No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 December 2020
In Part III of Stello Vigny's concept of Destiny in historical and personal events is set forth by Blaireau, Doctor Noir's servant who is also part-time gunner in the French Revolution. Blaireau's first appearance reflects the fact that radical political changes can occur in one man's lifetime, and this reinforces Vigny's larger point in the novel, that to seek political fortune is a tenuous and vulnerable business. Blaireau's second appearance demonstrates Vigny's notions on the existence of blind Chance in history as opposed to Joseph de Maistre's idea of a beneficent Providence. In his third appearance Blaireau unwittingly causes the downfall of Robespierre and is consequently called “l'homme de la Destinée” by Doctor Noir. By “Destiny” Vigny means the capriciousness of events that alter the lives of persons and of nations. As for man's freedom, Vigny provides man with a leeway whereby he can mold events in his life and direct, to a certain extent, the powers of Destiny. While only “superior men” succeed at this, all men, including Blaireau, are given the possibility for doing so. Negatively Blaireau demonstrates the vulnerability of political fortune; positively he implies the possibility of resisting the powers that rule over man. His three appearances at beginning, middle, and end of the Chénier episode give esthetic and ideological unity to the work.
1 Pierre Flottes, La Pensée politique et sociale a“Alfred de Vigny (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1925), p. 129.
2 Edmond Estève, Alfred de Vigny (Paris: Garnier frères, 1923), p. 103.
3 Pierre Flottes, Alfred de Vigny (Paris: Perrin et cie., 1925), p. 153.
4 Alfred de Vigny, Œuvres complètes, ed. Fernand Baldensperger (Paris: Pléiade, 1948), i, 707. References to the novel will hereafter be included in the text.
5 Different critics have succeeded in making these possibilities seem mutually exclusive. In interpreting the Blaireau incident Edmond Estève, for instance, stresses the “Chance” theory and says: “Vigny corrige ce que la théorie en question a de trop humiliant pour la vanité humaine par l'évocation de la puissance mystérieuse qui est au fond des choses et qui les conduit où elle veut” (p. 103). Pierre Flottes says that Blaireau is nothing but a puppet: “Cet homme ne s'appartient pas: il est aux mains de la force mystérieuse qui fait tomber les trÔnes et qui, après des élans terribles, a des arrêts mystérieux: c'est l'homme de la Destinée” (La Pensée politique, p. 106). Georges Bonnefoy agrees with Flottes in that he sees Blaireau as nothing more than a tool that is “used” by Destiny: “Vigny va humilier tout le monde et lui-même devant le Destin, c'est-à-dire la puissance mystérieuse, vainement baptisée sous le nom de Providence, par qui les causes même ridicules [such as Blaireau's not firing his cannon] sont réellement causes” (La Pensée religieuse et morale d'Alfred de Vigny, Paris: Hachette, 1944, p. 163).
6 The Blaireau incident itself has a basis in history. The following notes are from Vigny's Journal d'un poète, March 1832: “Notes sur 93. —Le 9 thermidor. Le 8, André de Chénier mourut (Thiers). Ce fut une lutte entre la Convention et la Commune. —Henriot voulait faire feu. Le refus des canonniers fixa le sort du 9 thermidor. —Si un canon-nier eût approché sa mèche, la face du monde eût changé” (Œuvres complètes, iii, 948). The dates of the entries in the Journal will hereafter be included in the text.
7 In that Flottes and Estève chose to stress only one of these options at a time they helped to confuse the interpretation of Blaireau's action.
8 This entry was made in Vigny's Journal on 1 April 1849. This was the year of the poem “Les Destinées,” the year in which Vigny is purported, by most critics, to have relapsed into pessimism and to have felt crushed by the power of an inescapable Destiny. And yet there are those who see, even in the conclusion of “Les Destinées,” Vigny's refusal to abandon all hope. Pierre-Georges Castex says: “La fin de la pièce ne marque pas, au moins sur un certain plan, l'abandon de tout espoir. … A cette question [celle qui est posée à la fin du poème: ”Notre mot éternel est-il C'ETAIT ECRIT?“] peut-être l'Homme de demain pourra-t-il répondre non, s'il prend lui-même en mains les intérêts de son destin. . . . Cet optimisme s'affirme dans les dernières années du poète; mais déjà le germe existait au temps de Stello.” Les Destinées (Paris: Société d'Enseignement Supérieur, 1964), p. 255.
