The Year of Reading Proust discussion

This thread is for the discussion that will take place through Sunday, 30 June of Within a Budding Grove, finish.

The summed up effect of the dinner on the Narrator comes at the very beginning of this section:

...Chacun des convives du dîner, affublant le nom mystérieux sous lequel je l'avais seulement connu et rêvé à distance, d'un corps et d'une intelligence pareils ou inférieurs à ceux de toutes personnes que je connaissais , m'avait donné l'impression de plate vulgarité que peut donner l'entrée dans le port danois d'Elseneur à tout lecteur enfiévré d'Hamlet

I just like so much the way he associates things in his mind.. He has so much imagination (the Narrator, I mean).

Reference to the Jesse tree in stained glass... I am very familiar with these windows around Paris...

The one in Chartres... the full genealogical tree from Jesse down below, asleep, from whose side springs up the tree with all the Kings of Jerusalem all the way to Christ on top. Just below Christ we have the Virgin and below her King David. The Prophets are on the sides. Hard to get the whole thing in one photo. We are lucky with this one below if a bit blurred.


.. elles (faces) restaient, en leur beau dessin et leurs changeants reflets, homogènes à ces noms, qui, à intervalles réguliers, chacun d'une couleur différente, se détachaient de l'arbre généalogique de Guermantes, et ne troublaient d'aucune matière étrangère et opaque les bourgeons translucides, alternants et multicolore, qui, tels qu'aux vitraux de Jessé, les ancêtres de Jésus, fleurissaient de l'un et l'autre côté de l'arbre de verre.

And one detail, from the St-Denis Basilica..

Kalliope wrote: "...I just like so much the way he associates things in his mind.. He has so much imagination (the Narrator, I mean). ."

Same thought here when he mentioned Elsinore and how places' and peoples' actual and often mundane personas interfere with any poetic notions we might associate with their names.
But fortunately the genealogical discussion was initiated just in time to restore some of the mythical quality to these old names he loves so much and even before he mentions it, I, and I'm sure you too, Kalliope, was imagining the wonderful stained glass windows of the Sainte Chapelle where I'm sure I remember seeing a Jessé tree, and then he mentioned just such stained glass windows! I feel like I'm learning how his mind works.

I feel too that the genealogy of the Guermantes family, the 'cousinage', helps enormously to restore the magic of the Guermantes name which the banalities of the dinner conversation had almost destroyed.
It becomes clear that he prefers the idea of people to the reality, he wants to see them only as precious stones in the ancient architecture of their names - the name 'Norpois' gains a sheen when associated via 'cousinage' with more ancient names.
Ainsi les espaces de ma mémoire se couvraient peu à peu de noms qui en s'ordonnant, en se composant les uns relativement aux autres, en nouant entre eux des rapports de plus en plus nombreux, imitaient ces oeuvres d'art achevées où il n'y a pas une seule touche qui soit isolée, où chaque partie tour à tour reçoit des autres sa raison d'être comme elle leur impose la sienne.

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "...I just like so much the way he associates things in his mind.. He has so much imagination (the Narrator, I mean). ."

Same thought here when he mentioned Elsinore and how places..."

Yes, there is also a Jesse tree in the Sainte-Chapelle. Above are the Chartres and the St.Denis ones..

And there are some fragments in the Musée de Cluny as well.

http://www.musee-moyenage.fr/pages/pa...

Fionnuala wrote: "..Ainsi les espaces de ma mémoire se couvraient peu à peu de noms qui en s'ordonnant, en se composant les uns relativement aux autres,
"

The last quote is wonderful. I like so much his writing...

"Comment, vous ne savez pas vous raser, même un soir où vous dînez en ville vous gardez quelques poils", me dit-il en me prenant le menton entre deux doigts pour ainsi dire magnétisés, qui, après avoir résisté un instant, remontèrent jusqu'à mes oreilles comme les doigts d'un coiffeur. "Ah! ce serait agréable de regarder ce 'clair de lune bleu' au bois avec quelqu'un comme vous", me dit-il acec un douceur subite et comme involontaire, puis, l'air triste: "Car vous êtes gentil tout de même, vous pourrez l'être plus que personne, ajouta-t-il, en me touchant paternellement l'épaule. Autrefois, je dois dire que je vous trouvais bien insignifiant"

During the entire scene chez Charlus, I couldn't help seeing Charlus as a particularly unpredictable and irascible version of the famously unpredictable and irascible Edward Rochester and the Narrator as a perfectly cool-headed and dignified Jane Eyre.
Mea culpa...

"...But she's Oriane's cousin," says the Duke.

Welcome back Fionnuala, your kind presence here has been missed.

Fionnuala wrote: ...But fortunately the genealogical discussion was initiated just in time to restore some of the mythical quality to these old names he loves so much and even before he mentions it...

The dinner at the Guermantes is about 200 pages long, being touched upon in 3 weekly readings. As is said of the

...Duchesse de Guermantes, so many different women superimpose themselves, each one vanishing as soon as the next had acquired sufficient consistency. ML p. 729

so I find the evening, ever changing, and must sum it similarly.

Is the primary voice of the Narrator at the dinner the same as the voice of the Narrator when he meets Charlus later?

More on chairs..

Charlus is very angry because he has sat on a "Chauffeuse Directoire" instead of on a "Bergère Louis XIV".

Here is one such chauffeuse"


And here is a "Bergère Louis XIV"



The funny thing is that later on Charlus refers to the Louis XIV seat as "rococo".

Rococo was really more the style Louis XV, the great-grand child of Le Roi soleil. Something more like this:

Fionnuala wrote: ""Comment, vous ne savez pas vous raser, même un soir où vous dînez en ville vous gardez quelques poils", me dit-il en me prenant le menton entre deux doigts pour ainsi dire magnétisés, qui, après a..."

I am also listening to an Audio version and this whole scene at Charlus' is hilarious. The tone of voice and the dramatics (from forte to fortissimo).. are just wonderful.

Kalliope wrote: "More on chairs..

Charlus is very angry because he has sat on a "Chauffeuse Directoire" instead of on a "Bergère Louis XIV".."
It was the episode of the chairs which first reminded me of Jane Eyre. Rochester always wanted her to sit on a particular chair, a closer one rather than further away like Charlus, but she invariably chose a different one...
I can imagine that listening to this scene must add extra drama to it. I love the bit where the Narrator jumps on the hat and the the servants immediately replace it with another!

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "More on chairs..

It was the episode of the chairs which first reminde..."

The scene with the servants echoes the one a few pages earlier with the Prince de Conti and his servants.

Kalliope wrote: "The scene with the servants echoes the one a few pages earlier with the Prince de Cont..."

I'll have to check back on that, Kalliope.
I'm sure you love the passage further on where the Narrator compares the view of the neigbouring houses to a series of Dutch paintings of interiors:
D'ailleurs l'extrême proximité des maisons aux fenêtres opposées sur une même cour y fait de chaque croisée le cadre où une cuisinière rêvasse en regardant à terre, où plus loin une jeune fille se laisse peigner les cheveux par une vielle à figure, à peine distincte dans l'ombre, de sorcière; ainsi chaque cour fait pour le voisin de la maison, en supprimant le bruit par son intervalle, en laissant voir les gestes silencieux dans un rectangle placé sous verre par le clôture des fenêtres, une exposition de cent tableaux hollandais juxtaposés.
Karpeles doesn't include an example but I'm sure you will....
I also enjoyed the comparison of the views of the taller buildings to Turner's alpine scenes and then he introduces some of the tenants of those buildings who carry walking sticks as if indeed they were mountain climbers. Metaphor built on metaphor until the reader is dizzy...

une jeune fille se laisse peigner les cheveux par une vielle à figure..



or

..le cadre où une cuisinière rêvasse en regardant à terre



or:

Now we know the exact paintings he had in mind!
I find it amazing that we can, on the one hand, imagine these paintings from his word pictures alone, and, on the other hand, view the very paintings which inspired those perfect word pictures...thank you, Kalliope for these, and all the wonderful images you have posted on this site. I'll have to start calling you Kallikarpeles...

Another paradoxical statement that I love, and which has a bearing on the role our imagination plays in our reading:
On s'ennuie à dîner parce que l'imagination est absente, et parce qu'elle (l'imagination) nous y tient compagnie, on s'amuse avec un livre.

Eugene wrote: "..so I find the evening, ever changing, and must sum it similarly.

Yes indeed, but even though the Narrator himself admits that he feels a certain vacillation, I think he comes to some definite conclusions nevertheless:
ce monde...se révéla à moi peu à peu comme bien distinct.
His journey in the troisième voiture (I love how he recalls the other two journeys which afforded him such important insights, and which remind the reader of the first two volumes of La Recherche so that we wonder if there will be a significant carraige-related insight in each book in the series), allows him to appreciate the encounters he has just had in a way that was impossible while he was present at the dinner and distracted by trivialities.
An earlier quote sums this up better than I can:
Etait-ce vraiment à cause de dîners tels que celui-ci que toutes ces personnes faisaient toilette et refusaient de laisser pénétrer des bourgeoises dans leurs salons si fermés, pour des dîners tels que celui-ci? pareils si j'avais été absent? J'en eus un instant le soupçon, mais il était trop absurde. Le simple bon sens me permettait de l'écarter. Et puis, si je l'avais accueilli, que serait-il resté du nom de Guermantes, déjà si dégradé depuis Combray?
And this:
Le nom même de Guermantes recevait de tous les beaux noms éteints et d'autant plus ardemment rallumés, auxquels j'apprenais seulement qu'il était attaché, une détermination nouvelle, purement poétique.
Everything comes back to the importance of the nom and its associations:
il en est de noms de personnes comme des noms de pays
And again we are reminded of the two key sections (to me at any rate) in the first two volumes of the series, Nom de Pays: Le Nom and Nom de Pays: Le Pays

Eugene wrote: Is the primary voice of the Narrator at the dinner the same as the voice of the Narrator when he meets Charlus later? "

I continue to be confused about this, Eugene. What I hear sometimes is the voice of Proust, the scene setter, the string puller who controls everything and everyone, and especially the Narrator...

Fionnuala wrote: "Eugene wrote: "..so I find the evening, ever changing, and must sum it similarly.

Yes indeed, but even though the Narrator himself admits that he feels a certain vacillation, I think he comes to s..."

On the voitures... this is actually the fourth voiture. The first two are the Combray and the Balbec ones, as he says in this section. But the third one is also in this volume, but earlier on, when he was with Saint-Loup. That third voiture is a very important voiture-epiphany moment because it is then that he mentions already the whole purpose of his writing.. Will try and find the quote when I am with my book, but I think it was quoted already in an earlier thread and in translation.

This is the first time I have used curse words while reading Proust. (And uttered them out loud--thank goodness the kids were in bed). I refer of course to the scene with Charlus, the attempt of the Narrator to escape, and Montesquieu's, er I mean, Charlus's utter sliminess.

And, as perhaps a premonition of the scene to come, the Narrator sits in the ante-room, and cannot describe a thing. He's so revved up with nervous energy, his mind whirling with thoughts, that the master description is at a loss. Thinking back after reading the Charlus section, it seems to be a warning of: Watch out, things are not as they seem; the world has gone darker and you are blind, entering the den of the viper.

Or something like that.

Kalliope wrote: "On the voitures... this is actually the fourth voiture. The first two are the Combray and the Balbec ones, as he says in this section."

Well spotted, Kaliope, I had forgotten that very significant journey with Saint-Loup. But perhaps it has a different kind of import for the Narrator since he calls this one the troisième voiture.

Martin wrote:"And, as perhaps a premonition of the scene to come, the Narrator sits in the ante-room, and cannot describe a thing..."

Yes, it was interesting that the Narrator was completely oblivious to his physical surroundings and so very concentrated on recounting the anecdotes he had just heard, both behaviours that don't normally characterise him at all. Odd indeed...

Eugene wrote: Is the primary voice of the Narrator at the dinner the same as the voice of the Narrator when he meets Charlus later?

Fionnuala wrote: I continue to be confused about this, Eugene. What I hear sometimes is the voice of Proust, the scene setter, the string puller who controls everything and everyone, and especially the Narrator...

It is complex and made more confusing by the non-judgmental teller of the stories. Ask yourself who were Proust's friends, from what caste did they come? He wrote of aristocrats and their homes, the world of "fashion" and its trappings, he must have known these modern hereditary relics, befriended many, to write in such detail of the Faubourg Saint-Germain. Another question comes to mind: how could he damn his friends and acquaintances even after he'd given up being a society columnist? (Carter) Friends are friends.

I read 3 main stories that interweave themselves into a tapestry of mystery, of unknowing, of suspense: that told by a young person of his life; that told by a person who reflects on the younger person's life and his private thoughts and that told by someone who knows what the first two Narrators don't, Aunt Leonie's conversations and thoughts behind closed doors, for example. This 3rd Narrator may or may not be Marcel Proust as his omniscience is never identified whence it comes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-pe...

I would like to reread the Guermantes dinner scene again. My initial thoughts are that little is told by the younger Narrator, little is known about his feelings (we have 4 more volumes to read so why tell us all in volume 3, M. Proust), much is told by the reflective Narrator, much is known of him and his feelings that vacillate: Mme de Guermantes appears malicious, then kind then malicious again, etc. Yes there is movement: imagined "names" have become real genealogies, there are transformations of magic, imagination, but for whom, which Narrator? The tale hasn't been yet told. It seems that the younger Narrator, through whose eyes and ears the action over dinner is recorded, is but a place holder, at times, to keep the omniscient Narrator at bay.

What are we to make of the letter by his footman who confesses to a love of poetry that the younger Narrator reads?

Anyway, enough for now...

I found it interesting how the Narrator was able to see through M. de Charlus at last:

"We are attracted by any life which represents for us something unknown and strange, by a last illusion still unshattered....Moreover, M. de Charlus misled me for some time as to the imaginary worth and variety of society people only because he was himself mislead. And this, perhaps, because he did nothing, did not write, did not paint, did not even read anything in a serious and through manner... Speaking as an artist, he could at most bring out the deceptive charm of society people--for artists only, in relation to whom he might be said to play the part played by the reindeer among the Eskimos: this precious animal plucks for them from the barren rocks lichens and mosses which they themselves could neither discover nor utilise, but which, once they have been digested by the reindeer, become for the inhabitants of the far North an assimilable form of food." ML 778

The Narrator sort of has the scales fall from his eyes about M. de Charlus at this point. The Narrator demonstrates that he is starting to not be entirely impressed by the trappings of the upper class and the Guermantes parties, maybe leading up to the final scene and revelations about the Narrator's society friends. The image of the reindeer also is one I found clever and interesting: that there are people who perform the function of a staple animal within society.

Eugene wrote: "... (we have 4 more volumes to read so why tell us all in volume 3, M. Proust)...Yes there is movement: imagined "names" have become real genealogies, there are transformations of magic, imagination, but for whom, which Narrator? The tale hasn't been yet told. It seems that the younger Narrator, through whose eyes and ears the action over dinner is recorded, is but a place holder, at times, to keep the omniscient Narrator at bay."

Swann's presence in the final scene of this book struck me forcefully and for exactly the reasons you've pointed out here, Eugene. None of the tales begun in the earlier volumes have been completed yet and the omniscient Narrator, whoever he may be, is doling out the information very, very carefully.
I love this method of telling a story; sometimes I think it is like sculpting a work out of stone, Proust revealing the shape little by little just as Michelangelo released his captive slaves from their blocks of marble by chipping away the excess matter. At other times, an opposing image occurs to me; I imagine Proust as Leonardo de Vinci, painting a giant fresco section by section, moving between the different parts, now prioritising this detail, now an entirely different one, so that the elements of the picture emerge little by little as the artist builds up the layers of matter. Whichever method, the work is taking shape before our eyes and the process of revealing it has become as interesting as the result.
In other words, I value the telling as much as the story.

Fionnuala wrote: "Swann's presence in the final scene of this book struck me forcefully and for exactly the reasons you've pointed out here, Eugene."

The most striking thing to me is that he appears here not in reference to Odette, nor to Gilberte, but strictly on his own. We haven't seen him this way since the Combray section of Swann's Way, and after all this time I can't say that I really understand him all that much more. Here he is, smiling and making insubstantial comments, giving a gift that it is clear to the reader (and perhaps to him too) isn't terribly well appreciated, while commenting that he'll be dead in a few months. How mysterious!

Fionnuala wrote: ...the work is taking shape before our eyes and the process of revealing it has become as interesting as the result.
In other words, I value the telling as much as the story.

Yes, this is a book but before that it is a work of art and "the telling" is a large part of that art.

Fionnuala wrote: Swann's presence in the final scene of this book struck me forcefully...

Me too, and for an additional reason that just occurred to me: It is so uncharacteristic of the pre-Odette polite Swann and even the later "shouting-from-the-rooftops" married Swann to announce his coming death before a person he doesn't recognize (the Narrator), before the spouting Duke (whom he must think a fool, "Velásquez...A bad joke" to his dear friend the Duchess knowing her since she was the Princess de Laume. One would have thought him more tactful by saying, "Yes, wonderful, how fun! Let's go to Italy in the Spring..." or some such thing to her invitation.

It is an inappropriate moment for Swann to make a disclosure like this--quietly over luncheon, yes--but he is ill and can be excused because of his illness, yet, what could anyone say in response.

Placed for the first time in her life between two duties as incompatible as getting into her carriage to go out to dinner and showing compassion for a man who was about to die, she could find nothing in the code of conventions that indicated the right line to follow; not knowing which to choose, she felt obliged to pretend not to believe that the latter alternative need be seriously considered, in order to comply with the first, which at the moment demanded less effort, and thought that the best way of settling the conflict would be to deny that any existed. "You're joking," she said to Swann. ML p. 816

Yes, what can one say? Oddly, I felt better for the Duke as he continued on after hearing of the immanent demise of Swann, as if he didn't hear it, as he did about his dying cousin Amanien--what can one say?-- because with Amanien one could have said something, something different, something less selfish.

The point that Proust makes is that circumstances cause social personality and he makes this point negatively.

Notice that the first sentence of the quote in message 27 is in the voice of the omniscient Narrator. All but Oriane, the reader and the speaker are ignorant of it.

Eugene wrote: It is so uncharacteristic of the pre-Odette polite Swann and even the later "shouting-from-the-rooftops" married Swann to announce his coming death before a person he doesn't recognize (the Narrator), before the spouting Duke (whom he must think a fool, "Velásquez...A bad joke" to his dear friend the Duchess knowing her since she was the Princess de Laume.

