Book 17: THE TEMPTATION OF ST ANTHONY by Gustave Flaubert

[John Self]

Got my copy of The Temptation of St Antony (as my edition terms it) today. It starts on page 61! It ends on page 232! It's in play format so there's lots of white space on the page! Nice choice, rick!

Oh and for reference, my edition is translated by Kitty Mrosovsky. Yeah that Kitty Mrosovsky. :roll:

[m.]

Just bought the Polish translation in a some kind of internet auction and waiting for the arrival. Very cheap, that'd be about 6$, including posting. No idea about the translator, quite offputting cover, but somehow I think it will be generally okay.

http://www.mareno.pl/okladki/big/83-87129-65-8.jpg

edit: just posted that, and I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't pick this up in a bookstore... :? but maybe it's less ugly irl than here.

[John Self]

Mine is slightly less ugly but not much more inspiring. Has a proper 'classic' feel to it though I suppose:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/paradorlounge/flaubert.jpg

[rick green]

Yeah John, if it's no good at least we have the consolation that it's short. And m., that cover is atrocious, but good for a laugh. I really don't know what to expect with this.

[amner]

Here's one of those fancy linked Amazon images:
.
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0375759123.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375759123/palimpsest-21)
.
Just click it.

[Digger]

It's very clever it is! :) I'm racking up my super saver free delivery list, not long now!

[gil]

ABE books are doing a hot trade in The Temptation... I've now been gazumped twice when I thought I had an inexpensive copy I could buy with Paypal!

[Wavid]

I have to say, it makes it all the more exciting when a book is hard to get hold of, doesn't it?

The thrill of the chase and all that. Good luck gil - I think I am going to try the Amazon Market Place from amner's link.

[John Self]

I wonder if The Temptation of St Antony will have gone up Amazon's sales rank by the time we lot have all managed to buy it? The Penguin edition is currently at 607,000...

The cheap copies have almost all gone now - a few of the American one can be got for a fiver, but after that it's between £11 and £40 for a copy on Marketplace!

[ono no komachi]

But the Amazon price is £7.19, which seems OK to me... I know there's a bit of a wait, but we're not discussing it till September are we?

[Digger]

Yes, I got mine no trouble, 7.99. will get it in a couple of weeks so should be ok for September.

[John Self]

Ah true ... I forgot everyone's not like me, with my must-have-it-right-now-even-if-I-don't-need-it-for-another-month compulsion. Plus I always mistrust any availability time on Amazon that isn't "within 24 hours," ie in stock.

[Wavid]

Mind you, I tried to order a digital camera memory card on Amazon recently, which said it was available within 24 hours a week or two ago. When the confirmation email came through, it said delivery was expected in September. Great.

So I cancelled it and bought the same thing from Dixons for a fiver more, but at least I actually had it!

[ono no komachi]

Mmm, I know what you mean, but I'm probably not going to get to any decent bookshops within the next week or so, so I thought I'd take the chance.

And it does work sometimes; I've just received an item with a similar delay on it, which had an expected delivery date of 27 Jul - 5 Aug.

[John Self]

...and today got my Gabriel García Márquez, a brand new one (with the new unfortunately rather ugly style of cover design) for £3.99. And it's only 69 pages long! I'm going to like this book group thing...

[Digger]

So far it's the easy bit! All the fun of purchasing with none of the reading bit yet!!!

Just got my Amazon confirmation - oh wait, that's another different batch of books!

[m.]

:D I got Anthony today! And you know my optimism has been rewarded, cause the cover really looks slightly better - less garish - in real life, and, more importantly, the translation is the one I expected. Also secured myself Marquez - I mean bought in the nearest bookstore...

[gil]

My Anthony was the same edition as JS's.

But (dammit) No-one writes to the Colonel turned up in Spanish. Out of sheer cussedness, I shall read it in Spanish. I managed a whole page at lunchtime today!

[Colyngbourne]

My Anthony is the same as JS's as well but with a different cover and some other pics inside.

I've found the Gibson and Murakami second-hand and will try to get the others via the library. No-one's read the Flaubert since 1995 apparently.

[Wavid]

Have split the discussion from this point on to a new thread to discuss The Temptation of Saint Anthony in September as part of a general tidy up of this forum.

Have made this thread a 'sticky' so we can easily find it, then when we start discussing the next book, we'll make this a normal post, and stickyify the other.

[John Self]

Cool - this makes it look as though we've already had in-depth discussions about the book when all we've been talking about is the cover and delivery times!

[Wavid]

I still haven't managed to track down a copy. While hunting around on the web, though, I came across this painting, by Lovis Corinth titled The Temptation of St Anthony after Gustave Flaubert , from 1908:

http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/N/N04/N04831_9.jpg

Nice.

[Wavid]

The Temptation of St. Anthony is also a triptych painting by Hieronymus Bosch.

Left hand side:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/TemptationStAnthony-left.jpg

Centre:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/TemptationStAnthony-centre.jpg

Right hand side:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/TemptationStAnthony-right.jpg

[Colyngbourne]

That was the pic I was about to post - it's a tremendous painting. I've been researching stuff about Bosch's art on and off all year.

[Wavid]

The Corinth one is interesting in that it namechecks Flaubert - meaning it is based on his version of the story, perhaps?

[Wavid]

Salvador Dalí has a go too:

http://www.inkandblood.net/temptation-dali.jpg

[Jerkass]

I haven't noticed this book showing up on many people's Palimplists yet...and we ARE going to begin discussing it in one week...RIGHT?

[ono no komachi]

I haven't noticed this book showing up on many people's Palimplists yet...

Isn't that more likely to be because some people might be a bit slow about updating their Palimplists than because they've been a bit lazy and not paid the book much attention yet?

*cough*

(John's read it, of course; it was his Current Reading for about five seconds, I think around 3:23 a.m. on the 13th August.)

[John Self]

John's read it, of course; it was his Current Reading for about five seconds, I think around 3:23 a.m. on the 13th August

Lol - I did get through it in less than a day, but that will be fully reflected in what little I have to say about it. But let's not jump the gun, eh...

Oh and Jerkass and m. have also read it, and gil has it on his currently reading list.

