“Oh! The opium-sweet attraction of death” (183)!
That’s what brought me to this book, what brought you to this book: the lure of death. We spend our lives trying to escape it, but late at night, when we’re alone in the dark, it beckons in that way that only the Grim Reaper can beckon ~ at once alluring and terrifying.
One of the ways we make peace with death is by making light of it. We make light of the dark thing that awaits us all. We read Gothic novels and watch monster movies. We wait with bated breath for the werewolf to start gobbling people up.
My own taste for the macabre leans towards the mild and I was expecting The Werewolf of Paris to be good campy fun, something of the order of the cult-classic movie “An American Werewolf in London” (1981), but what I got was something even better: a well-written tale set during the Franco-Prussian War that comments as much on religion, science, law, and money as on sex and death.
And where there’s horror, there’s bound to be sex. Sex and death. Eros and Thanatos. Inextricably intertwined. Sophie, the dark beauty loved by the werewolf, muses about death as she lies in bed at night. During the day, she is drawn to Bertrand and his wolfish inviting eyes. And at night she thinks of those eyes as she indulges in Gothic fantasies of coffins, graves, and cemeteries. The love affair that ensues is both erotic and grotesque.
Had Guy Endore only wanted to write a werewolf story with masochistic maidens and grisly graveyard feasts, The Werewolf of Paris would be half its actual length, but in fact it’s much more. The theme of this novel is homo homini lupus ~ man’s inhumanity to man. Literally, man is a wolf to man.
As Aymar travels through a besieged Paris looking for his murderous nephew Bertrand, he observes man’s inhumanity to man wholesale. He witnesses the Paris Commune and its horrific end in the “Bloody Week” and he comes to the conclusion that everyone is a werewolf of sorts.
“Bertrand, it now seemed to Aymar, was but a mild case. What was a werewolf who had killed a couple of prostitutes, who had dug up a few corpses, compared with these bands of tigers slashing at each other with daily increasing ferocity! ‘And there’ll be worse,’ he said, and again he had that marvelous rising of the heart. Instead of thousands, future ages will kill millions. It will go on, the figures will rise and the process will accelerate! Hurrah for the race of werewolves” (264)!
Leading up to this revelation are numerous examples of human wickedness, each act of cruelty and violence leading to the next. The novel begins with a horrid story of Medieval sadism which serves as an origin story for the events that unfold later. Endore’s thesis is that “evil breeds evil.” Thus this original act of cruelty is the cause of subsequent acts of cruelty which branch out from their source eventually encompassing the whole world.
“Evil exists. And evil breeds evil. The horrors and cruelties of history link hands down the ages. One deed engenders another, nay, multiplies itself. One perpetrator of crime infects another. Their kind increases like flies. If nothing resists this plague, it will terminate with the world a seething mass of corruption” (243-244).
This book held numerous surprises for me, the first of which was the quality of the writing. The second was Endore’s treatment of religion and science.
**SPOILERS**
Religion and Science
“Oh, the terrible disgrace, the ignominy of it—possessing a mythical monster in one’s own family, in this age of science and enlightenment” (145)!
In the beginning of the novel, Aymar is firmly opposed to the Church. The fact that his aunt’s young charge Josephine is raped by a priest ~ a true wolf in sheep’s clothing ~ does nothing to improve his opinion of it. But once Bertrand’s condition becomes known to him, he embarks on a study of lycanthropy which forever alters his idea of what is and is not possible in the world.
Later, when he learns that his aunt’s will mandates that he study for the priesthood, he visits a priest who turns out to be a healthy happy man with literary ambitions. The priest speaks of astronomy and architecture and even socialism. This conversation changes Aymar’s opinion of the Church.
When I read the rape scene, I expected the novel to go in an anti-Catholic direction, but it did not. Father Pitamont’s crime is the result of his own “moral disease,” his own evil tendencies, and is no reflection on the Church.
In another conversation Aymar has in relation to his aunt’s will, he speaks with a notary. Aymar brings up the subject of the afterlife and the notary, Le Pelletier, says something that Aymar, in his youth, would probably have said: “Me, I’m a believer in science. I have nothing to do with superstitions. I’m a positivist with Comte” (83).
The atheistic worldview is also treated in this ambitious novel. The Werewolf of Paris is as much a historical novel as a horror novel and the chief example of the cruelty committed by atheists is Endore’s account of the Picpus Affair. The preposterous accusations made against the priests and nuns of the Sacred Heart of Picpus demonstrate that irrationality and fanaticism are as abundant in the secular world as anywhere else.
The persecution begins with a search of the church that turns up items that reveal what appear to paranoid minds as evidence of sexual depravity and murder: The crib from the nun’s Christmas pageant becomes evidence of illicit unions between priests and nuns. Orthopedic leg braces used by the disabled children cared for by the nuns become Inquisitional torture devices. Bodies buried in the churchyard become victims of the church’s Medieval barbarism.
Endore reproduces the interrogation of a priest by the anti-Catholic Raoul Rigault, a conversation so farcical that one wishes it were fiction. Meanwhile crime rages through Paris as the police busy themselves with “the discovery of cadavers in the crypt” (221).
And the most hideous display of cruelty in the name of science over superstition comes from Dr. Dumas, the director of the private mental hospital where Bertrand will spend his final days. Dumas regards lycanthropy as a mental illness and denounces the Medieval Church for burning werewolves even as he viciously abuses his patients and defrauds their relatives.
In a conversation between Aymar and Dumas, Aymar describes the complete reversal of his thought from the atheistic days of his youth: “. . . I have become deeply convinced that man must return to the simple faith of his ancestors, back to what we in our modem sophistication and pride term vulgar superstition” (281).
Meat-Eating
If I was surprised at the vindication of religion and the critique of atheistic science in this novel, I was many times more surprised at its commentary on meat-eating.
The horror of werewolves is not merely that they kill people. It is that they eat people. And worse, they’re people that eat people. At least, they’re people most of the time. Whether they should be considered people while in wolf form is a question not addressed in this book, but I think it is an interesting question nonetheless. If they are not people while in wolf form, then eating people is not cannibalism, but it’s still objectionable to the people being eaten. Surely this is the very thing to make a thinking person think about carnivorism and Endore devotes a chapter to it, a chapter which would make me turn vegetarian if I weren’t already one.
Aymar encounters a group of wealthy entrepreneurs who conceive of a plan to avoid starvation during the famine. He is invited to a dinner with a menu that turns my stomach to even read. But that’s not really fair. Menus with cow, pig, and chicken on them turn my stomach. But I like to imagine that my omnivorous friends would likewise feel nauseated by such dishes as “Skewer roast of dog’s liver, à la maître d’hôtel; and Minced back of cat, with mayonnaise sauce” (167).
Mayonnaise ~ blech! Okay, that one’s just me. (Me and the worldwide membership of the “I Hate Mayonnaise Club.”) But dog and cat, mouse and rat, horse and raccoon! These are not animals people are accustomed to eat. Seeing them on the menu must, I imagine, arouse as much disgust in the average non-vegetarian as it does in vegetarians. And this should be food for thought. If it is horrible to eat a dog, is it not equally horrible to eat a pig? Why are cows on the menu and not horses and cats?
The vegetarian sees death where the omnivore sees only dinner. But can anyone still eat a leg of lamb or a chicken breast and not see a dismembered corpse after following the werewolf on his nightly dinner-run in the cemetery?
There’s a footnote in this chapter which is so sad, so heart-rending, that it must surely bring tears to the eyes of everyone who reads it, even those who blithely wolfed down their ham sandwiches during my not-so-subtle attempt to convert them to a plant-based diet. It concerns two beloved elephants who lived in the zoo. They were sold to a butcher who catered to the wealthy.
“The two elephants, facing their doom, were nonplussed. Having been subjected to nothing but kindness all their lives, they could not suspect anything but kindness in the motives and actions of those who now led them into the slaughterhouse” (170).
The elephants couldn’t have been more wrong in their assessment of human beings.
To make matters worse, the first attempt to kill one of the gentle giants by smashing his head with a wooden mallet only succeeds in bloodying his head, but doesn’t kill him.
“He looked puzzled for a moment, but only for a moment, and then he regained his lifelong assurance that only caresses and food emanated from the two-legged animal. Eventually a sharpshooter was employed to kill the brutes with well-placed bullets” (170).
This footnote affected me more profoundly than anything else in the novel. Human beings should be what these elephants thought we were. But the reality of our species is nothing like that. Homo homini lupus. Man is a wolf to man. And to elephants. And to every other creature on Earth.
