Análisis De Marcos Interpretativos – “Policy Frame Analysis” en el Análisis

The Marquis de Sade and Louis de Bruno each sought in his own way to influence the country during its time of extraordinary crisis. The Revolution, and, more specifically, the Terror, shone as instances of incredible possibility. For Sade, the potential was there to create a new sort of Utopia, in which citizens would have almost limitless freedom. Everything the Revolution had dared to dream could come to pass if only the country would continue pushing just a bit more.

The world created in La Philosophie dans le boudoir, and the rules for a new society laid out in its “Français, encore un effort si voulez être républicains” represent Sade’s attempt to lure his audience into accepting and expanding the freedoms presented by the Revolution. Not satisfied with the current level of personal liberty offered by the government, Sade pushed his readers into recognizing the advantages of fewer laws. With fewer activities considered illegal,

258

the country would be free to continue on the glorious path begun in 1789. For Sade, progress was only being bogged down by preoccupations with archaic laws and mores.

Once students were indoctrinated, both physically and logically, in the new libertine- inspired fashion to accept ultimate freedom, they would go on to become ideal citizens, defending and upholding personal liberty at all costs. Education would provide a solid basis for future societal interaction, eliminating the need for laws and ensuring that everyone could fulfill his or her potential. As Sade frequently noted, “la philosophie doit tout dire,”259 but truth is only possible in absolute freedom. In order to achieve the freedom to say everything, it might be necessary to crush those who would cling to the traditional codes and beliefs. As a final exam of sorts, Eugénie, Philosophie’s main student, is encouraged to destroy her mother, the one person who tries to interfere with her new-found libertine freedom. This symbolic destruction of the old ways is Sade’s not-so-subtle message to his readers that only through the suffering and death of the mother can the child truly be free. Extending this metaphor to the country, France can only experience real freedom once all traces of the past are wiped clean.

In a mirrored sense, the past is also the main motivating factor for Louis de Bruno. For him, it was only a return to the past and its values that could see the country through its recent horrific actions. While there was no way to erase the violent crimes that had been committed during the Terror, Bruno felt that expiation might lead France back to its correct moral path. As opposed to a Sadien Utopia, Bruno saw restoration of the monarchy as the only way forward. With the fall of Robespierre, new hope was possible.

Rather than educating people with the goal of creating new citizens, Bruno sought to reintroduce basic principles. Re-education was what the public needed, since logic must

259

naturally prevail over passion. Sade, would of course, disagree, seeing manmade logic as the cause of most of society’s problems. For Bruno, too much passionate activity and too little reason had taken hold of the country in recent years. The only way to stop the chaos was to halt the spiral into lawlessness. Oursonvilliers remains true to Bruno’s message of good’s eventual triumph over evil, with his inability to accept forgiveness even though it means taking his own life. The characters who are willing (and eager) to return to the previous ways are those who will overcome the Revolution’s disasters and will ultimately emerge the only victors.

Both authors set up their arguments in a didactic style, with the reader being the true student. While Sade chose a lively and sarcastic tone to deliver his message, Bruno used sentimental remorse to appeal to his reader. The authors also chose to remove the actual storytelling from Paris, the site of the Terror’s worst violence. La Philosophie dans le boudoir is a staged intervention in a libertine’s country estate, which has limited access but all of the accoutrements the characters could want. Lioncel’s story is also told at a country estate, but rather than a place for the wealthy to escape the city, this location is described as an émigré enclave to protect its inhabitants from further danger. Interestingly, the only harm that comes to any of the characters takes place not in the émigré hideout, but rather, in Sade’s pleasure palace. Pain is a necessary tool in libertine education, both for the masters and the students.

The structures of the two stories differ significantly, with one important exception. Bruno presents his novella as a story about a recently returned émigré acquaintance. The author is allowed two weeks in which to gather his thoughts before relating the tale. Sade’s tale describes a young girl whose father has arranged for her to have a thorough education in the ways of libertinage. The similarity between the two stories comes midway through the works. Both tales are interrupted by the author to allow the reader a brief pause in the action. For

Bruno, the interruption serves several practical purposes. The story is supposedly being told by the narrator to a group of his friends. The tale is so emotionally draining and involved that he begs leave to stop and collect his thoughts for the remainder of the story. The break also serves as a perfect place to divide the novella into two physical parts, to facilitate its publication.