[ono no komachi]

I'm reading it too.

But then I'm a mere hundred pages off finishing Bleak House, and I don't want to abandon it completely just to finish Anthony off a bit quicker (as it were).

What would you have me do, Jerkass? eh? eh?

[Jerkass]

Well, since I never finish the books I claim to have read, I can't really tell you if the last hundred pages of Bleak House are worth reading or not, of course.

[rick green]

I've started it, and intend to finish by next month. So that's what, five--six of us? Not bad for a start.

[Colyngbourne]

I'm about half way through but won't focus on it until nearer the end of the month, as I'll probably forget what I thought of it otherwise.

[pandop]

I will be starting it this weekend, but will probably be late to the discussion, as I am on holiday (ie no internet access) in the first week of september

Hazel

[Wavid]

Are we all set for discussing this tomorrow then, guys? First up: an admission. I won't be. The libraries round here just don't have a copy. If anyone would like to lend me theirs so I can join in at a later date, that would be great.

[Digger]

I'll lend you mine W, although I need to look it over again to get my thoughts in line for my contribution to the discussion. PM me an address and will send it off next week.

:D

[Wavid]

Gil's is soon to be on its way, Digger, but thanks for the offer!

[Digger]

No probs.

[funes]

howdy everyone,

i really don't think i will be able to participate in this discussion.

2 members of my family were in new orleans, la. when th hurricane hit. i am worried to say the least, and expect the worst. it will be a horrible few weeks.

it is a catastrophe, beyond anything i can imagine, here safe and dry in chicago. there is no food and water in the city, and a free for all in the french quarter. no sanitation.

anyway, i won't hijack this thread. be some time before i am back, unless i need somehting to take my mind off of my worry, which is quite likely.

if you pray, please say one for the living and for the dead.

[John Self]

OK, let me kick us off on discussing The Temptation of St Antony. This will necessarily be muddled and muddied as I don't have my copy to hand, and already my memory of it is blurred by the books I've read since finishing it.

My overwhelming impression was that this is a book which it is not possible to read, or to read well and do it justice, without a good deal more background knowledge than I have. Before I got this book I had never heard of St Antony - was he real? Was he mythical? Is he well known to Christians, now or then? Is or was his temptation a vital part of Christian doctrine? Without any of this knowledge, I felt I was reading the book mostly as a bizarrely surreal and disordered dreamscape, or as an allegory for something which-I-didn't-know-what.

For that reason a good deal of it sailed directly over my head. Scenes where literally a dozen or so characters (or sets of characters) with odd, vaguely-Biblical-sounding names, declaimed one after another had me utterly baffled. Was I, or the ideal reader, or the average reader in 1848 when Flaubert completed his first version of the Temptation, supposed to have heard of these people? Again, the frustration of not knowing what I am supposed to know, and getting little out of it as a result.

It did however provoke some thoughts in me. In the opening scene I began to think of the notion of Temptations generally, where a fiercely religious figure will submit himself to the devil's work to prove his faith and devotion. The idea, as supported here in the early scenes, is that the temptee will face down numerous material desires and seductions placed before him. This, my early-21st-century atheistic mindset felt, is surely hypocritical or at least a bit of a cheat. The temptee, after all, is someone whose sole devotion is to God - not to the material world. What wishes would someone like this have for rubies and gold, knowing too well the status of the rich man vis-a-vis entry into the kingdom of heaven? In fact, given that his desires are solely to prove himself to his God, isn't the temptation - supposedly a period of abstinence and self-denial - actually a frenzy of self-interested self-indulgence on his part? Look, God, see how good I am! Pick me, Lord, pick me! So I was quietly pleased when in the second scene, the character whose name I have forgotten but begins with H (hem hem), made exactly these points for me. If there was a subsequent rebuttal, I missed that with my blockheaded blinkeredness. I also enjoyed the appearance of the Devil later on - who as usual gets the best lines.

I'm very interested to see what others made of the Temptation, particularly our Christian members, as I am only too aware that my reading was so woefully inadequate as to barely constitute a reading. It made me want to return to that other biblical trial text, Jim Crace's Quarantine, and for that alone I should be grateful. I doubt I will be re-reading Flaubert's book, or indeed even keeping it, but the writing was beautiful and rich - perhaps overdone at times - and it made me think, a little bit, so I'm glad I read it.

**000

[Digger]

Good first impressions John, which mirror mine in many ways. I read the introduction essay first as I worried that I may need some intellectual guidelines in order to appreciate it. I actually found Foucault's intro more impenetrable than the text itself but I did gain from it the warning that St Anthony is and was a work of an extraordinary bibliophile. His research for this work was immense, covering works of history, myth and theology that we poor mortals have seemingly almost no hope of reading as well.

Armed with this knowledge I plunged in (the glossary at the back of my Hearne translation was excellent!). Strange dreamscape yes, and also somewhat of a glorified list - which I suppose is what it set out to be - of the temptations of an anchorite. I was surprised at the pride given to Anthony - he is very self aware of the glorified spiritual position supposedly afforded to hermits as well as of all the wonderous things he could have achieved had he not left to be a hermit. Hilarion - former disciple and tempter throughout the second 2 thirds of the book - seems to point this out to him, not that he humbles his opinion any!

One thing I was struck by was that at one point after a long string of the heretics (I think) Hilarion said something to the effect of 'might not all these various heretics have some grain of truth within them, be guarding those truths behind their seemingly bad exteriors that tempt you?' Anthony does not really comment on this (from my recollection without text here in the office) but this, in combination with Anthony's final revalatory experience of seeing creation and the oneness of all things struck a chord with me and our present time of conflict between religions, and indeed athiestic view points: might not all religions have grains of truth within them, and in this case shouldn't tolerance be the order of the day rather than condemnation? It was a surprising point of contemporanity in an otherwise pretty far removed narrative.

I thought I would be bothered by the strange half play format, but found that it didn't seem to matter too much, and that actually it read pretty smoothly with soliloquy and description working well - the writing of both was vivid and poetic but also simple.

There may be more thoughts later... in general I don't think I will reread it but I did enjoy it, some of the strange myths, heretics and creatures I recognised from various other works and history courses which added just enough familiarity for me to follow without feeling too lost or swamped.

