What do you think?
Rate this book
Mephistophela
Mephistophela, among the most unsettling works of the prolific author Catulle Mendès, was originally published in 1889 and is presented here for the first time in English in a superb translation by Brian Stableford. Telling the story of Baronne Sophor d’Hermelinge, a woman as thoroughly martyrized by her creator as any other heroine in the history of fiction, in spite of the enormous competition for that title established by countless writers, male and female, it is one of the archetypal novels of the Decadent Movement, and one of the most striking, precisely because is it such a discomfiting piece of writing, the deliberately controversial nature of which has been further enhanced as its surrounding social context has changed over time.
Highly influential, especially on the works of such writers as Jean Lorrain and Renée Vivien, Mephistophela, in placing lesbian amour in the foreground of the story, deals forthrightly and intensively with a literary theme that had previously only been treated with delicacy and indecision, mostly in poetry. It is essentially a horror story about demonic possession, about contrived and cruel damnation, devoid even of a Faustian pact, which merely employs obsessive lesbian desire as an instrument of damnation.
Highly influential, especially on the works of such writers as Jean Lorrain and Renée Vivien, Mephistophela, in placing lesbian amour in the foreground of the story, deals forthrightly and intensively with a literary theme that had previously only been treated with delicacy and indecision, mostly in poetry. It is essentially a horror story about demonic possession, about contrived and cruel damnation, devoid even of a Faustian pact, which merely employs obsessive lesbian desire as an instrument of damnation.
370 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1889
1 person is currently reading
184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 23, 2019
I had previously only read partial extracts from this book and from these and various writings about the book thought it had potential.
As a story it is quite straightforward. Girl has same-sex desires and the novel follows her various affairs up to about the age of thirty.
There are certainly proto-decadent images in the text, lush descriptions of womens bodies, clothes and apartments (it needs hardly be said that there are lots of very rich people involved), 'amatory unorthodoxy' (not graphic, but certainly intending a strong erotic frisson), drugs, prostitutes and ennui.
I'm no expert on lesbian literature so cannot say how it, er...'stands up' to similar novels but if it were a heterosexual novel it would probably loose a little of its charge for me, and it does tend to drag a little about half way through, redeemed by its ending which picks it up considerably.
In Brian Stablefords introduction he says that it was published episodically in a newspaper before becoming a book and in that context it seems incredible that it was allowed as some of the genital/sexual symbolism seems quite overt. It is also hard to believe that this book is not about the Renee Vivien, Romaine Brooks and Natalie Barney (all uber-rich queers) but the novel anticipates their circle by a decade, so Mendes is ahead of the zeitgeist in that respect. It is said that the novel was influential on Viviens outlook towards her homosexuality.
More controversially, Stableford (and the books blurb) suggests that it is a novel of demonic possession. Now Brian has probably forgotten more than I will ever learn about the period but a few of the episodes show distinct Charcotian traits (an early childhood 'illness', two doctors in conversation etc) and a (really great) fantasy/visionary episode in the book seems to show, to me, the influence of Michelets book on witchcraft. If anything, the book seems even more subversive that Stableford suggests, as Sophie seems largely 'out and proud' and the author often says that she is 'is as she is' suggesting to me that it is 'natural' rather than demonic. I wonder whether the publisher asked Mendes to add some suggestion of the demonic to 'tone down' the idea that people were actually like 'that'.
Having been immersed in Charcot and 'hysterical' literature for some time and knowing what (I think!) I know, adds something to my overall opinion the novel. It is certainly an interesting period piece and there are some good moments within it, but its not a fabulous novel by today's standards. However it is certainly the best of the recent Snuggly republications of the lesbian literature of the period and so its a good place to start if you feel that way...er...'inclined'.
As a story it is quite straightforward. Girl has same-sex desires and the novel follows her various affairs up to about the age of thirty.
There are certainly proto-decadent images in the text, lush descriptions of womens bodies, clothes and apartments (it needs hardly be said that there are lots of very rich people involved), 'amatory unorthodoxy' (not graphic, but certainly intending a strong erotic frisson), drugs, prostitutes and ennui.
I'm no expert on lesbian literature so cannot say how it, er...'stands up' to similar novels but if it were a heterosexual novel it would probably loose a little of its charge for me, and it does tend to drag a little about half way through, redeemed by its ending which picks it up considerably.
In Brian Stablefords introduction he says that it was published episodically in a newspaper before becoming a book and in that context it seems incredible that it was allowed as some of the genital/sexual symbolism seems quite overt. It is also hard to believe that this book is not about the Renee Vivien, Romaine Brooks and Natalie Barney (all uber-rich queers) but the novel anticipates their circle by a decade, so Mendes is ahead of the zeitgeist in that respect. It is said that the novel was influential on Viviens outlook towards her homosexuality.
More controversially, Stableford (and the books blurb) suggests that it is a novel of demonic possession. Now Brian has probably forgotten more than I will ever learn about the period but a few of the episodes show distinct Charcotian traits (an early childhood 'illness', two doctors in conversation etc) and a (really great) fantasy/visionary episode in the book seems to show, to me, the influence of Michelets book on witchcraft. If anything, the book seems even more subversive that Stableford suggests, as Sophie seems largely 'out and proud' and the author often says that she is 'is as she is' suggesting to me that it is 'natural' rather than demonic. I wonder whether the publisher asked Mendes to add some suggestion of the demonic to 'tone down' the idea that people were actually like 'that'.
Having been immersed in Charcot and 'hysterical' literature for some time and knowing what (I think!) I know, adds something to my overall opinion the novel. It is certainly an interesting period piece and there are some good moments within it, but its not a fabulous novel by today's standards. However it is certainly the best of the recent Snuggly republications of the lesbian literature of the period and so its a good place to start if you feel that way...er...'inclined'.
Want to read
August 19, 2019Limited to 70 hardcover copies
produced.
maybes
April 20, 2020"It is essentially a horror story about demonic possession, about contrived and cruel damnation, devoid even of a Faustian pact, which merely employs obsessive lesbian desire as an instrument of damnation" oh my god
June 4, 2024
mais le mec parle tellemennnnnnnnnnnnnntttttttttttttttt tais toiiiiiiiiiiii je rigole sophor c grave ma reine dommage g un esprit critique ig sinon j'aurais trop aimé
Currently reading
October 26, 202448:21. God has already included other things you do not yet have in your possession. God is capable of everything.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews