THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE DOG IN FLAUBERT'S FIRST

ÉDUCATION SENTIMENTALE
Author(s): Timothy A. Unwin
Source: French Forum, Vol. 4, No. 3 (September 1979), pp. 232-238
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40551021
Accessed: 08-02-2021 03:50 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to French Forum

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Timothy A. Unwin

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE DOG

IN FLAUBERT'S FIRST EDUCATION SENTIMENTALE

Few have doubted that Flaubert's early esthetic theory receives its clearest
expression, despite the fictionalized framework, in his Education sentimentale
of 1845. The character of Jules, conceived initially as a foil to the central
figure of Henry, unexpectedly emerges as the hero of the novel and as the
representative of the author's own views on art. The decisive stage in Jules's
development is when he encounters a mangy dog whose persistent fascination
for him he is at a loss to explain. Only as a result of this encounter is Jules
able to enter into the impartial study of reality and develop his notion of an
objective form of art. In view of Flaubert's identification with his character,
the chapter dealing with the dog symbolizes, therefore, a crucial phase in his
own evolution.
This mysterious and captivating episode of Flaubert's novel has long been
a favorite passage for textual analysis (1). Reactions are divergent. Some crit-
ics consider it badly written and obscure in meaning. D.L. Demorest writes
that these pages are "mal préparées et pas très bien suivies," while Marianne
Bonwit talks of the "lengthy and not very skilful treatment of the dog
episode." Marie J. Diamond adds: 'The episode of the dog embarrasses the
reader. It is badly prepared, and it is difficult to grasp its connection with
what follows." Others consider the passage to be among the most successful
in the novel. Jean Bruneau contends that it is "parfaitement à sa place dans le
chapitre XXVI du roman," and Jonathan CuÛer argues that the episode is
"narrated with unusual assurance and consistency." One critic, Jacques-Louis
Douchin, goes so far as to claim that these pages are "parmi les plus étonnan-
tes que Flaubert ait jamais écrites" (2). The amount of attention they have
received, favorable or adverse, suggests that this boast might be justified.
Since both Marianne Bonwit and Jean Bruneau summarize the main critical
accounts of the episode prior to their own interpretations, there is no need of
recapitulation here. Closer reference will, however, be made to the more re-
cent discussions provided by Jacques-Louis Douchin and, more particularly,
Jonathan Culler. By way of a general observation, it might be remarked that
every interpretation of the passage to date (and this includes the two most

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TIMOTHY A. UNWIN 233

recent ones) places overwhe

XXVI of the novel. Attention
with the dog, to the detrimen
It will be argued here that th
reflections before he sees the
ence he undergoes when the
The attempt to define the s
happens during the encounter
of seeing the animal as a sym
redresses the balance when h
cuperate the dog, to make h
name which will take its pla
noun that we can put in our
deliberately creates an impre
from the negativity of its co
ism is present only in the fo
the chapter is when Jules go
this, he affirms, is precisely
and refuses him the information which would be essential to his understand-
ing of the dog. Flaubert creates "a recognizable world, whose negativity ap-
pears only in the interstices of the sentences" (p. 67). Since the novelist's
project is to divert the reader from the real issues in his text by the creation
of misleading narrative strategies, "we need not worry whether Jules's discov-
ery is positive or negative" (p. 65). Attention to the earlier part of the chapter
might, however, show that the content of the episode, as well as its form, is
coherent.
Critics who do pay attention to the earlier part of the chapter invariably
dismiss Jules's meditation as being the last vestige of puerile romanticism, in
direct contrast to the experience which follows it. Douchin describes the pas-
sage of meditation as an "'extase' d'origine essentiellement émotionnelle" (p.
24), an escape before the return to reality. Similarly, for Bruneau, the two
scenes which take place in the course of this chapter-the moment of panthe-
ist vision and the appearance of the dog- are not complementary, but oppos-
ing experiences: "Le chien représente simplement la réalité quotidienne,
s'opposant à l'ektase décrite plus haut" (p. 428). Although it is his view that
"la 'leçon' du chien est la même que celle que vient de lui donner la nature,
celle du caractère unitaire de la vie" (p. 429), he suggests that the encounter
with the dog teaches the lesson better by showing that a true understanding
of reality brooks no escapist impulses. Close textual analysis, however, will
show that the pantheist intuition which precedes the appearance of the dog
is not an escapist, subjective reverie, but a rational and coherent experience.
The keynote to this first half of the chapter is in Jules's awareness of his