***00 and maybe a half...

[gil]

I have criticisms of both style and substance, and nothing much to offer in the way of an accolade.

I started to read the Introduction, but quickly drowned in the inconsequential detail proffered about the author. "This is turgid stuff," I thought, "Time to read the actual book. After all, it was the author's favourite, it must be good."

It's written as a play, but in Flaubert's time it could never be staged, so why couch it in that form? The stage directions are hopeless. It would have read a lot better as a novel, where he could do the descriptions better, and would have been able to fill in background as necessary.

Looking at it as a possible movie screenplay, however, brought to mind Peter Greenaway's Prospero's Books, a truly weird procession of visions, but not as weird as this one. Now that Lord of the Rings has been filmed, I think the technology is probably there for St Anthony, but the market probably isn't.

So, here we are, presented with a series of visions, none of which would tempt, as far as I can see, even the most dedicated sinner, as sinners tend to be street-wise, and wouldn't fall for all this flummery. Towards the end of the book, the temptation being offered is:
"Behold all the religions of Man, dating back umpty millenia, all of which were rich and detailed, filled with ritual and rules. Why is Christianity / monotheism so special?" This was fairly compelling to me, as I read the book. It became obvious that all religion is just a human invention, and a rather predictable one, at that. I am pre-disposed to atheism (that's Protestant Atheism, not the Catholic variety) and felt that Flaubert, by exposing the ridiculous extremes of devotion, made a good case for ignoring them all.

I sympathise with JS's complaint that he didn't know half of these Gods. I should think, in Flaubert's time, that most of his audience would be familiar with the Greek and Roman Myths, with The Bible in fair detail and with a number of the early saints of whom St Anthony speaks.

However, when it comes to the Hittite and Hindu, to name but two of the less obscure of the thirty or so pantheons mentioned, no-one, either then or now, should be expected to recognise them. What's more, in a high-handed manner, which Umberto Eco has since adopted as his own, Flaubert heaps unexplained esoteric reference upon esoteric reference in a clear bid to show off the breadth and shallowness of his research.

The book is slightly less irritating, by virtue of brevity, than one of Eco's doorstops, but I'm afraid I finished the book without any very clear idea of his objective in writing it. Perhaps I should have read the Introduction, but that was nearly as long as the book, and much more boring.

One star, max.

[Digger]

I'm afraid I finished the book without any very clear idea of his objective in writing it.

Me neither, unless perhaps he was trying to make some religious commentary about historical christian hermits?

Perhaps I should have read the Introduction, but that was nearly as long as the book, and much more boring.in writing it.


Even if you had, it might not have helped that much. It basically said he's heaped erudite research together in a list (I think!).

I'm not sure that Flaubert ever intended it to be a playscript, although in that case, why pick that format? :?

[rick green]

I just finished The Temptation of Saint Anthony & thought it really cool. Philosophy, fantasy, psychology, theology... quite a heady mash! Rather a slight plot I grant you, perhaps overdone at times, but the questions it asks are of deep and abiding interest to me. I was fascinated to see how it would turn out. Now I'm fascinated by the way it has turned out. I'll post more after further reflection.

****0 or ***** final rating not yet decided.

EDIT: Early thoughts: The book appeals to me on very different levels, which I like. First, there is the childish delight in curiosities. Fantastic bestiaries, mutants, gods, super-beings testify to the extraordinary power of imagination. Second, the philosophical urge. The need to know life's meaning and the deep and beautiful thinking sometimes produced by this urge--also testifies to... the power of imagination. Huh!
And might these two distinct but related powers be represented by the Sphinx & the Chimera in the book? (Must check on that.) And how does the book's resolution play into this question of imagination? When I reached the end of the story I wrote down the phrase "exstatic materialism." Does that convey Anthony's creed at the book's end? Has he become a scientist after all, or has he discovered something essential yet overlooked by science as presetned by the Devil? Does this book preceed Bergson's theory of the elan vital? (I think it must. But it seems to suggest something of the sort. Now I'm really out of my depth.)

[Colyngbourne]

Now I've finished reading Thursday's purchase, I can finish Falubert - hopefully I'll be done by the end of the weekend.

[rick green]

From The Oxford Dictionary of Saints by David H. Farmer

ANTONY OF EGYPT (251-356), abbot. Born in Coma (Upper Egypt), he sold all his possessions at the age of twenty and lived among the local ascetics. From 286 to 306 he lived in complete solitude in a deserted fort at Pispir. Here he underwent a series of temptations usually associated with the hermit life; at the end of this period he left his solitude to guide disciples, who had gathered around him. From his monastery he went to Alexandria in 311 to encourage the confessors during the persecution of Maximinus. He lived by gardening and mat-making; in character he combined severe austerity with an emphasis on discretion and the love of God before all else. His letters reveal him as a man whose thought was influenced by Plato and Origen.
In 355 he went to Alexandria, this time to refute the Arians. Even the philosophers were impressed; he was reputed to be a miracle-worker and many were converted by him. His surviving letters include one to the Emperor Constantine and several to different monasteries...

From The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1960 Edition

ANTHONY, SAINT (c. A.D. 250-350), The first Christian monk, was born in middle Egypt. At the age of 20 he began to practice an ascetic life, and after 15 years of this life he withdrew for solitude to a mountain by the Nile, called Pispir, now Der el Memum, opposite Arsinoë in the Fayum. In the early years of the 4th century, he emerged from his retreat to organize the monastic life of the monks who imitated him. After a time, he again withdrew to the mountain by the Red sea, where now stands the monastery that bears his name (Der Mar Antonios). Shortly before his death, he ventured to Alexandria to preach against Arianism.
Anthony is noted for his combats with the hosts of evil. Athanasius tells us that he was first tempted by thoughts of family joys and duties, and of the difficulty of his chosen life, but the devil, finding argument of no avail and hoping to arouse in him the pride of success, appeared as a cringing black boy admitting that he had been defeated by the saint. At other times he appeared under the guise of a monk bringing him bread during his fasts, or under the form of wild beasts, women or soldiers, sometimes beating the saint and leaving him as dead.

[gil]

I'm not decrying the divinity of St A. It's Flaubert's overblown ego trip I'm rebelling against.

[m.]

I didn't like it much. Three stars I gave it are out of appreciation rather than true joy of reading (though it wasn't an effort either, and I'm glad I've read it). I'm quite impressed that Flaubert had the courage to write something that was, I think, destined to be liked by very few. Well maybe he had the delusion that it would be a universally acclaimed masterpiece - but it has a feel of a work that an author is compelled to get out of himself, whether the readers like it or not. I don't agree it's a shallow ego trip (@ gil :)) but a word overdone has been used by several reviewers and one just can't say it enough - overdone like hell. Still, actually I found it very insightful from the psychological point of view and a very good presentation of certain Catholic doctrines & beliefs, as far as I understand them, which may be not that far.

I had more thoughts about it but when I sat to write it down yesterday I wasn't able to come up with anything coherent. I think I'll wait for the rest of people and see if they write anything I could agree or disagree with.

Btw, Waugh's Helena - dealing with a similar subject (a saint) and almost the same timeline - is much more evasive and, ultimately, irritating - though way more readable. Have you ever got round to reading it, John? I remember it on some of your lists.

[John Self]

Yes I did get to Helena at one point, must have been last year as I don't think it's on my Palimplist for 2005. I agree - it was much more readable than St Antony, but I felt the same floundering sense of inadequacy toward the subject matter. I can remember practically nothing about it now.

[rick green]

And gil, I didn't mean to advocate for Anthony's sanctity or something, only to give a little historical FYI.
I can see what you mean, m., about this being a book the author wrote more for himself than for an audience. That makes it all the more interesting to me. As does the strangeness of it. The hybrid form, the seemingly endless procession of monologing deities, the uncertainty about where everything is heading & what it means--all of this makes the book harder on the reader, but (at least in my case), more fascinating as well. I can understand why gil, and others, might see egotism at the back of all this. While I'm not sure I agree, I do wonder if that's necessarily a bad thing.

[Colyngbourne]

Wow, what an oddity! Like the rest of you, I waded through some of the Introduction and floundered through the rest, not understanding the half of it but picking up some points which definitely helped my understanding, since I was reading the Intro after reading the text itself.

I pretty much go along with what Digger has said already. It's a bizarre procession of tempations to a man who hasn't exactly invited them upon himself but who has a lot to learn in the way of humility. However I think wishing to reduce himself to an amoebic essence in the final lines was a pretty good place to start!

Yes, the pride and self-pity continue throughout and I was a little unhappy at his scorn of the world of the flesh at the start of the book but again, by the end, that has all changed.

I was reminded of many other things whilst reading this: Jim Crace's Quarantine (as John has already mentioned); Spirited Away (Anthony's vision of the cup of greed, multiplying with gold coins like No-Face in the film proferring more to the greedy and swallowing the graspers); American Gods (as they all troop miserably to the abyss) and also Pullman's Metatron in The Amber Spyglass (since the Lord of Hosts is included in that lot); also the Devil's arguments (especially the ones once he gets into space) reminded me a lot of the ones in Jill Paton Walsh's Knowledge of Angels.

I did get very annoyed at the Devil (to be expected, I guess, if you're a Christian) who was of course very choosy with his arguments and as with Knowledge of Angels, the whole Christ thing was ignored. Tricksy comments like You picture God as a living person and Why can't God descend to a feeling? slipped in and were never adequately answered by someone who was presumably one of the great thinkers of the church as well as the most devout. Any modern theologian would wupp this Devil's ass over many of the things he sets against Anthony (who barely answers, he is such a passive protagonist).

However, in my opinion, the Devil makes one big mistake, which sums up the essential choice [wrong word but I can't think of the right one as it's past midnight] in the book - between The Void and Matter. Is there nothingness or somethingness? Is there the "hidden breath at the heart of things" that my Intro mentions (and makes me think of Manley Hopkins)? or the infinite boundless realms of space, filled with literally less than nothing?

Perhaps there is nothing says the Devil. Well, Anthony's torrential vision (which gets very tedious in the reading) continues with the final procession of bizarre creatures, both humanoid and bestial until the scale reduces to the microscopic and Anthony desires to be matter.

Anthony desires to be matter - to become flesh, to become incarnate. That is one (maybe the one) thing at the heart of the Christian position - that something that is not Matter (God) becomes Matter (still God), like us. I see this as nothing less than the crux of the thing, and it's confirmed a sentence later by the vision in the clouds as the Sun/Son-Christ is seen.

Anthony endeavours to keep an idea of the 'immanent divinity' in the creation around him. I understand (but only a teeny-weeny bit) that the Gnostic argument concerned the separation of the body and the soul, but my reading of the book suggests to me at least that they aren't separated in the final scene of the book:

Anthony has reached the 'being-ness' of being, the 'is-ness' of being 'matter' (is even beginning to approach understanding something of the ancient name that God gives to himself - 'I am'). As the Intro puts it, he has lost any consciousness of self, and has become a living contemplation - a fusion of matter and spirit, which is presumably the objective of any anchorite.


I give it ***00 - okay in some respects. I'd struggle to read it again - the japery pantomimes with various characters, and stagey processions of figures we've never heard of, invoking philosophical positions that are too abstruse for the modern reader.

[rick green]

Anthony desires to be matter - to become flesh, to become incarnate. That is one (maybe the one) thing at the heart of the Christian position - that something that is not Matter (God) becomes Matter (still God), like us. I see this as nothing less than the crux of the thing, and it's confirmed a sentence later by the vision in the clouds as the Sun/Son-Christ is seen.


Yeah, that's a good point. The numerous allusions to the Arian heresy, which had to do with the nature of Christ as both God & man, would seem to back you up on that. By the way, what is the proper theological term for such questions: christalogical? I forget.

[Colyngbourne]

Yes, I think it's christological. Once I had written the above, and wove my way to bed, it occurred to me that, as in the Intro, the same final passage might be legitimately taken as a steering towards pantheism, rather than a necessarily Christian outlook - the spirit in every cell of matter, of rock and tree and creature etc.