9 Bonnefoy suggests that Vigny found the idea of “deux destins,” one derived from God's will and one from man's, in Ballanche, but while Ballanche saw concord, Vigny saw combat between the two destinies (La Pensée religieuse, p. 127).
10 Eva Kushner, “Vigny's Vision of History,” Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 69 (1965), 617.
11 Pierre Flottes says (La Pensée politique, p. 129) that connection is lacking between the Blaireau incident (which shows ineluctable Fate) and the doctor's prescriptions to Stello (which show the possibility of man's rising above his Fate). The point seems to be, however, that the final prescriptions make explicit the implicit possibility of Blaireau's freedom. Vigny's statement “Seulement les plus forts ou les meilleurs se redressent contre elle [leur Destinée]” is made in the first chapter of Part in of Stello. The possibility of man's controlling his Destiny is affirmed by Vigny even before he shows the workings of Caprice in the Blaireau incident. It is therefore not paradoxical for the doctor to prescribe such control at the end of the novel.
12 On 4 Dec. 1830, Vigny makes the following definition of resistance to Destiny in his Journal: “Bonaparte était à l'île de Saint-Hélène: ‘Je veux laver mon pays—vint lui dire un jeune capitaine anglais—du crime de votre mort. Venez! ma frégate est à vous!’ Bonaparte baissa la tête et répondit: ‘Il n'y a pas de rÔle pour moi dans le monde: je reste.’ Il avait raison; ce fut bien dit. Il faut sentir son rÔle sur ce théâtre et résister à la Destinée quand elle veut nous forcer à en jouer un ignoble et indigne de notre personnage.”
13 Flottes admittedly recognizes that Vigny, in one sense, presented Destiny as being a malleable force, but he does not see this interpretation as encompassing the Blaireau incident (La Pensée politique, p. 129).
14 Bonnefoy points out that in Cinq Mars and La Maréchale d'Ancre Vigny's heroes assert their independence over Destiny by being masters of their own death: “Ils se retranchent d'eux-mêmes et cherchent volontairement la mort, ne voulant pas consentir à ce que le destin exige d'eux, préservant et affirmant une dernière fois, par la mort, leur volonté idéale, que le destin vient railler dans les faits” (La Pensée religieuse, p. 128). But if human liberty can only assert itself through death, then there is not much hope for man. In Stello Vigny reflects on the question of man's freedom should he choose to live.
15 Bonnefoy explains that even though Vigny used the term “expiation” in the Avant-Propos of La Maréchale d'Ancre what he actually meant was “l'application du système à la fois poétique et dramatique des coïncidences, que Vigny connaît par Benjamin Constant, depuis Cinq Mars, et qu'il veut bien dans son Avant-Propos, porté par la critique et l'ambiance des idées de Ballanche, interpréter favorablement à l'idée de l'expiation” (La Pensée religieuse, p. 129). This interpretation reinforces Vigny's ideas for coincidences and against expiation that we see in Stello.
16 François Germain traces the changing meaning of the concept of Destiny in Vigny's life. It was first identified by Vigny as a “puissance intérieure.” This implied a very per-sonalistic and individual definition whereby Destiny was the summation of weaknesses in his own life. The concept was to change, and Vigny was later to identify Destiny with “le cours des choses,” with the fortuitous elements in history. According to Germain the shift from an individual to a historical Destiny implies a liberation for Vigny. By exteriorizing Destiny, Vigny was freed to oppose it and to rise above it. Although Germain dates this shift in Vigny's notions as taking place in 1835, the transition had already occurred in Stello in 1831. See François Germain, L'lmagi-ration d'Alfred de Vigny (Paris: J. Corti, 1961), pp. 346, 350, 351–52, 457, 458, 478.