What do you think?
Rate this book
Parma Manastırı
'Klasik' dediğimiz bir roman, okurlarına söyleyeceklerinin tümünü hiçbir zaman tüketmeyen romandır. Klasik, ilk okumada verdiği keşif duygusunu her okunuşunda yeniden uyandıran kitaptır. Stendhal'in romanları, Italo Calvino'nun bu klasik tanımına tam anlamıyla uygun düşen yapıtlardır. 19. yüzyılın önde gelen Fransız romancılarından Stendhal, Kızıl ile Kara'yla birlikte iki başyapıtından biri olan Parma Manastırı'nda, İtalya'da geçen bir tutku ve siyasal serüven öyküsü sunar okurlarına. Dünya edebiyatının bu iki başyapıtı, duygusal açıdan ailesinden, düşünsel açıdan da burjuvaziden koparak ülkeden ülkeye, otelden otele dolaşıp sürekli yeni takma adlarla yazan Stendhal'in ruhsal arayışının ürünleridir. Parma Manastırı, bir yanan karşı konulmaz tutkulara dönüşen karmaşık duygusal ilişkileri anlatırken, bir yandan 19. yüzyılın ilk yarısındaki İtalyan ve Fransız toplumlarını amansız bir eleştiri süzgecinden geçirir. Ama Stendhal'in tüm yapıtları gibi Parma Manastırı'nın da, yaşamın tadına varmanın yollarını arayan bir yazarın kaleminden çıktığını unutmamak gerekir.
562 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1839
About the author
Stendhal
1,940 books2,280 followersMarie-Henri Beyle, better known by his pen name Stendhal, was a 19th-century French writer. Known for his acute analysis of his characters' psychology, he is considered one of the earliest and foremost practitioners of realism in his two novels
Le Rouge et le Noir
(The Red and the Black, 1830) and
La Chartreuse de Parme
(The Charterhouse of Parma, 1839).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 1,140 reviews
April 10, 2025
Yes, life can be an Abattoir. Who said it couldn't?
In 1975, I lugged this paperback along with my brown bag lunch on my trips into the dreary downtown enclave that first fitfully entombed my youthful dreams - my dark office at the outset of my thirty-year fully-pensionable life sentence.
As my enthusiasm waned there, though eschewing the ribald loves of my fellow lifers’ way of all flesh, I found a fond friend in Fabrizio - O yes, Stendhal‘s ever-young protagonist, Fabrizio!
You see, his wayward mom and sparkling little aunt had given this kid a very long leash indeed.
Careful, ladies... His erratically errant psychological type is the kind of persona you have to watch - closely. As folks had to watch BOTH of us back then.
For Quixotic at heart, Fabrizio and I had vowed never to rescind our Law of the Quest.
You see, we were born - and remained - rather dense naïfs, Fabrizio and I.
And if you’re like that, and just let the good times roll, you’re only headed for one of life’s many brick walls.
It’s just plain fact.
So here is Fabrizio, chafing at the bit for his first Quest, like Lord Byron’s Childe Harold, taking off for whatever Lady Luck might throw his way, leaving his childhood château to go onward and outward into the grim facts of life, in a Napoleonic Era paysage moralisé.
Perhaps it will do him some good...
And so, when his wonderful questing is rewarded with the Gorgon’s head of a thankless coming of age - finally! - reading that, I consoled myself with the empathetic thought that, like him, perhaps my best bet, and my ticket out of this darkly hellish lifelong sentence In an awful office, would be in the cloistered life of peaceful recollection he finally opts for.
And that’s to a certain extent what I’ve been given, now that my pension has locked in. A life of peaceful reflection - books and meditations on books. All I ever wanted. And now - after my life’s disastrous obstacle course - how sweet it all is.
Now, what I’ve said here is only the barest of outlines of Stendhal’s whopping good yarn.
In effect, though, he is preaching his rather coarse “make hay while the sun shines” to the youth of the Machine Age, who may, like Fabrizio and me, have had their noses otherwise perpetually stuck in a dumb Book of Chivalry.
But you know, kind author, for all your robust seat-of-your-pants fictional action - and ever-apparent arch irony - you should know better than to have advised us, the Fabrizio’s of the free world, to “carpe diem.”
For in your own life as a career diplomat, black tedium dogged your steps to the end -
But, believing in the Code of a Timeless Lifelong Quest, and avoiding your private and perilous affairs of the heart, has brought me and Fabrizio, finally, to the Peace of its Fulfillment.
In 1975, I lugged this paperback along with my brown bag lunch on my trips into the dreary downtown enclave that first fitfully entombed my youthful dreams - my dark office at the outset of my thirty-year fully-pensionable life sentence.
As my enthusiasm waned there, though eschewing the ribald loves of my fellow lifers’ way of all flesh, I found a fond friend in Fabrizio - O yes, Stendhal‘s ever-young protagonist, Fabrizio!
You see, his wayward mom and sparkling little aunt had given this kid a very long leash indeed.
Careful, ladies... His erratically errant psychological type is the kind of persona you have to watch - closely. As folks had to watch BOTH of us back then.
For Quixotic at heart, Fabrizio and I had vowed never to rescind our Law of the Quest.
You see, we were born - and remained - rather dense naïfs, Fabrizio and I.
And if you’re like that, and just let the good times roll, you’re only headed for one of life’s many brick walls.
It’s just plain fact.
So here is Fabrizio, chafing at the bit for his first Quest, like Lord Byron’s Childe Harold, taking off for whatever Lady Luck might throw his way, leaving his childhood château to go onward and outward into the grim facts of life, in a Napoleonic Era paysage moralisé.
Perhaps it will do him some good...
And so, when his wonderful questing is rewarded with the Gorgon’s head of a thankless coming of age - finally! - reading that, I consoled myself with the empathetic thought that, like him, perhaps my best bet, and my ticket out of this darkly hellish lifelong sentence In an awful office, would be in the cloistered life of peaceful recollection he finally opts for.
And that’s to a certain extent what I’ve been given, now that my pension has locked in. A life of peaceful reflection - books and meditations on books. All I ever wanted. And now - after my life’s disastrous obstacle course - how sweet it all is.
Now, what I’ve said here is only the barest of outlines of Stendhal’s whopping good yarn.
In effect, though, he is preaching his rather coarse “make hay while the sun shines” to the youth of the Machine Age, who may, like Fabrizio and me, have had their noses otherwise perpetually stuck in a dumb Book of Chivalry.
But you know, kind author, for all your robust seat-of-your-pants fictional action - and ever-apparent arch irony - you should know better than to have advised us, the Fabrizio’s of the free world, to “carpe diem.”
For in your own life as a career diplomat, black tedium dogged your steps to the end -
But, believing in the Code of a Timeless Lifelong Quest, and avoiding your private and perilous affairs of the heart, has brought me and Fabrizio, finally, to the Peace of its Fulfillment.
August 28, 2024
#bibliotecaafectiva
Dacă veți verifica, romanele pe care le-am pus sub eticheta „biblioteca afectivă” sînt exact acelea pe care nu le pot judeca rațional, rece, sobru, ci doar afectiv (sau sentimental) dintr-o pricină evidentă: le-am citit pentru prima dată cu mulți-mulți ani în urmă (în colegiu, să zicem, pe la 15 ani).
La o nouă lectură, nu mai văd în Mănăstirea din Parma doar povestea de dragoste dintre Fabrice del Dongo și Clélia Conti, fiica ambițiosului guvernator al fortăreței din Parma, și dau mult mai puțină importanță aventurilor nesăbuite ale tînărului marchiz: rătăcirea prin mulțimea buimacă de soldați aflată pe cîmpul de la Waterloo (în 19 iunie 1815), duelul înverșunat cu saltimbancul Giletti, evadarea din turnul Farnèse etc.
De fapt, adevărata poveste de iubire (o iubire pe care distratul ei nepot, Fabrice, n-o va băga în seamă) este aceea a ducesei de Sanseverina, mătușa eroului. În treacăt fie spus, nu sînt rude de sînge. Ducesa îl iubește pe Fabrice cu o dragoste sfîșietoare, imposibilă, pentru care este gata să facă orice sacrificiu. În opinia mea, cel mai puternic personaj al romanului este tocmai frumoasa Gina Pietranera, ducesă de Sanseverina. Un alt personaj memorabil este medicul Ferrante Palla, poet faimos, condamnat la moarte și obligat să trăiască ascuns prin păduri, ca un tîlhar la drumul mare. Firește, poetul (ca orice poet) e un pic smintit...
Aș aprecia, de asemenea, stilul cărții: simplu, nervos, ironic, la antipodul frazeologiei bombastice a lui Balzac sau Hugo. Stendhal a redactat romanul dintr-o suflare. S-a închis într-o odaie de pe strada Caumartin din Paris și nu a mai ieșit decît după 53 de zile, cînd romanul a fost gata. Harold Bloom spune că l-a dictat unui secretar. Se poate. Sfîrșitul cărții cu morțile lui fulgerătoare (mai întîi copilul, apoi Clélia, apoi Fabrice și, în fine, contesa) nu mi-a fost niciodată pe plac. Stendhal n-a fost foarte inspirat cînd a compus acest final melodramatic. Parcă a vrut să scape de toate personajele...
În încheiere, mă grăbesc să spun că titlul acestui roman e înșelător. El nu acoperă acțiunea cărții: Fabrice petrece doar un an în mănăsirea din Parma. Titlul sugerează o lume dominată de asceză și abstinență, dar lumea din roman este una a pasiunilor excesive, mistuitoare, letale...
Dacă veți verifica, romanele pe care le-am pus sub eticheta „biblioteca afectivă” sînt exact acelea pe care nu le pot judeca rațional, rece, sobru, ci doar afectiv (sau sentimental) dintr-o pricină evidentă: le-am citit pentru prima dată cu mulți-mulți ani în urmă (în colegiu, să zicem, pe la 15 ani).
La o nouă lectură, nu mai văd în Mănăstirea din Parma doar povestea de dragoste dintre Fabrice del Dongo și Clélia Conti, fiica ambițiosului guvernator al fortăreței din Parma, și dau mult mai puțină importanță aventurilor nesăbuite ale tînărului marchiz: rătăcirea prin mulțimea buimacă de soldați aflată pe cîmpul de la Waterloo (în 19 iunie 1815), duelul înverșunat cu saltimbancul Giletti, evadarea din turnul Farnèse etc.
De fapt, adevărata poveste de iubire (o iubire pe care distratul ei nepot, Fabrice, n-o va băga în seamă) este aceea a ducesei de Sanseverina, mătușa eroului. În treacăt fie spus, nu sînt rude de sînge. Ducesa îl iubește pe Fabrice cu o dragoste sfîșietoare, imposibilă, pentru care este gata să facă orice sacrificiu. În opinia mea, cel mai puternic personaj al romanului este tocmai frumoasa Gina Pietranera, ducesă de Sanseverina. Un alt personaj memorabil este medicul Ferrante Palla, poet faimos, condamnat la moarte și obligat să trăiască ascuns prin păduri, ca un tîlhar la drumul mare. Firește, poetul (ca orice poet) e un pic smintit...
Aș aprecia, de asemenea, stilul cărții: simplu, nervos, ironic, la antipodul frazeologiei bombastice a lui Balzac sau Hugo. Stendhal a redactat romanul dintr-o suflare. S-a închis într-o odaie de pe strada Caumartin din Paris și nu a mai ieșit decît după 53 de zile, cînd romanul a fost gata. Harold Bloom spune că l-a dictat unui secretar. Se poate. Sfîrșitul cărții cu morțile lui fulgerătoare (mai întîi copilul, apoi Clélia, apoi Fabrice și, în fine, contesa) nu mi-a fost niciodată pe plac. Stendhal n-a fost foarte inspirat cînd a compus acest final melodramatic. Parcă a vrut să scape de toate personajele...
În încheiere, mă grăbesc să spun că titlul acestui roman e înșelător. El nu acoperă acțiunea cărții: Fabrice petrece doar un an în mănăsirea din Parma. Titlul sugerează o lume dominată de asceză și abstinență, dar lumea din roman este una a pasiunilor excesive, mistuitoare, letale...
June 20, 2019
Stendhal depicts both the amorous passion and the predilection for court intrigue present in the Italian character, yet he does this with an irony and a political analysis indisputably French, thereby producing not only a great realistic novel but a work which comments on the romantic novels that have gone before.
And yet--here is the marvelous part--"The Charterhouse of Parma," for all its realism, is still an incredibly romantic novel, containing a battle, a duel, a knife fight, various disguises for the hero and others, a poetry-writing revolutionary highwayman, and the most romantic setting for a love-affair possible--a passionate encounter between an unjustly imprisoned young nobleman and the beautiful daughter of the prison warden, soon to be married to a rich man she despises!
None of this, however, turns out quite the way that it would for Dumas pere--or Anthony Hope, for that matter--for in the world of Stendhal the individual's romantic impulses--as in real life--are often thwarted by circumstance.
January 23, 2026
A criticism of Stendhal is akin to undertaking a vertiginous ascent without proper equipment; beware of slippery ground! The Charterhouse of Parma, in this case, is one of those monuments of French literature that readers share. It has marked many generations of high school students with varying degrees of happiness, leaving everyone with mixed impressions that range from rejection to passion, under the guidance of more or less inspired teachers. Let us recall the facts: on September 3, 1838, Stendhal had the idea of writing The Charterhouse of Parma. On November 4, Stendhal moved to 4 Rue Caumartin in Paris. For seven weeks, he set to work and dictated the Charterhouse text to a secretary. Finally, on December 26, he submitted a text of more than five hundred pages to his editor. This bulimia of work requires, in itself, respect. And so there appears the extravagant hero of Stendhal, whose story we could briefly summarize: Fabrice del Dongo leads a peaceful and happy life with his family on the shores of Lake Como. But the young man dreams of glory on the battlefields. He goes to fight Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo, a questionable decision that will cause him many problems with the political authorities. Wanted and suspected of espionage, he was hiding with his aunt. He then meets the beautiful Clélia, whose beauty subjugates him.
The epic novel The Charterhouse of Parma did not meet with resounding success when it was released. Balzac's support would be necessary for this story to break out of a desire to live that was both joyous and tragic. In 19th-century Italy, the reality of history rises to the level of a fabulous adventure and borders on the romantic. It is all Stendhal's talent that sublimates its events. In the story, he speaks to us of heroism through the feelings of revenge, incest, tyrannicide, and the naivety of a dreamy hero overwhelmed by the world around him.
To conclude, this pleasant novel traces a bygone era when it was challenging to project oneself. It dates back a little and references many other stories of the nineteenth century, but it lacks the power to evoke Hugo or Zola.
The epic novel The Charterhouse of Parma did not meet with resounding success when it was released. Balzac's support would be necessary for this story to break out of a desire to live that was both joyous and tragic. In 19th-century Italy, the reality of history rises to the level of a fabulous adventure and borders on the romantic. It is all Stendhal's talent that sublimates its events. In the story, he speaks to us of heroism through the feelings of revenge, incest, tyrannicide, and the naivety of a dreamy hero overwhelmed by the world around him.
To conclude, this pleasant novel traces a bygone era when it was challenging to project oneself. It dates back a little and references many other stories of the nineteenth century, but it lacks the power to evoke Hugo or Zola.
March 18, 2023
بیشتر مخاطبان فارسی زبان، "استاندال" رو با "سرخ و سیاه" میشناسن. در حالیکه در جهان ادبیات، معروف ترین کتاب این نویسنده رمان "صومعه پارما " ست که آخرین اثر اون هم به شمار میاد.
این رمان، علاوه بر داستان دراماتیک عاشقانه و کلاسیک اش؛ از نظر سیاسی و تاریخی هم یک اثر وفادار و واقع گرایانه است که حوادثی مثل نبرد واترلو به رهبری ناپلئون بناپارت رو پوشش میده و وقایع اون بین سالهای ۱۸۱۶ تا ۱۸۴۷ و در ایتالیا جریان داره.
اگر به داستان های تاریخی و سیاسی، ماجراهای پیچیده عاشقانه، عشق های ممنوع، دسیسه چینی های تاریخی و ماجراهای جنایاتی که زیر پوست تجملات پنهان شده علاقه دارید، این رمان رو از دست ندید چون همه اینها رو باهم داره.
من رمان رو با جدیدترین ترجمه که کاری از آقای نجابتی هستش خوندم که روان بود و سختی کلاسیک خوندن رو آسون میکرد.
این رمان، علاوه بر داستان دراماتیک عاشقانه و کلاسیک اش؛ از نظر سیاسی و تاریخی هم یک اثر وفادار و واقع گرایانه است که حوادثی مثل نبرد واترلو به رهبری ناپلئون بناپارت رو پوشش میده و وقایع اون بین سالهای ۱۸۱۶ تا ۱۸۴۷ و در ایتالیا جریان داره.
اگر به داستان های تاریخی و سیاسی، ماجراهای پیچیده عاشقانه، عشق های ممنوع، دسیسه چینی های تاریخی و ماجراهای جنایاتی که زیر پوست تجملات پنهان شده علاقه دارید، این رمان رو از دست ندید چون همه اینها رو باهم داره.
من رمان رو با جدیدترین ترجمه که کاری از آقای نجابتی هستش خوندم که روان بود و سختی کلاسیک خوندن رو آسون میکرد.
September 2, 2019
A long twisting tale of love and intrigue.
Masterful story telling. Fun to read.
Masterful story telling. Fun to read.
February 28, 2017
A sprawling, sloppy, often-exhilarating read. It is an almost absolute middle point between Tom Jones (the handsome lead, the vignette-y style, the wonderful humor, the slapsticky regard for human life, the excess coincidences that characterize the early novel) and War and Peace, which it clearly influenced in its court/war split and its fascination with Napoleon.
It is too long by half - the scenes of intrigue in Parma are remarkably redundant - and has some messy threads that never really resolve. The ending is anticlimactic and strange. I think conceptions of literary STAKES were still missing at this point and so we are built toward a climax that we don't really care about and then fade away.
Fabrizio is a spectacularly useful character. He is sexy, lovable, and unbelievably stupid and impulsive. I would say he makes several of the worst decisions in literature - all of which drive the action of the book and keep us on our toes. There is a zesty incesty plot that is cleverly written around. There is possibly my favorite coincidence of this period of fiction (early on, at Waterloo. I won't spoil it). In fact, the entire before-Parma section of the book is absolutely thrilling.
Best of all though, is the stretch of the novel when Fabrizio is imprisoned in the beautifully designed tower. Brilliantly anticipated, wonderfully tense, oh-so-romantic. It's the "why I love to read" section of this book, resonant of the flood sequence in the Makioka Sisters. The rest of the novel doesn't live up to it. But then again, what could?
Oh, and the title is clever. Frances Ha-esque. Quick read for its length. The translation by Howard is excellent - the Modern Library edition is replete with typos.
It is too long by half - the scenes of intrigue in Parma are remarkably redundant - and has some messy threads that never really resolve. The ending is anticlimactic and strange. I think conceptions of literary STAKES were still missing at this point and so we are built toward a climax that we don't really care about and then fade away.
Fabrizio is a spectacularly useful character. He is sexy, lovable, and unbelievably stupid and impulsive. I would say he makes several of the worst decisions in literature - all of which drive the action of the book and keep us on our toes. There is a zesty incesty plot that is cleverly written around. There is possibly my favorite coincidence of this period of fiction (early on, at Waterloo. I won't spoil it). In fact, the entire before-Parma section of the book is absolutely thrilling.
Best of all though, is the stretch of the novel when Fabrizio is imprisoned in the beautifully designed tower. Brilliantly anticipated, wonderfully tense, oh-so-romantic. It's the "why I love to read" section of this book, resonant of the flood sequence in the Makioka Sisters. The rest of the novel doesn't live up to it. But then again, what could?
Oh, and the title is clever. Frances Ha-esque. Quick read for its length. The translation by Howard is excellent - the Modern Library edition is replete with typos.
August 5, 2016
JR was writing a little note on a piece of parchment when a cry was heard outside his door. ‘Bring him here, the rascal. I shall have his head cut off!’ There was a commotion and the door was opened and he recognized Conte Crescenzi, quite inebriated, and spouting forth such obscenities that would have made the most devilish of villains blush. Such buffooneries were uttered that even the dogs barking outside were scandalized. It was later claimed by the lowest class that at the same moment, inside the church of the Sta. Elena, tears fell from the Virgin’s eyes. Now JR had a tiny piece of dagger in his hilt and was ready to stab the Conte had the Conte attempted to draw his rapier. Alas, the Conte was there only to abuse the poor gentleman with his words. Earlier, he had been visiting a debtor in a rather dreadful tavern full of vagabonds when he heard a drunkard say ‘I say, here’s the Conte Crescenzi come to mingle with us dogs. I feel thee, better to be with us dogs than a wife who is a bitch to another man. Come and drink.’ The crowd inside the tavern was filled with guffaws for the drunkard’s insolence. The Conte’s face blushed with horror. He had never heard such an accusation, and from such a lowly person. Never before had he doubted his wife’s fidelity to him until that moment. Thus his heart was filled with great sorrow and he drunk such wine that the Savior would have died had it been all his blood the Conte was drinking. Then the suddenly passionate Conte broke into a sonnet he wrote as a boy once when his mother had struck him for pilfering a sou from her purse. When he finished the drunken crowd erupted with peals of laughter and insults, for the sonnet was not flattering and very novice. It even had a line which said ‘your maternal person is Machiavellian so let me suck the wiliness out of your teat,’ which seemed rather seditious to the crowd. Then a monstrously plump vagabond who liked to call himself Bonaparte made a declaration ‘a friend of mine writes appraisals better than that Jacobinical sonnet.’ The Conte was outraged. ‘Give me the name of this libertine and I shall hang him.’ The drunken Conte had fancied that the vagabond had implied that this person who made appraisals better than his sonnets was also the lover of his wife. It was his Italian blood, prone to fits of wild imaginings when in frenzy that we can attribute this to. And so Bonaparte declared the name JR and informed the furious Conte of his whereabouts. Full of zeal, the Conte made haste and left the tavern but not before he insulted the crowd with his profanities that are to be legendary for being astoundingly juvenile at the same time. And so this is where our story began, when the Conte arrived at the gentleman’s lodgings and here too shall it end. After assaulting JR with a furious besmirching, the Conte sat down and asked for some wine. ‘Let me wet my dry lips, clown.’ ‘It shall be as wet as the Contessa’s buds whenever I take her to be mine,’ responded JR quite amused by the Conte’s audacity to ask for wine from someone he just insulted. The Conte’s face blushed due to his very Catholic nature, however due to his intoxication he managed to summon some small ounce of courage and take a small knife from his boot to stab JR who was turned back quite busy decanting a Verdicchio. JR felt the sharp pain on his back and slowly his vision turned dark until everything was black as a crow’s eye. Emptiness. Death? But then light slowly came to him. He awoke inside his room with a copy of Stendhal’s The Charterhouse of Parma on his face. He’d fallen asleep on his couch right after reading the novel. He smiled. That’s realism for you, he thought. But the smile vanished from his face when he looked at the clock and saw that it displayed the numbers seven fifty-eight. He sprang up, took a quick shower, changed clothes, got his bag and went out. He was late for class.
October 8, 2007
Standard 19th century French novel? Not even close. This book defies almost every convention of the novel, and it was written before any of those conventions were even recognized! No hero, no heroine, no real plot; no morality lesson; Machiavellian politics for everyone; love doesn't conquer all; love doesn't even exist in this world until the main character gets locked away in prison for a womb-like nine months; a narrator who couldn't care less about the whole thing...this is so modern it hurts. I wouldn't call this an easy or fun read, but I find myself thinking about the book a lot, long after I've finished it. It's really difficult to place and kinda powerful because of it...
February 27, 2023
« ...این کتاب که بر ضد ستمگری و خودکامگی است، در واقع صومعهای است که ستونهایش بر تاریخ خودکامگان قرن هجدهم برپاست، درهایش بر بندگان و رعایا و بورژواهای کوچک بسته است، هر سنگش از نخوت و خودپسندی، نیرنگ و پستی و هوس پرداخته شده است و همانگونه که از نامش پیداست، مذهب مانند چادر تمام آن را از چشم ظاهربین خلق پنهان داشته است. راوی (استاندال)، کلید در دست، بر خواننده در میگشاید و حجرهبهحجره را به او نشان میدهد؛ در هر حجره کسی است: زنی زیبا و هوشمند، خودکامهای برتریجو، دسیسهگرانی ماهر... و قهرمانی که خواننده بهمرور میفهمد که قهرمان نیست، بلکه انسانی است که نیروهایش، اندکاندک و در سایۀ صداقت خطرانگیزی که با احساساتش دارد، متجلی میشود و هنگامی که به عشق (شناخت) دست مییابد، بهیکباره شخص دیگری میشود، شخص دیگری که اکنون میتوان قهرمانش خواند (زیرا خود انتخاب میکند).
و صومعه – که سنت و مذهب از نگاهها پنهانش میدارد – تجلیگاه خصوصیات حیوانصفتانۀ کسانی است که شهوت قدرت، شهوت شهرت و شهوت ثروت مسخشان میکند و به قول نویسنده، عروسکی درباری ازشان میسازد. هرگاه بیگانهای در جمع این آشنایانِ زیانکار سربرمیکشد (شاعری آزاده که محکوم به مرگی ناعادلانه است، دخترکی که پرنده و عشق را گریزی از تباهی درباریان میبیند، زنی گاریچی که در جنگْ همۀ خصال مردمان عامی را نشان میدهد...) خواننده را در وادی تضاد روابط، در گرداب قیاس و استنتاج، در شناسایی انسان و انسانیت رها میکند.
صومعۀ پارما رمانی است بهغایت استادانه و هنرمندانه، اثری هنری و بزرگ، خالی از هرگونه فلسفهبافی. فراز و فرود دارد و همچون زندگی، بیشکلی و ابهامی است که میتواند چشمۀ جوشان هرگونه برداشت و تفسیر باشد. مثل درخت است که میتوان از برگ سبز آن، با هوشیاری، پی به معرفت برد. و حقیقت هنر نیز همین است که بیش از زندگی، زندگی است.»
هرمز شهدادی – «چشمۀ جوشان ابهام» (دربارۀ صومعۀ پارمای استاندال)
و صومعه – که سنت و مذهب از نگاهها پنهانش میدارد – تجلیگاه خصوصیات حیوانصفتانۀ کسانی است که شهوت قدرت، شهوت شهرت و شهوت ثروت مسخشان میکند و به قول نویسنده، عروسکی درباری ازشان میسازد. هرگاه بیگانهای در جمع این آشنایانِ زیانکار سربرمیکشد (شاعری آزاده که محکوم به مرگی ناعادلانه است، دخترکی که پرنده و عشق را گریزی از تباهی درباریان میبیند، زنی گاریچی که در جنگْ همۀ خصال مردمان عامی را نشان میدهد...) خواننده را در وادی تضاد روابط، در گرداب قیاس و استنتاج، در شناسایی انسان و انسانیت رها میکند.
صومعۀ پارما رمانی است بهغایت استادانه و هنرمندانه، اثری هنری و بزرگ، خالی از هرگونه فلسفهبافی. فراز و فرود دارد و همچون زندگی، بیشکلی و ابهامی است که میتواند چشمۀ جوشان هرگونه برداشت و تفسیر باشد. مثل درخت است که میتوان از برگ سبز آن، با هوشیاری، پی به معرفت برد. و حقیقت هنر نیز همین است که بیش از زندگی، زندگی است.»
هرمز شهدادی – «چشمۀ جوشان ابهام» (دربارۀ صومعۀ پارمای استاندال)
June 24, 2009
I picked this up last month because I'm a huge fan of The Red And The Black, easily one of my top five novels. Stendahl was a nineteenth century French satirist who bascially invented the realistic psychological novel, and The Red And The Black is a wicked black comedy about a cunning young priest who plots to become Pope, and his subsequent adventures in high society. Like I say I loved this book so I had high hopes for Charterhouse.
Unfortunately, in my opinion after a promising start this book sort of loses the thread. The majority of it is taken up with the bureaucratic and romantic intrigues of a court in the small Italian state of Parma, and to the modern Western reader most of this stuff is crushingly dull. Stendahl's great strength is showing us characters who are oblivious to their own inner motives (those motives being plain as day to us readers) and there is some of that here, as well as some compelling characters (especially the Duchesa Gina Sanservina, the real hero of the story), but markedly absent is the biting wit and barbed social commentary of Stendahl's other great novel.
This is one of those historic romance novels that always leaves me scratching my head and thinking "wait, are these characters sleeping together or not?" Perhaps I'm asking a bit much to have these elliptical intrigues spelled out for my modern sensibility, but it's frustrating to observe the behavior of these courtiers, who for all my experience with their weird ways might as well be attendants to the Prince of Mars.
Some of the ridiculous courtly behavior is funny, or illuminating of human weakness in a telling way, some of the scenes are great (the Waterloo sequence early in the book is absolutely amazing), some of the characters are worth getting to know, but there are weird plot twists that feel poorly introduced and then abandoned. Also, and I kid you not, some of the most significant and interesting action in this five hundred ten page novel takes place on the last ten pages! We spend hundreds of pages meandering around in these peoples lives, and then all this crazy intense shit happens to them at the very end and is totally glossed over! What were you thinking, Stendahl?
If you're a Stendahl fan you'll probably want to read this at some point, and maybe it's better than I know and I'm just not the best reader for this one. My opinion though, as if it weren't obvious, is that you should do yourself a favor and read The Red And The Black instead.
Unfortunately, in my opinion after a promising start this book sort of loses the thread. The majority of it is taken up with the bureaucratic and romantic intrigues of a court in the small Italian state of Parma, and to the modern Western reader most of this stuff is crushingly dull. Stendahl's great strength is showing us characters who are oblivious to their own inner motives (those motives being plain as day to us readers) and there is some of that here, as well as some compelling characters (especially the Duchesa Gina Sanservina, the real hero of the story), but markedly absent is the biting wit and barbed social commentary of Stendahl's other great novel.
This is one of those historic romance novels that always leaves me scratching my head and thinking "wait, are these characters sleeping together or not?" Perhaps I'm asking a bit much to have these elliptical intrigues spelled out for my modern sensibility, but it's frustrating to observe the behavior of these courtiers, who for all my experience with their weird ways might as well be attendants to the Prince of Mars.
Some of the ridiculous courtly behavior is funny, or illuminating of human weakness in a telling way, some of the scenes are great (the Waterloo sequence early in the book is absolutely amazing), some of the characters are worth getting to know, but there are weird plot twists that feel poorly introduced and then abandoned. Also, and I kid you not, some of the most significant and interesting action in this five hundred ten page novel takes place on the last ten pages! We spend hundreds of pages meandering around in these peoples lives, and then all this crazy intense shit happens to them at the very end and is totally glossed over! What were you thinking, Stendahl?
If you're a Stendahl fan you'll probably want to read this at some point, and maybe it's better than I know and I'm just not the best reader for this one. My opinion though, as if it weren't obvious, is that you should do yourself a favor and read The Red And The Black instead.
Read
July 10, 2012Non sono un fan di questo libro, ma non aggiungo commenti perch�� non credo di essere in grado: penso d'averlo affrontato in un periodo sbagliato.
Read
March 27, 2018ho scoperto di essere stendhaliano per sentito dire, molto prima di leggere Stendhal, e precisamente leggendo un pomeriggio Alberto Savinio (quest'anno ho il proposito di stanarlo tutto, leggendolo). Il pittore e scrittore mezzo greco ammirava molto il grande Fabrizio Clerici, suo amico: artista surreale e immaginifico, incrocio tra Attanasio Kircher, Salvador Dalì e Picasso nella loro epoche classiche. Savinio affibbia a Clerici attributi che lo incasellano in quell'atmosfera vitale che è lo stendhalismo, la cui aria ho sempre respirato senza rendermene mai conto.
"Stendhaliani si nasce, non si diventa. Lo svagato deambulare di Fabrizio Clerici attraverso la vita; il suo lasciarsi prendere dalle cose più impensate; il suo fare scarso assegnamento sul potere della virilità, della forza, del pugno di ferro anche se guantato di velluto; il suo assaggiare le frasi e le più volte lasciarle a metà come indegne di essere formulate; il suo bighellonare anche nelle gradi svolte della Storia; il suo fannullare anche in mezzo alle più folte occupazioni; il lento vagare dei suoi occhi a mandorla bianca.., il suo ignorare le 'grandi mete' e rendere omaggio alle mete minime e inapparenti; il suo dilettantismo di razza; il suo tener dietro al proprio naso - mi avevano dato sicuro indizio di stendhalismo. L’amico stendhaliano è necessario. E’ il compagno leggero, l'Ariele di questo mondo asciutto d'acqua e d'aria… Tu come Clerici e io come Chirico siamo oltre a tutto anche parenti… mi unisco alla tua stessa radice clericus, e assieme risaliamo al comune klericòs cioè a dire tutto quello che tocca in sorte.
A noi che toccherà in sorte? Tutto. Poichè questa è la misteriosa virtù di noi stendhaliani, di avere la nostra propria sorte nella sorte di tutte le cose, dalle massime alle minime, di essere noi soli come voleva essere Nietzsche, come una volta erano gli dèi: dappertutto e in nessun luogo".
"Stendhaliani si nasce, non si diventa. Lo svagato deambulare di Fabrizio Clerici attraverso la vita; il suo lasciarsi prendere dalle cose più impensate; il suo fare scarso assegnamento sul potere della virilità, della forza, del pugno di ferro anche se guantato di velluto; il suo assaggiare le frasi e le più volte lasciarle a metà come indegne di essere formulate; il suo bighellonare anche nelle gradi svolte della Storia; il suo fannullare anche in mezzo alle più folte occupazioni; il lento vagare dei suoi occhi a mandorla bianca.., il suo ignorare le 'grandi mete' e rendere omaggio alle mete minime e inapparenti; il suo dilettantismo di razza; il suo tener dietro al proprio naso - mi avevano dato sicuro indizio di stendhalismo. L’amico stendhaliano è necessario. E’ il compagno leggero, l'Ariele di questo mondo asciutto d'acqua e d'aria… Tu come Clerici e io come Chirico siamo oltre a tutto anche parenti… mi unisco alla tua stessa radice clericus, e assieme risaliamo al comune klericòs cioè a dire tutto quello che tocca in sorte.
A noi che toccherà in sorte? Tutto. Poichè questa è la misteriosa virtù di noi stendhaliani, di avere la nostra propria sorte nella sorte di tutte le cose, dalle massime alle minime, di essere noi soli come voleva essere Nietzsche, come una volta erano gli dèi: dappertutto e in nessun luogo".
June 7, 2026
https://kansasbooks.blogspot.com/2026...
"Si se te ocurre un razonamiento brillante, una réplica triunfal que cambie el curso de la conversación, no cedas a la tentación de lucirte, quédate callado; las personas agudas te verán el talento en los ojos."
Lo que más me ha impresionado de La cartuja de Parma no es tanto su argumento como la sensación que produce su narración. Stendhal escribe como si la cámara estuviera mezclada entre los personajes, avanzando con ellos sin conocer del todo el rumbo de los acontecimientos. El narrador no observa desde una posición privilegiada ni parece interesado en juzgar a sus criaturas; las acompaña. Esa cercanía confiere a la novela una extraordinaria sensación de movimiento y de vida. Fabrizio del Dongo se equivoca, se deja arrastrar por las circunstancias y comprende a menudo menos de lo que el lector esperaría de un héroe, pero precisamente ahí reside parte de su fuerza. Stendhal parece aceptar que la experiencia humana es confusa, precipitada e imprevisible, y encuentra en ello no un defecto sino un motivo de fascinación. Stendhal da a veces la impresión de estar escribiendo a una velocidad de vértigo, al ritmo que se mueven sus personajes y el resultado es menos perfecto, pero también más espontáneo.
“Tras leer esto, Limecati se fue a uno de sus castillos: se le exacerbò el amor, se volvió loco y habló de saltarse la tapa de los sesos, cosa inusitada en los países en que existe el infierno."
Su escritura produce la impresión de que una cámara invisible persigue constantemente a los personajes, siempre mezclada entre ellos, captando sus movimientos, vacilaciones y arrebatos en tiempo real. Todo sucede con una inmediatez casi vertiginosa: los acontecimientos se encadenan, los planes se improvisan, el azar irrumpe sin previo aviso, caos y vida. Hay algo caótico en esta narración, pero es precisamente un caos orgánico, semejante al de la existencia misma, donde no todo encaja con simetría ni cada episodio encuentra una justificación perfecta. Lo que importa es el movimiento continuo, la corriente incesante de la vida que arrastra a los personajes y que Stendhal logra transmitir con una energía narrativa que todavía hoy resulta sorprendentemente moderna. Stendhal parece convencido de que esa vitalidad merece ser celebrada incluso cuando conduce al error, como si la plenitud de una existencia dependiera menos de acertar siempre que de entregarse sin reservas al movimiento incierto de la vida. Caos y vida.
El mejor ejemplo de ello se encuentra al comienzo de la novela, cuando un jovencísimo Fabrizio, apenas un muchacho de diecisiete años, se ve arrastrado al torbellino de Waterloo. Lo extraordinario es que Stendhal renuncia a cualquier visión heroica o grandilocuente de la batalla: la guerra no aparece como una sucesión de gestas épicas, sino como una experiencia de desconcierto, ruido y confusión. Fabrizio no comprende del todo lo que ocurre a su alrededor, no dispone de una visión global de los acontecimientos y avanza a tientas entre órdenes contradictorias, movimientos incomprensibles, saqueos, aturdimiento y episodios absurdos. La Batalla de Waterloo se convierte así en un inmenso batiburrillo sin ni son, visto desde la limitada perspectiva de quien está inmerso en ella. Hay algo profundamente moderno en esta forma de representar la guerra, muy alejada de las narraciones heroicas dominantes en la época. La historia ya no se cuenta desde el punto de vista de los generales o de los vencedores, sino desde la experiencia fragmentaria y desorientada de alguien que está dentro del acontecimiento, un joven idealista que ha acudido allí en pos de su fervor por Napoléon. Esto anticipará muchas representaciones posteriores de la guerra
Y eso conecta con algo muy característico de Stendhal: su capacidad para transmitir que la vida humana es confusa, precipitada e imprevisible, pero también apasionante. Uno termina leyendo a Fabrizio, no porque sea especialmente sabio, sino porque está vivo. Y Stendhal parece convencido de que esa vitalidad merece ser celebrada incluso cuando conduce a la equivocación...
"(saber que había un ser humano al alcance de su voz le resultaba aborrecible) y corrió a encerrarse en la gran galería de cuadros; allí pudo dar rienda suelta a su rabia. Se pasó la velada sin luz, dando vueltas al azar, como un hombre fuera de sí. Intentaba imponerle silencio al corazón para concentrar toda la intensidad de la atención en debatir la decisión que debería tomar."
Y después de este prólogo en forma de ladrillo que acabo de marcarme pero que necesitaba exponer al principio para expresar la sensación caótica y vital de la narrativa de Stendhal tengo que comienzar por el final. Al cerrar La cartuja de Parma, Stendhal se despide de sus lectores con una breve y enigmática dedicatoria: «To the Happy Few» (para los pocos afortunados). La expresión, tomada del Enrique V de Shakespeare —«We few, we happy few, we band of brothers»—, parece mucho más que una simple cita literaria. Es una declaración de principios. Es como si Stendhal nos estuviera diciendo: no escribo para el gran público, sino para una minoría de lectores capaces de comprender y disfrutar plenamente lo que hago aunque no encaje en una narración tradicional y perfecta. Es una mezcla de varias cosas: Un homenaje a esos lectores ideales. Una declaración de independencia frente al gusto mayoritario. Una forma de reconocer que su obra quizá no será apreciada por muchos contemporáneos (y esto puede conectarse al Interludio conectado con Henry James y William Blake, sobre la incomprensión de su obra para sus contemporáneos). Casi una complicidad entre autor y lector: "si me lees y me entiendes, formas parte de este pequeño círculo". Esto encaja muy bien con la personalidad de Stendhal. Él estaba convencido de que su época no lo comprendía del todo y llegó a decir que sería apreciado décadas después de su muerte. En cierto modo acertó: su prestigio creció enormemente a finales del siglo XIX. Hay además un matiz interesante: hay en esa despedida algo de homenaje y algo de desafío. Homenaje a quienes han acompañado a Fabrizio del Dongo a través de aventuras, intrigas y desengaños; desafío porque supone que no todos sabrán apreciar lo que acaban de leer. Quizá por eso la dedicatoria resulta tan sugerente: convierte la lectura en una forma de complicidad y nos invita a sentirnos, por un instante, miembros de esos «pocos felices» para quienes Stendhal imaginó su obra, pero el matiz es que la dedicatoria aparece justo al final de la novela, con lo que nos obliga de una forma a entender que este caos y vida que acabamos de leer y que pudiera parecernos un poco antisistema literariamente hablando, pueda entenderse como un saludo afectuoso a esos pocos lectores escogidos —no escogidos por el autor, sino por su propia capacidad de conectar con la obra— que forman la pequeña hermandad de los verdaderos lectores de Stendhal.
"¿Por qué repetir con tanta frecuencia, se decía Fabrice, lo que ya sabemos perfectamente? No sabía aún que es así como en Francia la gente de pueblo persigue las ideas."
Si hubiera que definir La cartuja de Parma con una sola etiqueta, podría hablarse de una novela de formación. Seguimos la vida de Fabrizio del Dongo prácticamente desde antes de su nacimiento, asistiendo a sus entusiasmos, errores, descubrimientos y desengaños, zarandeado y manipulado, ya sea por amor o por intereses creados, todos intentarán controlarlo. Sin embargo, la modernidad de Stendhal reside precisamente en que la novela se resiste a cualquier clasificación sencilla porque es, a la vez, relato de aprendizaje, novela histórica, aventura romántica, intriga política y estudio psicológico. Cuando parece orientarse hacia un género determinado, Stendhal cambia de dirección con absoluta libertad. Esa capacidad para escapar de los moldes convierte la lectura en una experiencia sorprendentemente moderna: más que obedecer a las convenciones de un género, la novela parece seguir el curso imprevisible de la propia vida.
"Las personas de talento que nacen en el trono o muy cerca no tardan en perder por completo la mano izquierda; prohíben en su entorno la libertad de conversación; no quieren ver sino caretas..."
Para comprender plenamente la novela conviene detenerse un momento en el escenario en el que transcurre. La Italia de comienzos del siglo XIX no era todavía una nación. Fragmentada en pequeños estados y sometida en gran medida a la influencia austríaca tras la caída de Napoleón y el Congreso de Viena, la península era un tablero de ajedrez donde se cruzaban ambiciones dinásticas, conspiraciones políticas y aspiraciones liberales. El Ducado de Parma, donde se desarrolla buena parte de la acción, era uno de esos diminutos estados atrapados entre potencias mayores y gobernado por una corte en la que los favores, las intrigas, las lealtades personales tenían más peso que las instituciones y la vigilancia constante a cualquier idea liberal. Stendhal aprovecha ese escenario para mostrar un mundo aparentemente refinado pero profundamente arbitrario, donde el poder se ejerce de forma caprichosa y el destino de los individuos depende tanto de las pasiones humanas como de los vaivenes de la política. La Parma de Stendhal es pequeña en el mapa, pero concentra en miniatura muchas de las tensiones de la Europa posterior a Napoleón: el conflicto entre libertad y autoridad, entre pasión y cálculo político, entre el individuo y las estructuras del poder.
"Hay que reconocer que había días en que la duquesa no le dirigía la palabra a nadie; la veían pasear bajo los elevados castaños, sumida en ensoñaciones sombrías; era demasiado inteligente para no notar a veces el fastidio que nace de no compartir los pensamientos."
En medio de este entramado se desarrolla la formación de Fabrizio. Su recorrido vital constituye el hilo conductor de la novela, pero a medida que avanzaba en la lectura tuve la sensación de que otros personajes terminaban adquiriendo una fuerza incluso mayor. Es difícil no quedar fascinada por Gina, la duquesa Sanseverina, tia de Fabrizio, uno de los grandes personajes femeninos de la literatura siglo XIX. En una época en la que las mujeres estaban obligadas a ejercer su influencia desde la sombra, Gina despliega una inteligencia, una energía y una capacidad de decisión extraordinarias. Stendhal la admira visiblemente y pone en su boca frases que condensan con una ironía exquisita la condición femenina de su tiempo. Cuando uno de los hombres de la novela exclama «Ojalá fuera usted un hombre, me daría un buen consejo», está encerrando una crítica devastadora sobre cómo las mujeres estaban desterradas a opinar públicamente. La frase parte del prejuicio de que la autoridad y la inteligencia pertenecen naturalmente a los hombres, pero el lector sabe perfectamente que Gina posee más lucidez y talento político que muchos de ellos. Ahí aparece ese humor fino, casi imperceptible, tan característico de Stendhal. Junto a ella destaca el conde Mosca, probablemente el personaje que más me ha interesado. Astuto, pragmático y dueño de una comprensión perfecta de los mecanismos del poder, Mosca es capaz de manejar una corte entera y, sin embargo, se muestra impotente ante sus propios sentimientos. Esa contradicción me parece una de las grandes intuiciones de Stendhal: el hombre que sabe gobernar los asuntos públicos no siempre sabe gobernar su corazón.
"-¡Yo me batiría veinte veces por ella!-
exclamó el conde Mosca con arrebato."
Porque, en el fondo, el gran tema de La cartuja de Parma no es la política, sino el amor. No un amor sereno o doméstico, sino una pasión absorbente, capaz de dar sentido a una vida y, al mismo tiempo, de desordenarla por completo. "Para que se entienda este plan de venganza, diré que en Milán, comarca muy alejada de la nuestra, la gente todavía se desespera por amor." Stendhal contempla el amor con una mezcla de lucidez y fascinación: conoce sus ilusiones, sus ridículos y sus sufrimientos, pero nunca deja de considerarlo una de las experiencias más intensas y nobles de la existencia, aunque de alguna forma se puede intuir que es un amor que solo puede funcionar en la ficción. "¡Soy presa de los desgarros de la pasión más violenta y usted me pide que interrogue a mí razón! ¡La razón no existe para mí!" No resulta difícil ver en Mosca algo del propio Stendhal. Como él, ama sin esperar una recompensa equivalente; como él, encuentra en la admiración una fuente de energía vital; como él, parece aceptar que el amor auténtico implica inevitablemente una cierta dosis de sufrimiento. Stendhal con este ritmo de narración vertiginoso nos hace creer desde el principio que vamos a leer la historia de Fabrizio del Dongo, y cuando acaba la novela acabaremos recordando mucho más a Gina, la duquesa de Sanseverina y al conde Mosca, Personajazos donde los haya porque Stendhal está continuamente reivindicando la pasión como un valor en sí mismo. Sus personajes aman de forma excesiva, imprudente e incluso irracional, pero es precisamente en esos momentos cuando alcanzan una mayor verdad humana. Por eso, al terminar la novela, tuve la impresión de que las intrigas políticas, las carreras eclesiásticas o las luchas por el poder eran, en el fondo, secundarias. Lo que permanece en la memoria son las distintas formas del amor: el amor protector y absoluto de Gina hacia Fabrizio, el amor paciente y resignado de Mosca hacia Gina, y las pasiones que transforman la vida del propio Fabrizio, aquí no hay sincronización en el amor, todos aman apasionadamente, pocos son correspondidos. Para Stendhal, la verdadera biografía de una persona no la escriben sus éxitos, sino sus pasiones.
"Aquí, sin ir más lejos, ¡qué soy sino el terzo incommdo (¡esta hermosa lengua italiana está enteramente hecha para el amor!) ¡Terzo incomodo (una tercera persona cuya presencia incomoda)! ¡Qué dolor para un hombre de talento notar que está interpretando ese papel destable y no poder forzarse a levantarse e irse!"
Leyendo La cartuja de Parma, no he podido evitar pensar en Emma Bovary comparándola a Fabrizio del Dongo. A primera vista parecen personajes opuestos: Emma se enamora demasiado fácilmente, mientras que Fabrizio del Dongo parece incapaz de enamorarse de verdad. Ella persigue sin descanso una imagen idealizada del amor; él va de aventura en aventura, de entusiasmo en entusiasmo, sin que ninguno termine de fijarse del todo en su corazón. Sin embargo, ambos comparten un mismo rasgo fundamental: viven más en sus fantasías que en la realidad. Por eso los dos pueden parecer, dicho coloquialmente, un poco cabezas de chorlito. Pero no porque sean estúpidos. Ni Emma ni Fabrizio son personajes tontos. Tanto Flaubert como Stendhal construyen protagonistas inteligentes en algunos aspectos y profundamente ciegos en otros. Su "tontería" no es intelectual, sino existencial: interpretan el mundo a través de sus deseos, de sus sueños y de sus ficciones privadas, hasta el punto de no ver con claridad lo que tienen delante. Emma idealiza; Fabrice divaga. Pero quizá la diferencia más importante no esté en los personajes, sino en la mirada de sus autores. Flaubert contempla a Emma con una ironía glacial. Stendhal, en cambio, mira a Fabrice con una simpatía casi desarmante. Incluso cuando se comporta de manera absurda, el narrador parece celebrar su espontaneidad, su falta de cálculo y su capacidad para seguir persiguiendo aquello que le conmueve. De hecho, si tuviera que resumirlo en una frase, diría que Emma sufre porque espera demasiado del amor, mientras que Fabrizio sufre porque nunca termina de saber qué espera de él. En el fondo, Stendhal todavía quiere creer en el amor.
Quizá La Cartuja de Parma no sea perfecta en su construcción, pero posee una vitalidad extraordinaria y aquí no importan tanto el argumento, las conspiraciones, las venganzas, los amores desatados sino la sensaciones que perduran mientras estamos leyendo la novela. Stendhal corre junto a sus personajes cámara en mano, no los pierde de vista, cree en ellos... Es la sensación que transmite lo que perdura, la vida en movimiento continuo… Caos y vida.
"- Mi desdicha es amar, y desde hace casi dos años, solo usted ocupa mi alma; pero hasta ahora la había visto sin infundirle temor.
- Está loco. Cuando la señora está aquí lo vemos vagabundear por las partes más elevadas del bosque; y en cuanto la señora se marcha no deja de acudir a sentarse en los mismos lugares en que ella se detuvo..."
♫♫♫ Breaking the cycle - Keith Merrill ♫♫♫
"Si se te ocurre un razonamiento brillante, una réplica triunfal que cambie el curso de la conversación, no cedas a la tentación de lucirte, quédate callado; las personas agudas te verán el talento en los ojos."
Lo que más me ha impresionado de La cartuja de Parma no es tanto su argumento como la sensación que produce su narración. Stendhal escribe como si la cámara estuviera mezclada entre los personajes, avanzando con ellos sin conocer del todo el rumbo de los acontecimientos. El narrador no observa desde una posición privilegiada ni parece interesado en juzgar a sus criaturas; las acompaña. Esa cercanía confiere a la novela una extraordinaria sensación de movimiento y de vida. Fabrizio del Dongo se equivoca, se deja arrastrar por las circunstancias y comprende a menudo menos de lo que el lector esperaría de un héroe, pero precisamente ahí reside parte de su fuerza. Stendhal parece aceptar que la experiencia humana es confusa, precipitada e imprevisible, y encuentra en ello no un defecto sino un motivo de fascinación. Stendhal da a veces la impresión de estar escribiendo a una velocidad de vértigo, al ritmo que se mueven sus personajes y el resultado es menos perfecto, pero también más espontáneo.
“Tras leer esto, Limecati se fue a uno de sus castillos: se le exacerbò el amor, se volvió loco y habló de saltarse la tapa de los sesos, cosa inusitada en los países en que existe el infierno."
Su escritura produce la impresión de que una cámara invisible persigue constantemente a los personajes, siempre mezclada entre ellos, captando sus movimientos, vacilaciones y arrebatos en tiempo real. Todo sucede con una inmediatez casi vertiginosa: los acontecimientos se encadenan, los planes se improvisan, el azar irrumpe sin previo aviso, caos y vida. Hay algo caótico en esta narración, pero es precisamente un caos orgánico, semejante al de la existencia misma, donde no todo encaja con simetría ni cada episodio encuentra una justificación perfecta. Lo que importa es el movimiento continuo, la corriente incesante de la vida que arrastra a los personajes y que Stendhal logra transmitir con una energía narrativa que todavía hoy resulta sorprendentemente moderna. Stendhal parece convencido de que esa vitalidad merece ser celebrada incluso cuando conduce al error, como si la plenitud de una existencia dependiera menos de acertar siempre que de entregarse sin reservas al movimiento incierto de la vida. Caos y vida.
El mejor ejemplo de ello se encuentra al comienzo de la novela, cuando un jovencísimo Fabrizio, apenas un muchacho de diecisiete años, se ve arrastrado al torbellino de Waterloo. Lo extraordinario es que Stendhal renuncia a cualquier visión heroica o grandilocuente de la batalla: la guerra no aparece como una sucesión de gestas épicas, sino como una experiencia de desconcierto, ruido y confusión. Fabrizio no comprende del todo lo que ocurre a su alrededor, no dispone de una visión global de los acontecimientos y avanza a tientas entre órdenes contradictorias, movimientos incomprensibles, saqueos, aturdimiento y episodios absurdos. La Batalla de Waterloo se convierte así en un inmenso batiburrillo sin ni son, visto desde la limitada perspectiva de quien está inmerso en ella. Hay algo profundamente moderno en esta forma de representar la guerra, muy alejada de las narraciones heroicas dominantes en la época. La historia ya no se cuenta desde el punto de vista de los generales o de los vencedores, sino desde la experiencia fragmentaria y desorientada de alguien que está dentro del acontecimiento, un joven idealista que ha acudido allí en pos de su fervor por Napoléon. Esto anticipará muchas representaciones posteriores de la guerra
Y eso conecta con algo muy característico de Stendhal: su capacidad para transmitir que la vida humana es confusa, precipitada e imprevisible, pero también apasionante. Uno termina leyendo a Fabrizio, no porque sea especialmente sabio, sino porque está vivo. Y Stendhal parece convencido de que esa vitalidad merece ser celebrada incluso cuando conduce a la equivocación...
"(saber que había un ser humano al alcance de su voz le resultaba aborrecible) y corrió a encerrarse en la gran galería de cuadros; allí pudo dar rienda suelta a su rabia. Se pasó la velada sin luz, dando vueltas al azar, como un hombre fuera de sí. Intentaba imponerle silencio al corazón para concentrar toda la intensidad de la atención en debatir la decisión que debería tomar."
Y después de este prólogo en forma de ladrillo que acabo de marcarme pero que necesitaba exponer al principio para expresar la sensación caótica y vital de la narrativa de Stendhal tengo que comienzar por el final. Al cerrar La cartuja de Parma, Stendhal se despide de sus lectores con una breve y enigmática dedicatoria: «To the Happy Few» (para los pocos afortunados). La expresión, tomada del Enrique V de Shakespeare —«We few, we happy few, we band of brothers»—, parece mucho más que una simple cita literaria. Es una declaración de principios. Es como si Stendhal nos estuviera diciendo: no escribo para el gran público, sino para una minoría de lectores capaces de comprender y disfrutar plenamente lo que hago aunque no encaje en una narración tradicional y perfecta. Es una mezcla de varias cosas: Un homenaje a esos lectores ideales. Una declaración de independencia frente al gusto mayoritario. Una forma de reconocer que su obra quizá no será apreciada por muchos contemporáneos (y esto puede conectarse al Interludio conectado con Henry James y William Blake, sobre la incomprensión de su obra para sus contemporáneos). Casi una complicidad entre autor y lector: "si me lees y me entiendes, formas parte de este pequeño círculo". Esto encaja muy bien con la personalidad de Stendhal. Él estaba convencido de que su época no lo comprendía del todo y llegó a decir que sería apreciado décadas después de su muerte. En cierto modo acertó: su prestigio creció enormemente a finales del siglo XIX. Hay además un matiz interesante: hay en esa despedida algo de homenaje y algo de desafío. Homenaje a quienes han acompañado a Fabrizio del Dongo a través de aventuras, intrigas y desengaños; desafío porque supone que no todos sabrán apreciar lo que acaban de leer. Quizá por eso la dedicatoria resulta tan sugerente: convierte la lectura en una forma de complicidad y nos invita a sentirnos, por un instante, miembros de esos «pocos felices» para quienes Stendhal imaginó su obra, pero el matiz es que la dedicatoria aparece justo al final de la novela, con lo que nos obliga de una forma a entender que este caos y vida que acabamos de leer y que pudiera parecernos un poco antisistema literariamente hablando, pueda entenderse como un saludo afectuoso a esos pocos lectores escogidos —no escogidos por el autor, sino por su propia capacidad de conectar con la obra— que forman la pequeña hermandad de los verdaderos lectores de Stendhal.
"¿Por qué repetir con tanta frecuencia, se decía Fabrice, lo que ya sabemos perfectamente? No sabía aún que es así como en Francia la gente de pueblo persigue las ideas."
Si hubiera que definir La cartuja de Parma con una sola etiqueta, podría hablarse de una novela de formación. Seguimos la vida de Fabrizio del Dongo prácticamente desde antes de su nacimiento, asistiendo a sus entusiasmos, errores, descubrimientos y desengaños, zarandeado y manipulado, ya sea por amor o por intereses creados, todos intentarán controlarlo. Sin embargo, la modernidad de Stendhal reside precisamente en que la novela se resiste a cualquier clasificación sencilla porque es, a la vez, relato de aprendizaje, novela histórica, aventura romántica, intriga política y estudio psicológico. Cuando parece orientarse hacia un género determinado, Stendhal cambia de dirección con absoluta libertad. Esa capacidad para escapar de los moldes convierte la lectura en una experiencia sorprendentemente moderna: más que obedecer a las convenciones de un género, la novela parece seguir el curso imprevisible de la propia vida.
"Las personas de talento que nacen en el trono o muy cerca no tardan en perder por completo la mano izquierda; prohíben en su entorno la libertad de conversación; no quieren ver sino caretas..."
Para comprender plenamente la novela conviene detenerse un momento en el escenario en el que transcurre. La Italia de comienzos del siglo XIX no era todavía una nación. Fragmentada en pequeños estados y sometida en gran medida a la influencia austríaca tras la caída de Napoleón y el Congreso de Viena, la península era un tablero de ajedrez donde se cruzaban ambiciones dinásticas, conspiraciones políticas y aspiraciones liberales. El Ducado de Parma, donde se desarrolla buena parte de la acción, era uno de esos diminutos estados atrapados entre potencias mayores y gobernado por una corte en la que los favores, las intrigas, las lealtades personales tenían más peso que las instituciones y la vigilancia constante a cualquier idea liberal. Stendhal aprovecha ese escenario para mostrar un mundo aparentemente refinado pero profundamente arbitrario, donde el poder se ejerce de forma caprichosa y el destino de los individuos depende tanto de las pasiones humanas como de los vaivenes de la política. La Parma de Stendhal es pequeña en el mapa, pero concentra en miniatura muchas de las tensiones de la Europa posterior a Napoleón: el conflicto entre libertad y autoridad, entre pasión y cálculo político, entre el individuo y las estructuras del poder.
"Hay que reconocer que había días en que la duquesa no le dirigía la palabra a nadie; la veían pasear bajo los elevados castaños, sumida en ensoñaciones sombrías; era demasiado inteligente para no notar a veces el fastidio que nace de no compartir los pensamientos."
En medio de este entramado se desarrolla la formación de Fabrizio. Su recorrido vital constituye el hilo conductor de la novela, pero a medida que avanzaba en la lectura tuve la sensación de que otros personajes terminaban adquiriendo una fuerza incluso mayor. Es difícil no quedar fascinada por Gina, la duquesa Sanseverina, tia de Fabrizio, uno de los grandes personajes femeninos de la literatura siglo XIX. En una época en la que las mujeres estaban obligadas a ejercer su influencia desde la sombra, Gina despliega una inteligencia, una energía y una capacidad de decisión extraordinarias. Stendhal la admira visiblemente y pone en su boca frases que condensan con una ironía exquisita la condición femenina de su tiempo. Cuando uno de los hombres de la novela exclama «Ojalá fuera usted un hombre, me daría un buen consejo», está encerrando una crítica devastadora sobre cómo las mujeres estaban desterradas a opinar públicamente. La frase parte del prejuicio de que la autoridad y la inteligencia pertenecen naturalmente a los hombres, pero el lector sabe perfectamente que Gina posee más lucidez y talento político que muchos de ellos. Ahí aparece ese humor fino, casi imperceptible, tan característico de Stendhal. Junto a ella destaca el conde Mosca, probablemente el personaje que más me ha interesado. Astuto, pragmático y dueño de una comprensión perfecta de los mecanismos del poder, Mosca es capaz de manejar una corte entera y, sin embargo, se muestra impotente ante sus propios sentimientos. Esa contradicción me parece una de las grandes intuiciones de Stendhal: el hombre que sabe gobernar los asuntos públicos no siempre sabe gobernar su corazón.
"-¡Yo me batiría veinte veces por ella!-
exclamó el conde Mosca con arrebato."
Porque, en el fondo, el gran tema de La cartuja de Parma no es la política, sino el amor. No un amor sereno o doméstico, sino una pasión absorbente, capaz de dar sentido a una vida y, al mismo tiempo, de desordenarla por completo. "Para que se entienda este plan de venganza, diré que en Milán, comarca muy alejada de la nuestra, la gente todavía se desespera por amor." Stendhal contempla el amor con una mezcla de lucidez y fascinación: conoce sus ilusiones, sus ridículos y sus sufrimientos, pero nunca deja de considerarlo una de las experiencias más intensas y nobles de la existencia, aunque de alguna forma se puede intuir que es un amor que solo puede funcionar en la ficción. "¡Soy presa de los desgarros de la pasión más violenta y usted me pide que interrogue a mí razón! ¡La razón no existe para mí!" No resulta difícil ver en Mosca algo del propio Stendhal. Como él, ama sin esperar una recompensa equivalente; como él, encuentra en la admiración una fuente de energía vital; como él, parece aceptar que el amor auténtico implica inevitablemente una cierta dosis de sufrimiento. Stendhal con este ritmo de narración vertiginoso nos hace creer desde el principio que vamos a leer la historia de Fabrizio del Dongo, y cuando acaba la novela acabaremos recordando mucho más a Gina, la duquesa de Sanseverina y al conde Mosca, Personajazos donde los haya porque Stendhal está continuamente reivindicando la pasión como un valor en sí mismo. Sus personajes aman de forma excesiva, imprudente e incluso irracional, pero es precisamente en esos momentos cuando alcanzan una mayor verdad humana. Por eso, al terminar la novela, tuve la impresión de que las intrigas políticas, las carreras eclesiásticas o las luchas por el poder eran, en el fondo, secundarias. Lo que permanece en la memoria son las distintas formas del amor: el amor protector y absoluto de Gina hacia Fabrizio, el amor paciente y resignado de Mosca hacia Gina, y las pasiones que transforman la vida del propio Fabrizio, aquí no hay sincronización en el amor, todos aman apasionadamente, pocos son correspondidos. Para Stendhal, la verdadera biografía de una persona no la escriben sus éxitos, sino sus pasiones.
"Aquí, sin ir más lejos, ¡qué soy sino el terzo incommdo (¡esta hermosa lengua italiana está enteramente hecha para el amor!) ¡Terzo incomodo (una tercera persona cuya presencia incomoda)! ¡Qué dolor para un hombre de talento notar que está interpretando ese papel destable y no poder forzarse a levantarse e irse!"
Leyendo La cartuja de Parma, no he podido evitar pensar en Emma Bovary comparándola a Fabrizio del Dongo. A primera vista parecen personajes opuestos: Emma se enamora demasiado fácilmente, mientras que Fabrizio del Dongo parece incapaz de enamorarse de verdad. Ella persigue sin descanso una imagen idealizada del amor; él va de aventura en aventura, de entusiasmo en entusiasmo, sin que ninguno termine de fijarse del todo en su corazón. Sin embargo, ambos comparten un mismo rasgo fundamental: viven más en sus fantasías que en la realidad. Por eso los dos pueden parecer, dicho coloquialmente, un poco cabezas de chorlito. Pero no porque sean estúpidos. Ni Emma ni Fabrizio son personajes tontos. Tanto Flaubert como Stendhal construyen protagonistas inteligentes en algunos aspectos y profundamente ciegos en otros. Su "tontería" no es intelectual, sino existencial: interpretan el mundo a través de sus deseos, de sus sueños y de sus ficciones privadas, hasta el punto de no ver con claridad lo que tienen delante. Emma idealiza; Fabrice divaga. Pero quizá la diferencia más importante no esté en los personajes, sino en la mirada de sus autores. Flaubert contempla a Emma con una ironía glacial. Stendhal, en cambio, mira a Fabrice con una simpatía casi desarmante. Incluso cuando se comporta de manera absurda, el narrador parece celebrar su espontaneidad, su falta de cálculo y su capacidad para seguir persiguiendo aquello que le conmueve. De hecho, si tuviera que resumirlo en una frase, diría que Emma sufre porque espera demasiado del amor, mientras que Fabrizio sufre porque nunca termina de saber qué espera de él. En el fondo, Stendhal todavía quiere creer en el amor.
Quizá La Cartuja de Parma no sea perfecta en su construcción, pero posee una vitalidad extraordinaria y aquí no importan tanto el argumento, las conspiraciones, las venganzas, los amores desatados sino la sensaciones que perduran mientras estamos leyendo la novela. Stendhal corre junto a sus personajes cámara en mano, no los pierde de vista, cree en ellos... Es la sensación que transmite lo que perdura, la vida en movimiento continuo… Caos y vida.
"- Mi desdicha es amar, y desde hace casi dos años, solo usted ocupa mi alma; pero hasta ahora la había visto sin infundirle temor.
- Está loco. Cuando la señora está aquí lo vemos vagabundear por las partes más elevadas del bosque; y en cuanto la señora se marcha no deja de acudir a sentarse en los mismos lugares en que ella se detuvo..."
♫♫♫ Breaking the cycle - Keith Merrill ♫♫♫
August 28, 2021
A dazzling "opera" and the worldliest of books ever written.
Parmesan courtlife is both Machiavellian & Ruritanian. Courtiers, politicos, Great Ladies and Ministers of State banter, plot, betray and caress romantic dreams within a maze of social maneuvers. The young hero has a Candide-quality and his high-born aunt - a duchess who uses sex with brains as a handbook on tactics - is among the most enchanting women in fiction.
Parmesan courtlife is both Machiavellian & Ruritanian. Courtiers, politicos, Great Ladies and Ministers of State banter, plot, betray and caress romantic dreams within a maze of social maneuvers. The young hero has a Candide-quality and his high-born aunt - a duchess who uses sex with brains as a handbook on tactics - is among the most enchanting women in fiction.
April 5, 2022
This didn't fit me at all. I will explain why. You then must determine if your likes and dislikes match up with mine.
I am not judging Stendhal’s book. Who am I to make such a judgment?! My rating merely reflects my personal appreciation of it. My one star rating indicates only that I personally do not like it.
The story circles around court romances and intrigues. The setting is predominantly Italy after Waterloo. At the start, the central figure goes off to fight under Napoleon. We travel with him to France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria, but the Italian area around Parma is home. It is not the common folk that we rub shoulders with but instead princes and dukes and duchesses, counts and countesses, marquis, archbishops and others of high standing that we associate with. There are brigands to be outwitted. What is delivered are tales of adventure and romance and intrigue. Conflagrations, poisonings, obductions, imprisonments and escapes fill the tale. Swooning romances too. The tale is plot oriented. Both the prose and the unfurling of the plot are way too soap-operatic for my taste. Take what I am saying seriously. The story is so overdone. One may laugh at its ridiculousness, sneer in distain or yawn of pure boredom.
I did follow the tale to the end. The only good point I can think of is that it doesn’t end with a super cute happy ending. You could reasonably say that Stendhal draws a realistic picture of Italian court life. I assume Stendhal was intending us to view that which is drawn with irony.
Eduardo Ballerini narrates the audiobook. His narration magnifies the soap-operatic tone of the tale. One might reason that it is a good narration because it has the same tone and style as the prose. The writing was hard enough for me to swallow. I didn’t enjoy further melodrama and exaggeration even if this does reflect the tone of the writing. Nope, I didn’t like the narration at all. Ballerini speaks the Italian words rapidly. This makes it harder to hear the names. This isn’t a serious problem though because most characters are known by their title.
Neither the narration nor the tale is to my liking. I have given both one star. If you enjoy novels of romance and melodramatic court intrigues, this book may be just your cup of tea. I am not going to try another Stendhal. I’ve had enough.
You should be happy. I copied down a whole bunch of lines to show you how ridiculous they were. I am sparing you them.
************************
*The Red and the Black 1 star
*The Charterhouse of Parma 1 star
I am not judging Stendhal’s book. Who am I to make such a judgment?! My rating merely reflects my personal appreciation of it. My one star rating indicates only that I personally do not like it.
The story circles around court romances and intrigues. The setting is predominantly Italy after Waterloo. At the start, the central figure goes off to fight under Napoleon. We travel with him to France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria, but the Italian area around Parma is home. It is not the common folk that we rub shoulders with but instead princes and dukes and duchesses, counts and countesses, marquis, archbishops and others of high standing that we associate with. There are brigands to be outwitted. What is delivered are tales of adventure and romance and intrigue. Conflagrations, poisonings, obductions, imprisonments and escapes fill the tale. Swooning romances too. The tale is plot oriented. Both the prose and the unfurling of the plot are way too soap-operatic for my taste. Take what I am saying seriously. The story is so overdone. One may laugh at its ridiculousness, sneer in distain or yawn of pure boredom.
I did follow the tale to the end. The only good point I can think of is that it doesn’t end with a super cute happy ending. You could reasonably say that Stendhal draws a realistic picture of Italian court life. I assume Stendhal was intending us to view that which is drawn with irony.
Eduardo Ballerini narrates the audiobook. His narration magnifies the soap-operatic tone of the tale. One might reason that it is a good narration because it has the same tone and style as the prose. The writing was hard enough for me to swallow. I didn’t enjoy further melodrama and exaggeration even if this does reflect the tone of the writing. Nope, I didn’t like the narration at all. Ballerini speaks the Italian words rapidly. This makes it harder to hear the names. This isn’t a serious problem though because most characters are known by their title.
Neither the narration nor the tale is to my liking. I have given both one star. If you enjoy novels of romance and melodramatic court intrigues, this book may be just your cup of tea. I am not going to try another Stendhal. I’ve had enough.
You should be happy. I copied down a whole bunch of lines to show you how ridiculous they were. I am sparing you them.
************************
*The Red and the Black 1 star
*The Charterhouse of Parma 1 star
January 9, 2017
In somewhat stark contrast to the darkness of the The Red and the Black, La Chartreuse de Parme is a comedic masterpiece from a youthful Stendhal. Well, humorous as well as languorous at the end. In it is one of the funniest incidents in all of French literature (perhaps eclipsed by the "souliers rouge" incident in Coté de Guermantes) where the hapless protagonist Fabrice dreams of Napoleon and somehow wanders onto the battlefield of Waterloo - rather like someone in Universal Studios would randomly wander into a movie set for, say, Star Wars - and has his back turned just as Napoleon goes by, to his doom (Napoleon's that is!). It is - as all of Stendhal's books - extremely well-written and a masterpiece of 19th C French literature.
Read
July 21, 2016I read this looking for more atmosphere and details about the Napoleonic wars, having just read War and Peace in which Tolstoy does a wonderful job of conveying how Napoleon's Russian campaign was viewed by some sections of Russian society. The beginning of this novel was promising with descriptions of how the people of Milan and the surrounding area viewed the Napoleonic conquest but soon the author began a long and involved courtly love saga that might have belonged more in the twelfth century than the nineteenth. Not exactly what I expected...
December 20, 2017
O wretched soul, what sweetness it was!
How we burned at the moment when I saw
those eyes that I might never see again.
Lines from Petrarch, on handkerchief given secretly as a gift in novel's forbidden love affair
The 1839 Charterhouse represented a movement away and forward from the romanticism of Stendhal's time, this was one of the earliest examples of realism in a way that was considered revolutionary then; Balzac considered it the most important novel of his time. Though some elements of the romantic emotionalism linger, the novel turns to realism in more fully exploring human nature and psychology of its primary characters.
Stendhal, like the protagonist Fabrice del Dongo, served with Napoleon's army in the 1812 campaign into Russia. After Napoleon's fall, Stendhal lived six years in Italy, a country he fell in love with, before returning to his native France.
Upon return from serving with Napoleon's army, del Dongo returns to the intrigue and politics of the court of Parma and fends off repeated advances from his relatively young aunt by marriage, 15 years his senior. He falls head over heels for the young maiden Clelia and they begin a platonic affair...until after she is married (and insists that they have sex in complete darkness so she would not be fully aware that she was committing an adulterous sin).
Once he deems the affair hopeless, that he can never be with his love, he turns to the cloth, escaping the cruel world into the charterhouse, or monastery.
I enjoyed it as a unique departure in my reading, appreciating the blend of the realism with some of the dramatically emotional pull of hopeless love.
How we burned at the moment when I saw
those eyes that I might never see again.
Lines from Petrarch, on handkerchief given secretly as a gift in novel's forbidden love affair
The 1839 Charterhouse represented a movement away and forward from the romanticism of Stendhal's time, this was one of the earliest examples of realism in a way that was considered revolutionary then; Balzac considered it the most important novel of his time. Though some elements of the romantic emotionalism linger, the novel turns to realism in more fully exploring human nature and psychology of its primary characters.
Stendhal, like the protagonist Fabrice del Dongo, served with Napoleon's army in the 1812 campaign into Russia. After Napoleon's fall, Stendhal lived six years in Italy, a country he fell in love with, before returning to his native France.
Upon return from serving with Napoleon's army, del Dongo returns to the intrigue and politics of the court of Parma and fends off repeated advances from his relatively young aunt by marriage, 15 years his senior. He falls head over heels for the young maiden Clelia and they begin a platonic affair...until after she is married (and insists that they have sex in complete darkness so she would not be fully aware that she was committing an adulterous sin).
Once he deems the affair hopeless, that he can never be with his love, he turns to the cloth, escaping the cruel world into the charterhouse, or monastery.
I enjoyed it as a unique departure in my reading, appreciating the blend of the realism with some of the dramatically emotional pull of hopeless love.
December 23, 2021
RILETTURA: le vicende tormentate di Fabrizio del Dongo, consentono a Stendhal di porre sotto i nostri occhi il complesso gioco di equilibri, di sotterfugi, di favoritismi che sosteneva la politica italiana (quella di Parma, in particolare) negli anni successivi al declino di Napoleone. Ma è anche la testimonianza di un idealismo restio a vedersi soffocare da tutti questi intrighi e che seguita a mantenersi vitale nonostante assai di rado (e fuggevolmente) veda coronati i propri strenui sforzi.
October 18, 2025
“There's one convenience about absolute power, that it sanctifies everything in the eyes of the people.”
I read The Scarlett and the Black when I was in my teens (many years ago) and seem to remember enjoying it. It’s taken al most fifty years to get round to the next one! To be frank I wish I hadn’t bothered. I am aware that the novel’s list of admirers is a lengthy one (including Hemingway, Balzac, James and Proust, to name a few). There has been a film and several TV mini-series, not to mention an opera.
There is a positive, I thought it started quite well and the depiction of the Battle of Waterloo was quite effective. Stendhal depicts the fog of war quite well. It’s downhill from there though. The hero Fabrizio I found intensely annoying (that may, of course, be the point).
There are lots of romances and swooning women, plenty of intrigue at a political and court level, a good sprinkling of tyranny and a little Jacobinism, and of course there’s the Church and everything that goes with that, Add some brigands and actors, poisoning, imprisonment, daring escapes. There is also a surfeit of sentimentality, particularly towards the end:
“This beautiful thought, of 'dying close by that which one loves', expressed in a hundred different ways, was followed by a sonnet in which it was found that the soul, separated, after atrocious torments, from the frail body in which it dwelt for twenty-three years, and impelled by that instinct for happiness natural to all that has once existed, would not reascend to heaven to mingle with angelic choirs as soon as it was set free, and in the event of the awful judgment according it forgiveness for its sins, but, happier after death than it had been in life, it would go a few steps from the prison where it had lamented for so long, to be reunited with all that it had loved in the world. And thus, the sonnet's last line went. I shall have found my paradise on earth.”
There’s a good deal of melodrama and twisted plot turns. I do wonder if Stendhal was around today if he might have been writing daytime soap operas.
There are many who do appreciate this: maybe it’s just me!
I read The Scarlett and the Black when I was in my teens (many years ago) and seem to remember enjoying it. It’s taken al most fifty years to get round to the next one! To be frank I wish I hadn’t bothered. I am aware that the novel’s list of admirers is a lengthy one (including Hemingway, Balzac, James and Proust, to name a few). There has been a film and several TV mini-series, not to mention an opera.
There is a positive, I thought it started quite well and the depiction of the Battle of Waterloo was quite effective. Stendhal depicts the fog of war quite well. It’s downhill from there though. The hero Fabrizio I found intensely annoying (that may, of course, be the point).
There are lots of romances and swooning women, plenty of intrigue at a political and court level, a good sprinkling of tyranny and a little Jacobinism, and of course there’s the Church and everything that goes with that, Add some brigands and actors, poisoning, imprisonment, daring escapes. There is also a surfeit of sentimentality, particularly towards the end:
“This beautiful thought, of 'dying close by that which one loves', expressed in a hundred different ways, was followed by a sonnet in which it was found that the soul, separated, after atrocious torments, from the frail body in which it dwelt for twenty-three years, and impelled by that instinct for happiness natural to all that has once existed, would not reascend to heaven to mingle with angelic choirs as soon as it was set free, and in the event of the awful judgment according it forgiveness for its sins, but, happier after death than it had been in life, it would go a few steps from the prison where it had lamented for so long, to be reunited with all that it had loved in the world. And thus, the sonnet's last line went. I shall have found my paradise on earth.”
There’s a good deal of melodrama and twisted plot turns. I do wonder if Stendhal was around today if he might have been writing daytime soap operas.
There are many who do appreciate this: maybe it’s just me!
December 26, 2016
Δεν υπάρχει η γοητεία της ιστορίας και των αλληγοριών του Κόκκινο και Μαύρο. Υπάρχουν όμως η ίδια αίσθηση διαχρονικότητας και ταύτισης καταστάσεων και ξυπνάει ακόμη εντονότερα τον ηθικό αντίλογο.
Σπουδαία επιτεύγματα είναι η εξαιρετική τακτική μοναδική στον Στεντάλ ώστε να μην προκαλεί ταύτιση με τους ήρωες αλλά να ξυπνά την ομοιοπάθεια και την πολύβαθη, ρεαλιστική αναγνώριση πως οι εποχές αλλάζουν, η εξέλιξη κάνει τον κύκλο της για να αποδώσει νέες αυλές που μοιάζουν με κάθε άλλη παρελθοντική αυλή στην κακεντρέχεια, στην υποκρισία, στην πίστη σε φαινότυπους, σε ονειροτόκα υψηλά ιδανικά που καταποντίζονται γιατί ο παράς είναι πολύ πιο εύκολα μετρήσιμο αγαθό μιας κάποιας αξίας του ατόμου αλλά όχι της ψυχής.
Μια απ' τις ενδιαφέρουσες βασικές ιδέες είναι πως ο άνθρωπος που ζηλεύει ερωτικά κάποια στιγμή θα οδηγηθεί και πάλι στη λογική, όταν είναι ελεύθερος από το στιγματισμό κάποιων ψυχαναγκασμών όπως η επιφατική θρησκοφοβία ή η κοινωνική αποδοχή, αλλά ωστόσο ελλιπής. Υπάρχουν πολλά πάθη της ψυχής ικανά να οδηγήσουν στη ζήλεια, οποιασδήποτε μορφής.
Απ' την άλλη ο άνθρωπος που από κακία ή πλήξη ή χυδαίο φθόνο τσιγκλάει τη ζήλεια κάποιου άλλου όπως μόνο ένας χαιρέκακος μονοδιάστατος τρίτος μπορεί, είναι ένας άνθρωπος που έχει χάσει κάθε σκοπό στη ζωή και την οποιαδήποτε αναγνώριση της αξίας των συνανθρώπων και είναι τυφλός μπροστά στην οποιαδήποτε μορφή αγάπης.
Πολύ όμορφη είναι η σκέψη για τις Νεανικές Ψυχές στις οποίες αναγνώρισα λίγο και τον εαυτό μου. Οι νεανικές ψυχές που ενεργοποιούνται απ' το νέο, την ανακάλυψη, τα ταξίδια χωρίς χάρτη και φτάνουν κάποτε σ' ένα τέλμα όπου δεν υπάρχουν άλλες Αμερικές κι η ψυχή πεθαίνει ή διαφθείρεται τόσο ώστε να συναντήσει τα ερέβη της και να οδηγηθεί τυφλά σε δολοφονία του σώματος απ' το πνεύμα, όσο οι συναισθηματικοί ψυχαναγκασμοί καίνε στο οξύ τη λογική.
Τέλος μοναδική είναι κι η απεικόνιση της εποχης, των αντιλήψεων και για άλλη μια φορά η τελειότητα στην παρεμβατικότητα του Στεντάλ ως μια προζίστικη μορφή που φαίνεται να δίνει τα κλειδια για τους συμβολισμούς του.
Σπουδαία επιτεύγματα είναι η εξαιρετική τακτική μοναδική στον Στεντάλ ώστε να μην προκαλεί ταύτιση με τους ήρωες αλλά να ξυπνά την ομοιοπάθεια και την πολύβαθη, ρεαλιστική αναγνώριση πως οι εποχές αλλάζουν, η εξέλιξη κάνει τον κύκλο της για να αποδώσει νέες αυλές που μοιάζουν με κάθε άλλη παρελθοντική αυλή στην κακεντρέχεια, στην υποκρισία, στην πίστη σε φαινότυπους, σε ονειροτόκα υψηλά ιδανικά που καταποντίζονται γιατί ο παράς είναι πολύ πιο εύκολα μετρήσιμο αγαθό μιας κάποιας αξίας του ατόμου αλλά όχι της ψυχής.
Μια απ' τις ενδιαφέρουσες βασικές ιδέες είναι πως ο άνθρωπος που ζηλεύει ερωτικά κάποια στιγμή θα οδηγηθεί και πάλι στη λογική, όταν είναι ελεύθερος από το στιγματισμό κάποιων ψυχαναγκασμών όπως η επιφατική θρησκοφοβία ή η κοινωνική αποδοχή, αλλά ωστόσο ελλιπής. Υπάρχουν πολλά πάθη της ψυχής ικανά να οδηγήσουν στη ζήλεια, οποιασδήποτε μορφής.
Απ' την άλλη ο άνθρωπος που από κακία ή πλήξη ή χυδαίο φθόνο τσιγκλάει τη ζήλεια κάποιου άλλου όπως μόνο ένας χαιρέκακος μονοδιάστατος τρίτος μπορεί, είναι ένας άνθρωπος που έχει χάσει κάθε σκοπό στη ζωή και την οποιαδήποτε αναγνώριση της αξίας των συνανθρώπων και είναι τυφλός μπροστά στην οποιαδήποτε μορφή αγάπης.
Πολύ όμορφη είναι η σκέψη για τις Νεανικές Ψυχές στις οποίες αναγνώρισα λίγο και τον εαυτό μου. Οι νεανικές ψυχές που ενεργοποιούνται απ' το νέο, την ανακάλυψη, τα ταξίδια χωρίς χάρτη και φτάνουν κάποτε σ' ένα τέλμα όπου δεν υπάρχουν άλλες Αμερικές κι η ψυχή πεθαίνει ή διαφθείρεται τόσο ώστε να συναντήσει τα ερέβη της και να οδηγηθεί τυφλά σε δολοφονία του σώματος απ' το πνεύμα, όσο οι συναισθηματικοί ψυχαναγκασμοί καίνε στο οξύ τη λογική.
Τέλος μοναδική είναι κι η απεικόνιση της εποχης, των αντιλήψεων και για άλλη μια φορά η τελειότητα στην παρεμβατικότητα του Στεντάλ ως μια προζίστικη μορφή που φαίνεται να δίνει τα κλειδια για τους συμβολισμούς του.
June 25, 2018
Една от най-потресаващо скучните книги, които съм чела (да не звуча пресилено и да кажа „изобщо“) от дълго време насам. Твърде помпозният, хаотичен, превъзнесен стил на Стендал се вихри с пълна сила. Спомням си, че и в „Червено и черно“ имаше моменти, в които изпитвах подобна досада, но тук наистина ми беше неимоверно трудно да следя историята. Твърде много безсмислени случки и описания, за които, в момента, в който ги изчетеш си мислиш „Това защо се случи, дявол да го вземе? Има ли някаква роля за повествованието? С какво то допринесе, за да разберем ние личността на персонажите?“. Най-често отговорът на тези въпроси беше „нищо/никакъв“. Безспорно Стендал хвърля особен труд да обрисува душевните преживявания на героите (правдоподобно предадени, смея да кажа, абсолютно объркана и нееднозначна плетеница от мисли, противополжни чувства и крайности), но това се случва толкова често и пространно, че в един момент дотяга безкрайно.
Леко прилича в стилистично отношение на Мопасан, струва ми се. „Бел Ами“ също беше вид изпитание за търпението ми на моменти, макар да ми хареса в пъти повече. Може би са просто французите. От друга страна Виктор Юго, Дюма и Флобер разказват доста по-различно и далеч по-увлекателно за мен.
Леко прилича в стилистично отношение на Мопасан, струва ми се. „Бел Ами“ също беше вид изпитание за търпението ми на моменти, макар да ми хареса в пъти повече. Може би са просто французите. От друга страна Виктор Юго, Дюма и Флобер разказват доста по-различно и далеч по-увлекателно за мен.
January 30, 2016
Pentru mine, Sthendal este unul dintre marii scriitori moralizatori de factură istorică. El surprinde funcţia educativă a istoriei expunând cu o insensibilitate apologetică (fapt pentru care este renumit) faptele istorice aşa cum au avut ele să fie, centrând în schimb spectrul de analiză asupra caracterelor pe care vrea să le scoată în evidenţă (mai mult sau mai puţin peiorativ).
În "Mănăstirea din Parma" prezintă destrămarea unei familii aristocratice de sorginte italiană. Acţiunea îl are în centru pe Fabrizio, un tânăr nobil care se înrolase în Marea Armata (sau ce mai rămăsese din ea) a lui Napoleon, în bătălia finală de la Waterloo. Paradoxal, deoarece el era aristocrat! Înrolarea în armata Republicii Franceze este doar un fapt minor, "un fapt romantic", deoarece, pe parcurs, acţiunea se orientează asupra marilor cercuri aristocratice din Italia încă neunificată. Episcopi, scandaluri sexuale în inima Bisericii, romantism incurabil, corupţie, lupta machiavelică pentru putere...
Romanul conferă -în fine!- aura aceea de malancolie istorică, Sthendal neoferind în final nicio morală concretă, prezentând doar faptele din care cititorul conchide ceea ce trebuie.
"TO THE HAPPY FEW!"
În "Mănăstirea din Parma" prezintă destrămarea unei familii aristocratice de sorginte italiană. Acţiunea îl are în centru pe Fabrizio, un tânăr nobil care se înrolase în Marea Armata (sau ce mai rămăsese din ea) a lui Napoleon, în bătălia finală de la Waterloo. Paradoxal, deoarece el era aristocrat! Înrolarea în armata Republicii Franceze este doar un fapt minor, "un fapt romantic", deoarece, pe parcurs, acţiunea se orientează asupra marilor cercuri aristocratice din Italia încă neunificată. Episcopi, scandaluri sexuale în inima Bisericii, romantism incurabil, corupţie, lupta machiavelică pentru putere...
Romanul conferă -în fine!- aura aceea de malancolie istorică, Sthendal neoferind în final nicio morală concretă, prezentând doar faptele din care cititorul conchide ceea ce trebuie.
"TO THE HAPPY FEW!"
February 20, 2022
As I read this book in Spanish, on the early morning bus, fighting sleep, buffeted by both the heating and air conditioning, it took me almost as long to read it than it took Stendhal to write it (52 days, in his case). This is probably not ideal. Some books are to be savored, but others are to be gobbled up; and this book belongs to the latter category. It is uneven, erratic, romantic, rushed, and equal parts tedious and thrilling. There is no character to match Julien Sorel, of The Red and the Black—all of the principal characters being over-determined by their romantic passions—and the political maneuverings and backstage plots were, I thought, repetitive and superfluous.
What carries the book are its great moments—the Battle of Waterloo, the knife fight, and most especially the romance in the castle. If this were written today, it would be confined to “genre fiction” and passed over by the critics; but as this was written by Stendhal, even the snobs can enjoy a gripping, over-the-top love story.
What carries the book are its great moments—the Battle of Waterloo, the knife fight, and most especially the romance in the castle. If this were written today, it would be confined to “genre fiction” and passed over by the critics; but as this was written by Stendhal, even the snobs can enjoy a gripping, over-the-top love story.
December 17, 2016
Not bad until the end where it grows maudlin, alas, and becomes a slog. Worthwhile overall, but The Red and the Black it isn't.
March 2, 2016
Escritores como Balzac, André Gide o Tolstoi consideraron "La cartuja de Parma" de Stendhal una de las mejores novelas de todos los tiempos.
Llego a ella después de haber leído "El rojo y el negro" y "Vanina Vanini" y podría afirmarse que contiene una mezcla de ambas, hipótesis factible si se tienen en cuenta los años de publicación de las tres novelas: "El rojo y el negro" fue publicada en 1830, "Vanina Vanini" en 1829 y "La cartuja de Parma" en 1839. De "El rojo y el negro" tomaría Stendhal el recurso de utilizar las aventuras de un personaje masculino para ofrecer un retrato detallado de la lucha por el poder y la sociedad del lugar donde sitúa la acción. De "Vanina Vanini" aprovecha el uso de las relaciones amorosas de ese personaje principal para exponer en la novela la temática de corte amoroso y la constante estrategia que en este terreno entrañan las decisiones para el protagonista. Aunque se podría objetar que en "El rojo y el negro" este elemento también aparece, en "La cartuja de Parma" los personajes femeninos están mucho más desarrollados, ostentan más protagonismo y son más potentes.
Centrándonos propiamente en "La cartuja de Parma" se trata de una novela que lo tiene todo: en parte bélica, pues emula la batalla de Waterloo; en parte amorosa, describiendo sus relaciones con la duquesa Sanseverina y con Clelia Conti; en parte sociológica, pues se inmiscuye en los ambientes cortesanos de la Italia del XIX, se refiere al poder de la Iglesia, y no olvida las clases sociales bajas, cuando se ocupa de los devaneos de Fabrizio con Marietta, una actriz de una compañía ambulante. El tratamiento del contenido es siempre desde una perspectiva crítica fabricada a través de un humor sutil e inteligente que el lector acostumbrado a Stendhal reconocerá al instante. En esta novela en particular sorprende los apuntes que va realizando el autor sobre el carácter de las gentes de Italia, mucho más apasionado y exagerado, en relación con el de los franceses. Y se aprecia el amor que Stendhal prodigó por este país.
Personalmente quizá la novela me haya superado un poco, por la multiplicidad de tramas y temas que abarca. Así que prefiero "El rojo y el negro" por focalizarse más en Julien Sorel y su sed de ambición.
De todas formas Stendhal aquí es un 5/5.
February 1, 2014
One of the best books I've read. Politics, action, humanism vs.conservatism, passion vs. lack of passion, lovers, rivals, extreme wealth and the values of aristocracy, all the characters with both good and bad actions and ways of thinking. Set in the autocratic monarchy of Parma in Italy between 1815 and 1830.
A fascinating exploration of what motivates people and how they act. The plot is held together by the stories of a brilliant, activist Duchess and her impetuous nephew, but includes many main characters. The author doesn't lead us to sympathize with any of them or choose one to root for--all pay the psychological price for their choices.
Early in the book, the plot turns to a long episode where Fabrizio, the nephew, goes to France, hoping to fight for his hero, Napoleon, who had earlier brought a short period of liberation from the autocracy, the Church, and Austrian influence. On his way, Fabrizio stumbles upon the battle at Waterloo. Stendhal's description of the confusion felt by an individual soldier during a battle is at least as good as Tolstoy's description of the Battle of Borodino in "War and Peace".
Amazing writing.
A fascinating exploration of what motivates people and how they act. The plot is held together by the stories of a brilliant, activist Duchess and her impetuous nephew, but includes many main characters. The author doesn't lead us to sympathize with any of them or choose one to root for--all pay the psychological price for their choices.
Early in the book, the plot turns to a long episode where Fabrizio, the nephew, goes to France, hoping to fight for his hero, Napoleon, who had earlier brought a short period of liberation from the autocracy, the Church, and Austrian influence. On his way, Fabrizio stumbles upon the battle at Waterloo. Stendhal's description of the confusion felt by an individual soldier during a battle is at least as good as Tolstoy's description of the Battle of Borodino in "War and Peace".
Amazing writing.
September 7, 2021
“Pensa più un innamorato a raggiungere la sua amante che non il marito a sorvegliarla.”
Il libro ambientato in Italia e diviso in due parti, racconta le vicende, anche amorose di Fabrizio del Dongo. Il primo libro non mi piaciuto più di tanto, ma il secondo invece mi ha colpito, tra intrighi e la vita di corte, tra fughe e innamoramenti, mi ha fatto vivere l'afflizione del protagonista ma anche il suo amore per Clelia Conti.
Bhe, che dire, nonostante fosse una rilettura (la prima risale alle superiori) lo consiglierei.
Il libro ambientato in Italia e diviso in due parti, racconta le vicende, anche amorose di Fabrizio del Dongo. Il primo libro non mi piaciuto più di tanto, ma il secondo invece mi ha colpito, tra intrighi e la vita di corte, tra fughe e innamoramenti, mi ha fatto vivere l'afflizione del protagonista ma anche il suo amore per Clelia Conti.
Bhe, che dire, nonostante fosse una rilettura (la prima risale alle superiori) lo consiglierei.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 1,140 reviews