But I don't think so. The times that St. Anthony succeeds in driving away the temptations which are threatening to overcome him, he either embraces the Cross (hanging on 'for dear life' as it were - you could get a sermon and a half out of that phrase alone) or he raises his eyes to... I guess, to the notion of Heaven.

ETA: re-reading what I put in my main review-y bit, I also remember something else the book reminded me of: The Incredible Shrinking Man. That reduction to atomic size, which magnifies the 'heavens' of space that are out there. Can anyone remember what the closing lines of that film are? I am wondering whether they are theistic or not.

[ono no komachi]

Reading this has confirmed my suspicion that I'm not clever enough to hang around with you guys.

I spent much of the book 'God-spotting' - thinking, 'ooh yes, I know this one, that's the chap who was tied to the wheel / had his liver pecked at / could never reach the fruit,' but it was hard for me to see how having visions of torture and suffering amounted to 'temptation', I suppose because I have a one-dimensional view of temptation as being akin to bribery 'admit such-and-such and you will have untold riches'. (Clearly there is the sense that it was intended to make Anthony doubt his faith, but in my dimness I didn't give much consideration to this.)

I was bedazzled by the strangeness of Anthony's visions to the extent that I didn't put much effort into considering the effect on his faith, and tried to read it as a narrative series of events, at which I didn't do very well. I have learned a new word from the blurb on the back though 'oneiric'. One for the vocab book!

As a very poor incidental, I recognised some of the weird beings like Blemmyes and Sciopods from Eco's Baudolino, in which if I remember rightly, they were largely benign.

Please don't ban me from the Book Group.

[Stewart]

it was hard for me to see how having visions of torture and suffering amounted to 'temptation'

Take it you only watched The Passion of the Christ for the steamy sex scenes? :lol:

[ono no komachi]

Yes, and I was also one of the people they had to change the title of The Madness of George IV for, otherwise I would've thought it was a sequel.

[rick green]

... the same final passage might be legitimately taken as a steering towards pantheism, rather than a necessarily Christian outlook - the spirit in every cell of matter, of rock and tree and creature etc.

But I don't think so.

This is the interesting question to me. I'm not yet decided, but I did have a (thank ye gods) flash of insight a moment ago, relating to this question. It came to me like this:
The book begins with Anthony lamenting his state. He's somehow not right with God. He can't really pray, he's had no mystical experiences of late; even the good book can't set his mind at ease. So what's wrong? Others have mentioned his apparent arrogance. Could this be the problem? Or could it have to do with his anger at the heretics? Is he too righteous for his own good perhaps? ( Now that I'm writing this, it seems that Col made very similar observations above.) Anyway, he outlasts his dark night of the soul & the devil's temptations. In the end, he is once again right with God. My question is, what has changed? How did he come around? Col suggests that he humbled himself, and I think I agree. But how does this humility relate to his doctrine? Is there any relation? Has he changed his metaphysical or theological position at all? That's what really interests me. There are a number of issues wrapped up in this, so it's complicated. First is Catholic doctrine. Second is Flaubert's own metaphysical vision (of which I know nothing). Is there a discrepancy between these two? If so, the book may have a somewhat heretical conclusion. Flaubert may write of Anthony looking to the cross, and rejoicing in Christ, but whose idea of Christ is it? I'm having a hard time making myself clear. Sorry.

[Colyngbourne]

This is the interesting question to me. I'm not yet decided, but I did have a (thank ye gods) flash of insight a moment ago, relating to this question. It came to me like this:
The book begins with Anthony lamenting his state. He's somehow not right with God. He can't really pray, he's had no mystical experiences of late; even the good book can't set his mind at ease. So what's wrong? Others have mentioned his apparent arrogance. Could this be the problem? Or could it have to do with his anger at the heretics? Is he too righteous for his own good perhaps? ( Now that I'm writing this, it seems that Col made very similar observations above.) Anyway, he outlasts his dark night of the soul & the devil's temptations. In the end, he is once again right with God. My question is, what has changed? How did he come around? Col suggests that he humbled himself, and I think I agree. But how does this humility relate to his doctrine? Is there any relation? Has he changed his metaphysical or theological position at all? That's what really interests me. There are a number of issues wrapped up in this, so it's complicated. First is Catholic doctrine. Second is Flaubert's own metaphysical vision (of which I know nothing). Is there a discrepancy between these two? If so, the book may have a somewhat heretical conclusion. Flaubert may write of Anthony looking to the cross, and rejoicing in Christ, but whose idea of Christ is it? I'm having a hard time making myself clear. Sorry.

I'm not sure of what I'm saying here, but I'll say it anyway! I think his not-rightness with God, as you put it, is something that would be familiar to the Desert Fathers or any anchorite, as a periodic thing. When I read this book, I didn't see it as the one and only time of Temptation that Anthony would necessarily go through in his many years of eremite existence. Perhaps for the function of the book, Flaubert imagines one instance that is the many contracted into one, or perhaps is just one experience over the many years.

Partly what makes me say that, for a start, is remembering what I have read about monkish existence (even the Victorian melodrama of Erasmus's monkish father in The Cloister and the Hearth tells us something of the temptations of the flesh and heart) or heard of (we were given a profound and wonderful insight into Benedictine life earlier this year with the reality series that followed five men trying to live in a monastery for six weeks). All of these repeatedly suggest that such temptations are entirely normal and not to be despaired over - that there will be times of dryness and hard times to concentrate, and lack of focus on the task in hand.

Sometimes in those cases, what is needed is, yes, humility, and a reassessment of where one stands in relation to God; to begin to accept the small advances, to not struggle. I don't see Anthony so much fighting the temptations (because he is definitely not that proactive) but resisting them and enduring, and refocusing his spirit, and becoming aware. That kind of thing, anyway, which sounds really vague and waffly when you write it down.

I don't think he has changed his theological position - he has maybe gained a new perspective on it, found a new vision - with metaphysical spectacles on, if you like.

[Wavid]

Gil's copy arrived on Saturday morning. Many thanks for that.

Am going to get started this evening, so hopefully will get through it soon and take part in what has been a really interesting debate.

Rick - what made you go for this one originally?

[rick green]

A number of things really. I already had the book; it's pretty short; there are demons and weird looking things on the cover; Flaubert's a big name I wasn't too familiar with--all of these played a part.

[Wavid]

Having read only a few pages, I can see what the problems are with the actual reading of the book. There are so many references to things I know nothing about that it is difficult to know what to do - whether to read the intro before the book, whether to read notes as I go through, or what.

So I am going to try and read the whole thing without reference to anything first, and then pick through the introduction, and then maybe read the more important passages again, referencing some of the notes.

[Jerkass]

Wow, what an oddity! Like the rest of you, I waded through some of the Introduction and floundered through the rest, not understanding the half of it but picking up some points which definitely helped my understanding, since I was reading the Intro after reading the text itself...

Excellent review, Col, and everyone else, too, for that matter. Nice to see so many people playing along with the Book Club.

Sorry I haven't added anything yet, but life got in the way a bit, and I'll weigh in with something or other soon.

I forget--who recommended this book to us? I have no particular reason for asking, really...I just like to keep track of recommendations. I enjoyed reading it, and I probably never would have decided to read it on my own.

[John Self]

It was rick. The only person who loved it!!

[Wavid]

I am seriously struggling with this, but am trying to get through out of sheer bloodymindedness more than anything else.

I concur with many of the criticisms made here, especially in that it seems that it is as much an audit of Flaubert's learning as anything else. With him working on it for so long, it makes me wonder if he lost sight of what he was aiming for in the first place, like he got so wound up in listing all these great esoteric myths and legends that the notion of actually telling a story about St. Antony got lost somewhere. From what I have read about Anton, I geninely think there is a good book to be written about his life - many of these stories of the early days of the Church I find fascinating.

Half the trouble is possibly that I don't read much of this sort of stuff, I am mostly a reader of more modern stuff, that is possibly a little less learned. I wonder if it is any coincidence that the guy who liked this more than anyone else, Rick, is also probably the most eclectic reader in these parts, and therefore might have been more pre-disposed to liking it (couple with the fact that he chose the damn thing as well, of course!)?

Anyway, I shall carry on, and let you know if my opinions change...

[Jerkass]

Since it isn't looking like I'll find time for a proper review, I'll just mention a few random things, in no particular order.

I thought Satan made several interesting points, particularly in the parade-of-heretics section. As an aside, yes, it was extremely annoying that Flaubert felt such a need to show off all the great research he had done--in this heretic section, for example, I thought he had made several valid points approximately 40% of the way through the scene, and I wish he would have dropped it there. Most of the other sections were similar. Anyway, back to my original point--Satan/Flaubert did an excellent job highlighting the fact that many of the heresies weren't all that crazy. Or, perhaps the better way to say it might be that many of the heresies weren't much more crazy than the "real" Christian beliefs. Satan/Flaubert makes the point that a Council got together and picked which of the various beliefs were heresies and which were the correct ones--who's to say that the Council got it right?

Whew--this philosophy and religion stuff [i]is hard to talk about clearly, as a few of you have mentioned already.

Satan/Flaubert makes roughly the same point in the discussion of competing religions, too. "How is any of this any more unbelievable than your own religion?" he asks, again and again. Satan/Flaubert also shows religion after religion (or god after god) prospering and dying off--your religion, like all of these others, will die out eventually, because it, like your god, is a creation of humanity, and there is nothing more to it than that.

This particular point merits further discussion, and it ties into another question I have about Flaubert's motivations. If Christianity is just another man-made religion with another man-made god/God...why has it been so successful in comparison to some of the other religions? How have Christianity and some of the other "major" religions managed to live across several eras, embraced by several different societies over that time? And my overriding question: on which side does Flaubert sit in this discussion?

I only ask--although the answer is obvious, I guess--because Flaubert portrays Antony as a not-very-heroic hero, and Satan is continually scoring points against him in their debates, if you can even call them debates, with Antony mostly sitting and groaning and doing not much else. When we get to the end, though, strangely, Antony is shown, I think, to win, with his faith intact, and with the face of Jesus shining down upon him. It was not the ending that I expected, and I wondered what Flaubert was trying to get across.

I have read the entire discussion in this thread already, but it was a few days ago, and I'm now wondering if I've brought up anything new at all. Apologies if I haven't. Will go back and read it again.

Edit: http://www.palimpsest.org.uk/threestars.gif forgot to give a rating. One of those stars might be for the nifty cover.

[Colyngbourne]

I hate even dipping my toes into scary (usually icy cold or blazing hot) theological waters.

I believe that the difficulty of sorting out the heresies from the truths or 'The Truth' if you like, is one that was not lightly handled by those doing the picking at the time; and secondly there wasn't exactly 'one time' when it was all done and dusted. Of course, there were important Councils in the late C4th when the documents that are now called the Bible were assembled into one fixed collection - how they were decided upon was a matter of filtration - not all Christian communities around the Mediterranean had copies of the same things; some had some gospels, some had others. Some measure of collective discernment accrued over time as to which were the ones that spoke most truly of what was known and believed. Some were judged to be less important or sometimes less reliable.

Earlier in the C4th was the Council of Nicaea that Flaubert/Anthony is going on about, where Arius argued about the humanity of Jesus, as opposed to his having divine nature as well as human nature. Ascertaining a credo for all Christians means delving into the heart of the matter and gathering such evidence that points one way and not another. I don't really know what the arguments of Arius were, but many times it comes down to something like CS Lewis's statement: was Jesus mad, bad or God? I don't think there's much room for anything inbetween. But I'd rather not get into that discussion here.

I think Flaubert does come down on the side of Christianity in the end - he is rather weak and flabby in the way he allows Anthony to suffer all the moaning hordes and snappy arguments from Satan, but the notion of Christianity is the one still intact by the end of the book, I think. I'm no objective commentator of course but I think Christianity is unique as a religion, and part of its longevity comes from the truths and the way of life it encapsulates.

Uh, heart on sleeve - messy business.

[Jerkass]

Right--so you thought he was coming down on the side of Christianity in the end, too, Col. And didn't that strike you as a bit unexpected, after reading the first 99% of the book?

And if he is coming down on the side of Christianity in the end...er, what was the point of the preceding 99% of the book, then? Other than to show off all of the research he had done?

[Colyngbourne]

Possibly, yes ! :D And to give the 'other side' a good running for their money and effort etc. :wink: I think he just wanted to show off, and I was worried all the way through that Anthony would be overwhelmed by the deluge of arguments and temptations and bedevilments. However, to be true to the historical Anthony, it would have been a bit of a calumny to suggest St. Anthony was lost in the mire of chaos and uncertainty and disbelief as the book closes; or even left gazing into the atoms, in the heretical position of those he condemned at Nicaea.

[pandop]

I am stuggling with this a bit, but hope to be able to post some impressions of it by the weekend

Hazel

[gil]

On further contemplation, I must add that, as a fan of sf and fantasy, I was not particularly entertained by St A's visions, which were all derivative, by definition, and very clumsily presented. This book should be given the Noble Failure Award

When Col said that the message conveyed was basically in support of Pantheism, she, despite, I believe, some Christian conviction on her part, was right on the button. Religion associated with a single saint or messiah in a single age with specific symbols (cross, crescent) on our little planet circling our unremarkable Sun in a rather remote spiral arm of a run-of-the-mill galaxy in this vast Big Bang debris cloud of ours cannot possibly be valid. A religion based on wonder at the miracle of creation, physics, existence of thinking beings and the internet just stands a chance, especially if it includes a moral code that supports peaceful co-existence of all life in a stable universe.

[Colyngbourne]

Not going to be drawn into a detailed discussion again; but my (religious/spiritual) point about the last bit - the fusion of matter and spirit - applies as much to Jesus (in St. Anthony's eyes) as to the scientific (ie. to both).

I thought about this some more, and somewhat in remembering the drama-doc that was on a few weeks ago about Einstein's theory of relativity.

[amner]

'...abandoned for ever' then, Wavey?

[Wavid]

Yep, it was no good. Just wasn't getting anywhere with it. It ended up just being a chore, which given my recent reading problems wasn't exactly what I needed.

Still, I got halfway through, so I gave it a pretty good shot. My comments above are still valid for my experience of it.

[m.]

September has almost ended, and I've lost hope to write a "proper" review. As I said earlier, reading the book wasn't a problem. As a matter of fact, I was quite well prepared to deal with it, at least in theory - Catholic background, plus when I studied history at the university we did early medieval heresies quite thoroughly. Of course the details blurred, and only some general sense remained - but it probably helped a lot. Still, I have problems with writing about this book, because my own attitude to religion isn't very clear to me these days, I don't know what I think about religion, it depends on the day frankly. So any thoughts I have about this book hang in the air in a way... And I feel reluctant to put them down.

I've already said what I didn't like about this book, and you seem to have similar opinions - it's almost unaccessible, overloaded with details that don't strike a chord with a modern reader. It is also, for all Anthony's wailings and sufferings, strangely detached emotionally. For me, it's completely cerebral. In Ackroyd's The Last Testament of Oscar Wilde, Wilde calls Flaubert "a cold flame". Don't know if it's really Wilde's or Ackroyd's, but I think it's spot on... What I liked, or kind of liked about this book is that it is so intellectually honest and practically impartial - it just relates. Somehow it manages not to betray how Flaubert felt about the whole thing - or at least I am unable to guess from this book whether Flaubert really believed or not. And that is puzzling, but fascinating. And he doesn't simplify anything - neither sentimentality or easy answers, nor cheap shots.

The book brought to my mind most if not all of the problems that I have with Christianity. But I wouldn't call it thought-provoking, because actually it's not new thoughts... Rather old questions that I left unanwsered, and have found them now, surprise, still unanswered.

Some random thoughts about the book... I thought it made sense that Anthony is so passive and weak and practically always the losing side. The events take place at the end of Anthony's stay in the desert - he says that he's been resisting the temptations for the past thirty years. It's the final act. Why should the hermit's life have hardened him and made stronger? It rather used up all his resources. Maybe even an average theologian (well-fed, surrounded by friends) would make a better job at answering the devil's tricky questions. Maybe Anthony did make a better job in his better days, and the devil returned when he was at his lowest - why should he play fair? I thought that was the point, to show Anthony unable to defend himself rationally against the devil's arguments - faith isn't based on reason... Up to a certain point the reason is helpful, but Anthony got beyond that point - and encountered a hostile intelligence, cleverer than him. And now, when his reason failed him, he could have given in to despair or put his trust in Christ - and he did the latter. And Christ appeared. And it is for us to decide if He was for real, or just a final illusion of a starved, deprived of any human company poor neurotic.

I can think of nicer ways to approach this book (because I don't really like what I wrote above), and also, there are other, maybe more important things there, but right now, I'm tired and sleepy. I may edit later.

[stlukesguild]

I know I am quite late in coming around to posting my thoughts on this book... but then I do take a rather "fragmented" approach to reading... often juggling six or eight works at once. On top of this (I hang my head) I have been rather lapse in my reading as of late. Nevertheless, here I offer up a few thoughts. First of all there's the form. It clearly blurs several genres. I wouldn't know whether to call it a play, a prose poem, a novel, a romance. I like Gil's suggestion of the work as a possible screenplay bringing to mind, perhaps, a Peter Greenaway film. In many ways it does strike me as a series of poetic visions. I am also reminded of the short prose poems (poetic narratives?) of Baudelaire... as well as of other works that blur literary genres such as Goethe's "Faust", the biblical Job (as well as Blake's Job) and Joyce. I can understand how the lover of novels would dislike this book and vastly prefer "Mme. Bovary". I can also understand what so many poets and artists found as being so inspirational. The work does not unfold or evolve like a novel. Rather it seems a collection of hallucinatory vignettes that can be exquisitely visionary... and visual... as well as gorgeously poetic. From my own perspective, it seems as if the most violent and erotic scenes are also the most "beautiful"... just as they often are in certain films, in some epic romances (I think of Spencer's "Faerie Queene"... as well as Homer, Dante, and Virgil)... as well as opera.

Perhaps it's for this reason that poets such as Baudelaire and Rimbaud would be enamored of Flaubert, as well as visual artists. Perhaps this link between the narrative and the visual artist is only coming full-circle, for the St. Anthony story was already a source of inspiration for many great artists... and these would have been plainly known to someone who researched his theme as much as Flaubert. I might add, by way of an aside, that there is an interesting reason for the popularity of the St. Anthony theme among some artists. Artists in the middle ages and Renaissance were quite limited as to what the could paint, and some themes allowed the hypocrisy of speaking out against beauty, sensuality, and sex while rendering those very things... which plainly seduced the visual artist. However, there was also the instance of "St. Anthony's Fire" or "St. Anthony's Disease." A disease caused by a fungal infection of yeast used in baking led to a horrific disease with symptoms including LSD-like hallucinations, a horrible burning of limbs and other extremities, a loss of said extremities to gangrene and eventual death. Bosch and Breughel were each enamored of such themes... and while Brueghel's interests may have been spurred by Bosch's example and by the potential for such imagery to be used as a social commentary... some have suggested that Bosch might have himself suffered a less severe (and non-fatal) bought with St. Anthony's fire. Grunwald, on the other hand, worked for a monastery/hospital that dealt with patients of the disease and he created his masterpiece, the Eisenheim Altarpiece, with its great gangrenous Christ... its amputations... and its horrific visions of the torments of hell... for these very sufferers of the disease. It must have been quite comforting.:shock:

Beyond the fascinating blurring of forms, and the gorgeous, sensuous poetic scenes, I found myself quite drawn into the overall narrative. From my knowledge of the theme, I expected a poor, humble saint being tortured for no reason (or perhaps out of anger/envy at his faith) by endless demons. In some ways... I expected something similar to how Job is often portrayed/interpreted. In actuality, Flaubert's work reminded me of nothing so much as Blake's "Job". Initially, Blake's Job is faithful because he expects something in return; he is generous because he wishes to appear such... not because he does so out of the goodness of his heart. He expects some final all-too human judgment where the "good are rewarded and the "evil" are punished. Flaubert's Anthony strikes me in a similar manner. He seems more than a bit overly smug about his own "humility"... his "goodness"... his "purity"... his sacrifice for his God. For someone so "humble" he can declare pridefully, "Ah! the temptation was strong! But how well I delivered myself from it!" He takes entirely too much pleasure from his imaginings of the slaughter of his "enemies"... the "unfaithful"... the "heretics"... even those who profess a slightly different interpretation of Christianity. He joyfully wallows in visions of his "enemies" engaged in the most foul and filthy of practices. And then Hilarion, his alter-ego (?) challenges him with the taunt: "Ignorance is the foam of pride. One says, forsooth--'My conviction is formed! wherefore argue further?' --and one despises the doctors, the philosophers, tradition itself, and even the text of the Law whereof one is ignorant. Dost thou imagine that thou dost hold all wisdom in the hollow of thy hand?" This scene seems to be a turning point of sorts.

After reveling in his ability to withstand the temptations of lust and greed and certain heresies, Anthony is confronted with a dazzling array of visions. (and here I should note that while I have a bit more than the average background in religious and mythological narratives, I don't think these are necessary to the understanding of this work... although... just as with James Joyce, I suppose a bibliophile would get more out of work written by/for a bibliophile) Endless heretical factions, the weaknesses of the martyrs, the nobility of the heretics, the orgies of Christian women at the sepulchers, magicians, the seemingly endless array of multifaceted gods from East and West... ending with Judeo-Christian God, Jehovah...all these pass before Anthony. At Jehovah's passing Anthony finds himself alone in the void... and at this point it seems we find him/Flaubert confronting the modern existential predicament... questioning man's place in a universe that is seemingly infinite in time and space... and continually expanding. Here, Anthony is guided like Dante with his Beatrice through the firmaments. But his guide is "science"... or Anthony calls him "the devil". This devil echoes nothing so much as God's voice in the whirlwind from "Job" as he shatters one after the other Job's limited human interpretations of creation, good and evil, God. The devil presents Anthony with a modern scientific view of the universe as endless stars upon stars, solar system after solar system... a universe without beginning or end... a universe beyond human comprehension... perhaps beyond good and evil... beyond meaning.

The traditional theological interpretation of Job's surrender ( as Stephen Mitchell suggests in his beautiful translation of "Job" and fascinating Introduction) after being confronted by the voice in the whirlwind might be simply reduced to something like:

God- "How dare you question the creator of the world?! Shut up now, and submit!"
Job (squeaking)-"Yes sir, Boss! Anything you say."

But this is would be a wretched wretched ending for Job if we are to imagine it as the brilliant literary work it is... and it is a wretched interpretation. Rather, what happens with Job is that God challenges all of his thoughts about the centrality of man in creation, about the limits of human understanding, about human concepts of good and evil and the very relationship of man to God... by confronting him with the very scope of the universe/creation/God. As Mitchell suggests, God essentially asks Job "Do you really want your moral sense projected onto the universe?Do you really want a god who is only a larger version of a self-righteous, human judge, rewarding those who don't realize that virtue is its own reward and throwing the wicked into a physical hell?

I imagine Anthony equally as undergoing a similar crisis of faith... as having the very nature of his beliefs shaken to their very core. And yet... ironically, his confrontation with Science and with the overwhelming scope of creation equally strengthens his faith that there must be an intelligent creator... a reason... meaning behind all this. His initial response is to be torn between thoughts of suicide (death) and simply throwing oneself into a lascivious embrace of the physical (lust). Finally, turning away from the infinitude of space, Anthony becomes engrossed in the world of minutiae... and here he seems to have his epiphany... "O joy! O bliss! I have beheld the birth of life. I have seen the beginning of motion! My pulses throb even to the point of bursting. I long to fly, to swim, to bark, to bellow, to howl." Anthony has seen his deeply-held beliefs shattered and has come through reborn. He is no longer the saint prideful of his humility and subservience, scornful of the pleasures of this life, and passing judgment on others. Instead he is awed... he is once more like a child in wonder of creation... perhaps like Blake in his famous phrase,

"To see a world in a grain of sand
and a heaven in a wild flower
to hold infinity in the palm of your hand
and eternity in an hour..."