I have been thinking for quite a while that Oriane and Swann, who shared a sense of comedy as well as literary and artistic interests, might also share some personal sentiments - they seem so suited to each other and we are frequently told how much they appreciate each other's company. And we know the Duc doesn't sleep with his wife - he reminds everyone of this in Swann's presence. So I felt an undercurrent in this scene, both in the Duchess's invitation to travel and Swann's refusal and his dramatic explanation. If a person doesn't know how to tell someone he loves such bad news, he might just choose to drop it into an otherwise unrelated conversation where their shock and horror doesn't have to be dealt with (but perhaps I'm writing a new story here and need to refocus on the one the Narrator is actually telling).
I've noted what you said about the older Narrator in the above passage, Eugene, and for the first time, I'm beginning to grasp what you mean. If it were the author's own voice in the above passage, i.e., a third person omniscient voice, we might not hear such an intense engagement with the fictional quandary in which the Duchess finds herself. The older Narrator believes in the Duchess's existence because she is/was part of his world.

Richard wrote: "....I can't say that I really understand him all that much more.."

Swann was quite a central character - he gave the title to an entire volume - and yet, as you say, Richard, we know very little about him. Does he have brothers or sisters? Who are his relatives? We know none of this, apart from the fact that his father was a friend of the Narrator's father. We know endless details about the genealogy of the Guermantes family and plenty of details about the Narrator's own family, but Swann's past is shrouded in mystery and his present is equally obscure. Curious.

@Fionnuala

Marcel Proust wrote: Placed for the first time in her life between two duties as incompatible as getting into her carriage to go out to dinner and showing compassion for a man who was about to die, she could find nothing in the code of conventions that indicated the right line to follow... ML p. 816

This is a third person omniscient voice (narrator) that describes Oriane's unvoiced position and her unvoiced thoughts that this 3rd person Narrator knows, that the author knows and that the reader knows but are unknown to Basin, Swann and to the other 1st person Narrators.

ISOLT is a work of fiction and by convention a narrator is required to tell the story that Proust writes--Proust, the author, is different from his narrators--when there is no narrator different from the author, the writing becomes non fiction, a memoir, where the author says "I", a biography, where the author says "s/he", or the author may say "it" in the case of writing about a thing or an event, etc. which is what Proust does in the prefaces to his Ruskin translations where he writes in the three non fictive modes I've listed.

Eugene wrote: "This is a third person omniscient voice (narrator) that describes Oriane's unvoiced position and her unvoiced thoughts that this 3rd person Narrator knows, that the author knows and that the reader knows but are unknown to Basin, Swann and to the other 1st person Narrators. ."

I do understand that difference, Eugene even if I didn't make it clear. What I'm preoccupied with is the author's voice separate from this 3rd parson Narrator, the author, Marcel Proust, who has created both Narrators and who surely comments sometimes, since this is a very philosophical and arguably semi-autobiographical novel, in his own distinct voice, omniscient of necessity, but in a voice which knows what is fiction and what isn't unlike the older Narrator who, although he is omniscient to an extent because of the perspective time has lent him, is nevertheless part of the fiction.
But perhaps this is a temps perdu issue for you since you have read the entire work before. However, for me, these are all fascinating points especially since I have now become so interested in the overall design of this monumental work and any and every device Proust uses is intriguing for me.

Fionnuala wrote: "I love this method of telling a story; sometimes I think it is like sculpting a work out of stone, Proust revealing the shape little by little just as Michelangelo released his captive slaves from their blocks of marble by chipping away the excess matter. At other times, an opposing image occurs to me; I imagine Proust as Leonardo de Vinci, painting a giant fresco section by section, moving between the different parts, now prioritising this detail, now an entirely different one, so that the elements of the picture emerge little by little as the artist builds up the layers of matter. .."


This is a wonderful image, Fionnuala. Your comments are always so fine and perceptive.

On the Princesse de Metternich and.."Mais la Metternich croyait avoir lancé Wagner parce qu'elle connaissait Victor Maurel"



Victor Maurel, a French Baritone (1848-1923).

I have missed visiting here while I have been traveling. I have kept up (in a way -- I finally decided to skip 100 pages of Guermantes family connections to get the final scenes with Charlus and the duchess's red shoes). I am eager to begin the next volume.

This one has some wonderful wonderful scenes, especially the grandmother's death and the fog on the night of friendship, and Rachel in the springtime. Charlus is beginning to come into his own and I am looking forward to more of him.

Half the year is over . . .

Cassian wrote: "I have missed visiting here while I have been traveling. I have kept up (in a way -- I finally decided to skip 100 pages of Guermantes family connections to get the final scenes with Charlus and th..."

Cassian,

Good to see you back. We had noticed you were not around. Your excellent comments were missed.

Yes, the "brouillard" descriptions are amongst my favorite parts in this book also. To be read while listening to Debussy's Brouillards from the second volume of his Preludes.

The Duke on the painting that has been sold to him as by Philippe de Champagne, but which he thinks it may be a Velazquez...

Here is one painting by de Champagne.., the triple portrait of Richelieu.. Currently at the National Gallery in London



In his book on Proust, Louis Gautier-Vignal, discusses how Proust would ask him many questions about Spanish painting (particularly on Velazquez and El Greco...), because the latter had been to Spain and had seen the originals.. ,

Fionnuala wrote: ...the author, Marcel Proust, who has created both Narrators and who surely comments sometimes, since this is a very philosophical and arguably semi-autobiographical novel, in his own distinct voice, omniscient of necessity, but in a voice which knows what is fiction and what isn't unlike the older Narrator who, although he is omniscient to an extent because of the perspective time has lent him, is nevertheless part of the fiction.

It seems to me that most of the "philosophical and arguably semi-autobiographical" thoughts of Proust are not spoken by Proust himself as he is not a character in the novel, they are spoken by the older, more reflective Narrator as he notes the significance, etc. of what the the younger Narrator experiences. It is always the younger Narrator's story.

Proust's most beautiful writing has been seen in the voice of the older Narrator and I'm glad you have taken up the narrational aspects of the novel.

In what seems to me an uncharacteristic fashion, given what a refined observant he is, the Narrator has to spell out the utterly insensitive way in which the Duke reacts to other people's concerns..

...Le duc n'était nullement gêné de parler des malaises de sa femme et des siens à un mourant, car les premiers, l'intéressant davantage, lui apparaissaient plus importants

Similarly to the way Proust brought in Anatole France in his novel, he now brings in other real personalities who had been sources of inspiration for his characters. He now mentions Charles Haas. If France had been one of the people behind his Bergotte, Haas was also one for his Swann.

Du Côté de Guermantes was published in 1919 (vol I) and 1920 (vol II).

I have found fascinating the way Proust brings in Clemenceau..

It is in reference to Swann that the Narrator says: ".. et lui fit perdre le souvenir d'avoir traité d'homme d'argent, d'espion de l'Angleterre (c'était une absurdité du milieu Guermantes) Clemenceau, qu'il déclarait maintenant avoir tenu toujours pour une conscience, un homme de fer, comme Cornély".

Clemenceau had stepped out of power in January 1920.

Kalliope wrote: "This is a wonderful image, Fionnuala.. "
Thanks, Kalliope.
It is interesting what Gautier-Vignal says about the Spanish painters and Proust's keen interest in them. It seems a pity that he didn't get to travel more.

Kalliope wrote: ""homme d'argent...homme de fer.""

I like the way Clemenceau's change of status is described although I don't understand the political significance of it, or what exactly has brought about Swann's change of opinion about Clemenceau.

Eugene wrote: "Proust's most beautiful writing has been seen in the voice of the older Narrator and I'm glad you have taken up the narrational aspects of the novel."

Yes, Eugene, the wonderful writing is what will keep me reading 'till the end of the year.

Phillida wrote: "For me the last scene of GW is unsurpassed.

I agree. What an ending! Proust has managed to wring every emotion out of us!I need to go have a cup of tea to calm down. Wow.

Once and a while I like to diagram sentences in a casual manner

Placed for the first time in her life between two duties as incompatible as getting into her carriage to go out to dinner and showing compassion for a man who was about to die,

A nominative structure that modifies
the subject:

she

The verb

could find

describes the action of the subject

The object:

nothing

receives the action of the verb

and is qualified by:

in the code of conventions that indicated the right line to follow;

The sentence becomes complex:

not knowing which to choose,

A nominative structure that modifies
the subject:

she

The verb

felt

describes the action of the subject

The object:

obliged to pretend not to believe that the latter alternative need be seriously considered, in order to comply with the first, which at the moment demanded less effort,

receives the action of the verb.

The 2nd half of the complex sentence becomes compound

by the 2nd verb

and thought

describes the action of the subject

The object

that the best way of settling the conflict would be to deny that any existed.

receives the action of the verb.

Placed for the first time in her life between two duties as incompatible as getting into her carriage to go out to dinner and showing compassion for a man who was about to die, she could find nothing in the code of conventions that indicated the right line to follow; not knowing which to choose, she felt obliged to pretend not to believe that the latter alternative need be seriously considered, in order to comply with the first, which at the moment demanded less effort, and thought that the best way of settling the conflict would be to deny that any existed. ML p. 816

Eugene wrote: "Once and a while I like to diagram sentences in a casual manner..."

Bravo, Eugene, for the master class in the architecture of this beautiful sentence, complex in so many ways, not only in the construction but also in the juxtaposition of opposing ideas: the trivialities of life versus the tragedy of death.

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "This is a wonderful image, Fionnuala.. "
Thanks, Kalliope.
It is interesting what Gautier-Vignal says about the Spanish painters and Proust's keen interest in them. It seems a pit..."

Clemenceau was a complex political figure and this makes me think that I would like to read a bio.

But for the Proust read there are for me two interesting aspects to highlight. One is that during a time he retired from politics, he was the owner and editor of L'Aurore, the periodical that published Zola's "J'accuse", which was the strongest publicized support of Dreyfus.

And the other is that if for us to encounter Clemenceau's name in the novel is just another sample of the very many references, at the time the novel was published, it was part of the very current "current affairs" for the French readership.

The following paragraph for me has a key to the discussion of the Guermantes society. For the Narrator (and Proust) it is jest another case of representation, whether mental or pictorial:

"Mais mon imagination, semblable à Elstir en train de rendre un effet de perspective sans tenir compte des notions de physique qu'il pouvait par ailleurs posséder, me peignait non ce que je savais, mais ce qu'elle voyait; ce qu'elle voyait, c'est-à-dire ce que lui montrait le nom. Or, même quand je ne connaissais pas la duchesse, le nom de Guermantes précédé du titre de princesse, comme une note ou une couleur ou une quantité profondément modifiée par des valeurs environnantes, par le "signe" mathématiquement out esthétique qui l'affecte, m'avait toujours évoqué quelque chose de tout différent".

Kalliope wrote: "The following paragraph for me has a key to the discussion of the Guermantes society. For the Narrator (and Proust) it is jest another case of representation, whether mental or pictorial..

Yes, Kalliope, his commentary on the Guermantes society is similar to that of a literary critic or better still, an art critic, analysing the different elements, describing what exactly they evoke and how they create their effect, as if these people were nothing more than museum pieces...

@Fionnuala

No bravo to me, bravo to Marcel Proust for how he orchestrates the parts of speech in successive sentences, always different, always of interest. Generally he loads nominatives to modify the objects of his sentence; this syntactical complexity is what shows the heralded "psychological insight" displayed by his characters & their musings. As Jack Kerouac said, what can you say after Proust.

Eugene wrote: "@Fionnuala

No bravo to me, bravo to Marcel Proust for how he orchestrates the parts of speech in successive sentences, always different, always of interest. Generally he loads nominatives to modi..."

Isn't there also a bravo to Moncrieff, Kilmartin and Enright?