylls Press.