For Sade, interruptions within the text are quite common. His alternation between sexual passions and philosophical discourses are characteristic of his style. In Philosophie, however, he carries this literary va-et-vient one step further by inserting a political pamphlet that has supposedly been purchased at the Palais de l’Égalité in Paris. Having already seduced his audience into accepting his logic, he now seeks to push them even further toward total liberty.

One of the biggest differences between the two authors is in the treatment of their characters. Sade sees his creations as either potential libertines or as worthless side characters to be used or destroyed. The innocent can be corrupted by good teachers, and if they cannot, they are made to suffer. The few lower class servants in the novella are used exclusively as teaching tools, told to remove themselves when important issues are discussed. For Bruno, the lower classes are vital to his theme. While they do not play the major roles within the story, the heroes and villains both need subordinates to support them. For the black and white, good and evil characters, their servants and minions will make all the difference in their success. It is only with the help of an unending stream of supporters that Lioncel will make it back to his family and triumph over his nemesis. Conversely, the Revolutionaries will bring about their own downfall with their continuous in-fighting and lack of loyalty. There will be no shifting of values for the characters, nor do any of them try to better themselves throughout the story, unlike Sade’s libertines who are always willing to try new and creative ideas.

Appealing to his audience’s sentiments, Bruno strove to convince his audience of the country’s need to repent. By setting up a strict dichotomy between good and bad characters, he is easily able to create horror at the injustice suffered by his heroes. If the de Lioncel-Pressac family had not been so wonderfully pure, it is likely that they would have been destroyed. Despite the dangers of the time and their occasional losses, God protected them and rewarded their loyalty to the monarchy.

Bruno provides a happy ending to reward his characters and the reader, who shared the emotional journey with his storyteller. The lovers and their families are reunited, and will live happily ever after, albeit with some lifelong sorrow for those they have lost. The villain of the piece eliminates himself, unable to live in a world where good will prevail. The deaths of the Terrorists in the novella provide hope and stability for the future. The survival of the family implies hope for the continuation of the monarchy, although the story was published in 1800, well before the Restoration would officially take place. Without the monarchy, Bruno felt that the country was in danger of continuing to devour itself.

Sade encourages his reader to develop along with Eugénie, the stated student of Philosophie. Her development from relative ingénue to promising libertine is accomplished in a methodical and logical series of experiments and philosophical lessons. By the end of the novel, Eugénie is not only able to challenge her mentors’ logic, she has also proven her worthiness to lead a life of libertinage. Sade even grants the novel his version of a happy ending, with Eugénie destroying her mother in order to continue perpetrating violence. Eugénie will push the limits of accepted society throughout her life, destroying the mores of the old order, much as she destroyed her own mother.

La Philosophie dans le boudoir was composed in a time of uncertainty, but unlike the years of the Terror, 1795 offered some hope for the future. Robespierre and his cohorts had been, for the most part, executed and France was moving into a new form of government, which appeared willing to respect the freedoms gained by the Revolution, but without the violence and extreme chaos of the past two years. For Sade, this moment would represent the Revolution’s ultimate potential. He was unwilling to return to the abuses of the Ancien Régime, but he proved unable to adapt to the coming Empire. Sade needed to remain in some sort of revolution and felt that the country could only benefit from continued, and yet limited, chaos.

The themes of terror, education, and power used in these novels show how the Marquis de Sade and Louis de Bruno thought about the nation. Sade used sarcasm to point out the weaknesses inherent in current governments, while Bruno used sentimentality to inspire loyalty to the Ancien Régime. Sade’s concept of the Nation was quite different from Bruno’s vision; they both sought to educate good citizens, but their ideals were light years apart.

3.0 LITERATURE THRIVES ON HISTORICAL FEAR: THE REVOLUTIONARY