book is ostensibly an effort to establishnthe person and the literary persona ofnGustave Flaubert, its real purpose is tonplead the case for the immanence of language.nSartre is not so much in search ofnFlaubert as for something in the life orncareer of Flaubert that would allow Sartrento resolve his own philosophical conundrums.nLike many modern literaryncritics, Sartre is an aficionado of then”springboard technique”: he no longernreally discusses the author or his work,nalthough the project is undertaken in hisnname.nThe question of language is explicitlynthe subject of the first chapter, entitledn”A Problem,” and implicitly that of thenfollowing six chapters. We are treated tonSartre’s exhaustive analysis of the variousnrelationships of the Flaubert family—allnblithely reconstituted more than a centurynafter the fact. In the second chapter,n”The Father,” Sartre recounts AchiUenFlaubert’s meteoric rise from peasant tonthe most esteemed surgeon in Rouen, hisnbrilliance, his pride and the rigid waynthat he demanded that the entire familynimitate and serve him. Next, the reader isnintroduced to the mother, nee CarolinenFleuriot, who had been an orphan sincenthe age often. Sartre informs us that shenwas slavishly devoted to her husbandnwhom she saw as a father figure and whondemanded utter submission and obedience.nAccording to Sartre, when Gustavenwas slow to learn his letters AchiUenblamed his wife, and she, in turn,nblamed the boy for being the source ofnher husband’s displeasure. The fourthnchapter discusses Gustave’s oldernbrother, AchiUe, their father’s namesakenand imitator. Achille, unlike his youngernbrother, was a brilliant student and anrespected surgeon, his father’s alter ego,nthrough whose existence he was assurednof immortality. It was Achille, rathernthan more experienced colleagues ofnDoctor Flaubert senior, who operated onnhim when a growth was discovered.nDoing some fancy Freudian footworknwith the theories of reciprocity and sublimation,nSartre concludes that, becausenof the symbiotic relationship betweenn18inChronicles of Culturenfather and son, the father operates onnhimself. I, for one, find this assertionnvery interesting; it seems to me that Sartrenis doing the same thing with this bookn—supposedly dedicated to Flaubert. Inneffect, Sartre operates on Flaubert in annattempt to heal Sartre.nIn the last chapter Sartre returns to thenquestion of language and literature, thisntime under the guise of a discussion ofnthe two opposing ideologies which werenopen to Flaubert. He maintains thatnFlaubert’s choice was between faith,nwhich came from his mother, and scientism,nwhich came from his father. Flaubert,nunfortunately, was unable tonbelieve in either and vented his skepticismnin his novels. Concerning this conflict,nSartre observes:nGustave was not content just to livenhis unhappy condition as youngernson; he had to ponder it. By this I donPassions in BritainnIt seems that we may have been toonquick to write off England as a societynwhere red-blooded passion, so neccs.sarynfor sustaining a robust sense of living, hasnevaporated from human souls and deeds.nDuring this century Britain—once thenenvironment where Lady MacBeth, SirnFrancis Drake, Henry Morgan, and LordnByron imbibed the taste of violence withntheir mothers’ milk—has acquired annimage of a land of idyllic apathy where nonone transcends the paradigms of phlegmaticncourteousness, and war, like barbarianism,nis relegated to the forgottennannals. The Faulkland incident made thennnnot mean either that he understoodnit objectively or that he made antheory out of it; I mean simply thatnhe believed he was clarifying it byndiscourse—when on the contrary henwas obscuring and mythifying it.nI would level a .similar accusation atnSartre: I think that he does understandnhis unhappy condition, i.e. his inabilitynto accept language as a nonabsolute, andnthat in trying to clarify the question innThe Family Idiot he comes up with antheory which, rather than elucidating thenproblem, obscures and mythifies it.nDespite its plethora of detail and abundancenof fact, The Family Idiot is in nonway a biography. In fact, the whole text isnso interspersed with psychoanalytic analysis,nlinguistic animadversions, andphUosophicalnconjectures that the reader canneasily forget the ostensible subject:nFlaubert. Dnfirst dent in that cherished image. Nowncomes news of geriatric crime that is apparentlynflourishing in the bucolic cottagesnof Devon. Here is what Home Officenhas to say on the .subject:nCertainly some of the most violentnmurders with hammers and things Inhave seen have involved old people inntheir 70’s and 80’s.nOne man of 85 killed his wife becausenshe was having an affair with thenyoung man next door, who was 69.nHchit her 37 times in the head with anhammer.nThere will always be an England. Lln