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
234 FRENCH FORUM

relationship with his ow

assigning that past to its
from his contemplation
teredness towards greate
encounter with the dog,
(p. 64): this may be true
qualify it. But in this ear
nificance of things. First
his past is still alive and
causes him to realize tha
centered approach to lif
past and thereby denyin
cœur"). So harsh has his
lect no longer seems to
has led to a limitation an
sous la flagellation de so
et qui s'en allait aux aut
tions now surge up once
comes aware that he is
persist when later he en

De tout cela . . . résultai

antécédents et qui lui pe
produit un second, chaq
donc une conséquence et

He must now commence

reacting against his own
uality and yet try to tra
ing over-compensation in
Bruneau, having referr
méditation se poursuit e
ment, l'unité de la natu
nection between Jules's r
pantheist intuition whic
it not precisely the refl
the necessary condition
arrive at a new understa
comes aware that the id
those of his past life. He
jectivity, but this very
by that subjectivity. Se
attitude he holds is part

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TIMOTHY A. UNWIN 235

"idea" of reality can never be

une suite dans cette série de p
chaque degré pour le résoudre
"le dernier mot n'arrive jamais
ing the existence of his own su
over him, to attain a glimpse
éprouvé, souffert, était peut-êt
et constant, inaperçu mais réel
this point that he experience
apparent incoherence to the su
Jules now perceives, in an inte
lies within and beyond him: "A
misérable autrefois pouvait bie
tisant et en le ramenant à des p
culeuse" (p. 351). To stop at C
experience of the world would
he draws a positive lesson. "C'e
And what happens in the passa
the episode describing the enco
Whereas the pantheist medita
quiry, the encounter with the
This is entirely appropriate, sin
intellect is subordinated to his
in this passage shows that he hi
his experience. He, Jules, know
natives.
To imply that Jules comes to
sents is to suggest that he is in
such an over-simplification wh
la réalité quotidienne" and, mo
Fox, the spaniel which Jules
Douchin, too, implies that the
there for the taking: "Ces dét
évidemment destinés à signifie
imagination 'romantique' le lui
ler seems much nearer the m
excess, as that which always ex
(p. 65). Indeed, to reduce the an
the variety of reactions which
even reverence- and to assume
confusion.
The sheer ambiguity of Jules'

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 236 FRENCH FORUM

he cannot explain things

than provisional conclusi
-but aware of this fact at least-he can do no more than take account of this
failure of knowledge and accept the varying possibilities of interpretation.
The dog might be a figment of his imagination; it might be a messenger from
his past; it might be a real dog; it might even be Fox. Ultimately, no single
interpretation predominates. Jules's recent pantheist meditation has taught
him that any interpretation is a subjective synthesis. In this sense, we might
disagree with Culler and say that it is fitting that Flaubert should have left a
blank at the end of the chapter when Jules sees the animal on his doorstep.
We do not need to know what new discoveries he makes at this stage, since
we already have the relevant information: the only conclusion to this experi-
ence is that there is no conclusion to be arrived at. But this in itself is a pos-
itive lesson, the lesson of "ne pas conclure." The mystery of Jules's encounter
with the dog perfectly complements his earlier intellectual meditations.
Recourse to the text will show that the dog can be seen neither as pure
reality nor as pure symbol, but that it must be regarded as an unfathomable
admixture of the two. When Jules first sees the animal, his reaction sets the
pattern which is to follow. At first drawn towards it, and intrigued by the
thought that it might be Fox, he is then repulsed by the touch and the sight
of this purulent beast. The reaction is one of oscillation, and the reality of the
animal (if it exists) is totally obscured in the conflict of Jules's own subjective
responses: "Repoussé par sa laideur, Jules s'efforçait de ne pas la voir, mais
une attraction invincible attirait ses yeux sur elle, et quand il l'avait bien vue,
qu'il s'était assouvi à la regarder, et qu'il commençait à avoir peur, il détour-
nait la tête" (p. 352). Neither extreme can satisfy Jules. In dissociating him-
self from the animal he has the impression that he is refusing some vital
message from his past. In seeking the significance of the animal's appearance,
he discovers only the opacity of the symbol. Aware of the different possibil-
ities of interpretation, he cannot and will not commit himself to any.
Jules's inability to draw the line between objective perception and subjec-
tive response is demonstrated when the dog leads him to the river. He some-
how believes that he is being told of Lucinde's death and imagines that he
sees his former idol drowned and floating downstream. Yet he is aware that
the reality of what he sees remains totally ambiguous, as he wavers between
expectation, conviction, imagination, and doubt:

N'était-ce pas Lucinde? grand Dieu? était-ce elle? serait-ce elle, noyée, perdue
sous le torrent? si jeune! si belle! morte! morte! Et plongeant ses regards dans
les ténèbres, au loin, bien avant, il s'attendait à voir . . .il la voyait avec sa
robe blanche, sa longue chevelure blonde épandue, et les mains en croix sur la
poitrine, qui s'en allait doucement au courant, portée sur les ondes; elle était
peut-être làt à cette place, ensevelie sous l'eau froide, (p. 353, my italics)

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TIMOTHY A. UNWIN 237

The total uncertainty of whe

river is conveyed initially by
italicized sections all contrad
cinde, then he decides she is
Neither the reader nor Jules
imagines he sees her and the
thinking that he had seen Lu
he sought, the cut-and-dried
As he listened to the barking

il implorait au hasard une pu

port avec les secrets révélés
pour lui qu'une porte fermée
bresauts de son intelligence

Real or unreal, the experienc

intellectual Jules who had tri
tion and illusion realizes that this dimension of his existence cannot be ex-
cluded. The experience he is going through is more than a reminder of his
past life; it is a recurrence of it, his "dernier jour de pathétique." As he lives
through this experience, Jules realizes that he must accept the existence of his
past and must even accept the potentially supernatural quality of his encoun-
ter with the dog: "L'homme tremblait sous le regard de la bête, où il croyait
voir une âme, et la bête tremblait au regard de l'homme, où elle voyait peut-
être un dieu" (p. 353). Only by accepting the inner, potentially illusory nature
of his experience will Jules be able to transcend it and rise, phoenix-like, into
the realm of artistic impartiality.
The lesson Jules learns is positive, despite his inability to understand the
dog. Whether it symbolizes anything specific is irrelevant, for it has brought
Jules face to face with the unknown. The conclusion he will draw from his
experience is that it must remain uncertain, despite its being loaded with po-
tential significance. Jules now learns to accept the mysteries of nature, how-
ever impenetrable, and yet to believe at the same time in the possibility that a
solution exists. This is the basis of the esthetic system that he (and, by exten-
sion, Flaubert himself) will now construct. The work of art is to express at
once the indecipherable mystery and the meaningfulness of reality. As Flau-
bert once wrote in one of his most famous letters: "Que l'on sente dans tous
les atomes, à tous les aspects, une impassibilité cachée et infinie. L'effet, pour
le spectateur, doit être une espèce d'ébahissement. Comment tout cela s'est-il
fait? doit-on dire, et qu'on se sente écrasé sans savoir pourquoi" (4).

University of Exeter

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 238 FRENCH FORUM

1. For accounts of the vari

"The Significance of the D
517-24,esp. 518-19, and Jean
Armand Colin, 1962), pp. 42
2. D.L. Demonest, L'Expression figurée et symbolique dans l'œuvre de Gustave
Flaubert (Paris: Les Presses Modernes, 1931), p. 220; Bonwit, p. 522; Marie J. Diamond,
Flaubert: The Problem of Aesthetic Discontinuity (London and New York: National
University Publications, 1975), p. 85; Bruneau, p. 429; Jonathan Culler, Flaubert: The
Uses of Uncertainty (London: Paul Elek, 1974), p. 62 ; Jacques-Louis Douchin, Le Senti-
ment de l'absurde chez Gustave Flaubert (Paris: Minard, 1970), p. 23.
3. Oeuvres complètes (Paris: Seuil, 1964), I, 350-51.
4. To Louise Colet, December 9, 1852, in Correspondance (Paris: Conard, 1926-
1933), III, 62.

This content downloaded from 186.19.180.21 on Mon, 08 Feb 2021 03:50:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms