Henry James does a considerable amount of analyzing Parisians in his essay “Occasional Paris”. He raises so many questions about the people that it leads one to wonder if there is a mystery of Paris. Parisians seem to have a certain ambiguity about them that James at least believes to be a quality that may solely belong to them. For example, they are a people widely known for their intellectual heights, yet they do not seem to show it. Meaning that they do not dress in a way that demonstrates sophistication by English standards. Their style of clothing- described as “bohemian” is not what Englishmen of this time, such as James recognized as an indication of cleverness. He nevertheless experiences a level of academia from Parisians as a whole that he finds impressive.
The puzzlement that is the Parisian continues in their choice of character to support in a play that is made up of disreputable people. In Demi-Monde is the struggle of a woman called Suzanne d’Ange who is “guilty of what the French call faults.” To combat the poor reputation she has inevitably made for herself by being such a woman d’Ange she must marry an upstanding man. Her only hopes for a better life in the unforgiving and sexist 19th century of France. She eventually gains the love of such a man, one Nanjac, only for the jealousy of a former lover, named de Jalin to undermine her progress with this decent gentleman who legitimately loves her. In the end de Jalin lies and to Nanjac about d’Ange. She has no choice, but to reveal herself to Nanjac who consequently leaves her. de Jalin wins and James points out that an American audience’s sympathies would lie with Ms. Suzanne. That an American audience is “more moral” than a French audience, implying that the French would be pleased by de Jalin’s victory. This would place them in direct oppositions to Americans who James predicts would see him as a “coward” who should “let the poor girl alone.”
This gives the French an interesting complexity. They are both smarter and more accepting of what western audiences would deem unfair. They are unforgiving. Either this, or they do not accept what is put in front of them, able to avoid the obvious with the help of their percipient minds. They might be able to see the pain that fuels his decisions. He is a man who was involved with a woman that is now on the verge of marrying a dear friend. Either he believes that he is actually helping Nanjac, or he sees this an opportunity. Whether the French view the disrepair of a life is justified comeuppance or overstep of entitlement, their perspective on de Jarin may be deeper than what an American would credit them for at first glance.
The French’s blatant show of affection amongst each other is another sample of progressed intellect. Most people in America especially have a hard time showing affection for one another, even between family members. To be able to express fondness for a person without awkwardness or stiffness shows a level of maturity and confidence in oneself is an act that can only be done by a sensible person.
The mystery of Paris is most likely a contribution of a myriad of factors, with these reasons being a small number of them. The mystery of Paris is everything about the place from delicious, yet somehow fairly priced baguettes to the aura of the city. It is the inexplicable and the over-explained possibly a quality belonging to Paris alone.
Actually, by the show of affection I take it you mean the habit of kissing hello and goodbye. (Or maybe you mean physical affection in public.) But the missed-kiss of Parisian manners seems to encompass both affection and the distance created by formal rituals. There are a lot of verbal rituals along these lines as well. Both the essay and the story by James discuss drama, and James was endlessly frustrated by his own failure as a playwright. The French response to the play (as James predicts it) might indicate an acceptance of the human experience with its painful or unfair aspects, while an American would be more likely to focus on how things should be. Both James's style and his comments on the elusiveness of Paris are reflections of his skepticism about whether anything can be known. One thing I would add relates to the consistency of Paris, the fact that Paris, although it contains so many foreigners, is a place with a distinct national identity. It is also physically very consistent, with a characteristic architecture and design. As in "The Velvet Glove," it inspires illusions in outsiders.
ReplyDelete