Gustave Flaubert wrote about A Sentimental Education that, “I want to write the moral history of the men of my generation—or, more accurately, the history of their feelings. It’s a book about love, about passion; but passion such as can exist nowadays—that is to say, inactive.” And the feeling of love and inactive passion of Frederic Moreau is the resulting story.
Set in the time of the 1848 French Revolution, which resulted in the formation of the nation’s Second Republic, Gustave Flaubert writes a grand love story of Frederic Moreau, borrowing heavily from his personal experiences. When young Frederic falls in love with an older married woman at the age of 18, his “sentimental education” begins. Being at the impressionable and idol-worshipping age, the lady becomes the center of everything Frederic does. He knows his love would be frustrated, and the romantic passion would never be fulfilled. Yet, he hopes against all odds and is steadfast in his love. He stands by her through all her troubles without expecting any reward. When, however, they meet again after a long separation under more favourable circumstances, Frederic is dismayed to find his idol thrown from its pedestal. His love slowly withers, completing his “sentimental education”.
The protagonist, Frederic Moreau, is a sort of anti-hero. He is not industrious and wastes away in idle pursuits, living on his inheritance. His great love doesn’t shield him from the power of seduction, and he has his fair share of mistresses. Nevertheless, he is a good-hearted man and lets every Tom, Dick, and Harry take advantage of him. Nothing major happens in his life except for his great love and inactive passion, and he stays much the same throughout the story, pinning all his failures on “being sentimental”. Frederic exasperated me to no end, and in the beginning, I even disliked him. But as the story progressed, I could come to terms with him, and I truly felt sorry for him at the end.
A Sentimental Education is not only a love story, but also a historical account. There is a true account of the political failures of the Monarchy and the growing frustration of the intellectual youth that led them to take arms. I’m unaware of Flaubert’s political allegiance, but I perceived satire on both the Monarchy and the Republic that followed.
Flaubert’s writing here is truly masterful. But I didn’t grasp it at first. The tone was so matter-of-fact at the beginning that I felt the whole thing was emotionally barren. I had to stop for a while quarter of way to breathe and repose. When I resumed, I felt a mysterious enticement in Flaubert’s words as he slowly worked his way through the different passions and sentiments of the characters, bringing more warmth and feelings into the story. I was very much surprised by his style initially, but when I pondered over it, I realized that it was because Flaubert didn’t want to define the characters, nor the situation. He leaves it entirely to the readers, himself being detached from them. When the readers have sufficiently acquainted themselves with the characters and the situation of the story, Flaubert digs deeply into the lives and circumstances of the characters, bringing out their inner feelings and passions. Although Flaubert took me on a ride, I was very much impressed by the ultimate destination to which he brought me.
Rating: 4/5