It is no coincidence that, walking past a butcher shop one day, Aymar sees the butcher and thinks he is Father Pitamont, the priest who raped Josephine and sired Bertrand. What could be more apropos? A brutal profession for a brutal man. He perverted the act of love by making it an act of violence and now, instead of leading his flock to eternal life, he leads innocent beasts to their deaths. The blood he sheds is a hideous parody of the blood of Christ.
Law and Money
But wait ~ the ugliness is not over yet. I’ve barely scratched the surface. This is homo sapiens we’re talking about here.
With Bertrand prowling the night, desecrating graves, and killing people, someone’s got to take the heat. One of those unfortunates is Jean Robert. When Robert stands before a judge accused of violation of sepulture, he is baited and bamboozled until it’s a wonder he knows his own name. The scene would be comic if it were not so cruel.
The law, as practiced by this judge, is a twisted thing designed to confound the average man with mind games and circular reasoning. Robert does not need to he held in jail awaiting his trial. He appeals to the judge, saying he has to work to support his family, to which the judge replies: “The law punishes crime, it does not reward innocence” (158).
Elsewhere people seek out ways to circumvent the law. In working out the details of his late aunt’s will, Aymar is advised by the notary how to circumvent the stipulation that he enter the priesthood. Then he is advised by the priest how to circumvent the prohibition on disabled priests. He observes with chagrin that “ . . . there was something a little more than coincidental in this priest telling him how to get around the law of the Church, a few days after the notary had told him how to get around the law of the State. Living and dead, sacred and profane, all were amenable to money and guile” (86).
Money cannot fail to make its appearance in this story which features so many avenues of human corruption. For the wealthy, war is an opportunity to become even more wealthy. For the poor, it is merely an opportunity to suffer stoically. Dr. Dumas, charged with the care of vulnerable mental patients, sees them, not as human beings to be treated with compassion and dignity, but as a source of francs to line his pockets. And he is ever ready to swindle their families to increase his own wealth. Even the Madame of a house of prostitution is concerned, not with the well-being of the prostitute Bertrand mutilated, but with how much money she can extort from his uncle.
Sex and Death
With all the surprises this book held for me, was I surprised by any of the sex and death? Naturally I expected sex and death in a book about a werewolf. I hoped not to be surprised by too much violence and I doubted that a book published in 1933 could surprise me with sex, but I ended up being surprised by both.
With the violence, the death, I was surprised, not by the werewolf himself, but by nearly everyone else. I knew next to nothing about the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune when I started reading this book, so it was with true horror that I read about the atrocities committed by men and women against their fellow human beings.
With the sex, I was far more surprised than I thought I could be. Promiscuity and prostitution are one thing, but rape and incest are quite another. Bertrand is the offspring of his mother’s rape by a priest. Later, in a moment of weakness, Bertrand will seduce his mother and she will conceive. Thus does he fulfill Aymar’s warning that “evil breeds evil.” Bertrand literally engenders evil.
But the greatest shock for me concerned his romance with Sophie. Sophie’s conception was as unusual as Bertrand’s, though it was nearly an opposite experience. Sophie’s mother, adverse to sexual intercourse, gave herself only once to her husband and she only gave herself to him because they thought they were about to die in a shipwreck. Sophie’s sentimental father muses on the wonder of life conceived at the very moment when death seemed imminent.
With two such unusual origins, the union of Bertrand and Sophie was bound to be a strange one. What surprised me the most was the parody their union made of love, and not just romantic love, but maternal love and Christian love as well.
Sophie and Bertrand’s love affair is one of death rather than sex. He is gradually killing her by drinking her blood. In a parody of sexual penetration, a knife, supplied by Sophie herself, becomes a phallic symbol. To Sophie, who fantasizes about a double suicide, this is romantic, but there is nothing romantic about it. There is no beauty, only ugliness.
“He uncovered her. There was scarcely a portion of her body that had not one or more cuts on it. The older ones had healed to scars that traversed her dark skin with lines that were visibly lighter than the surrounding area. The newer ones were angry welts of red, or hard ridges of scab. In the candlelight the latter were like old jewelry or polished tortoiseshell” (231).
Bertrand drinking blood from Sophie’s wounds is also a parody of a mother suckling her child. “She grew heavy, sultry with blood, like a nursing mother with milk” (236). As he drinks, he makes “ugly sucking noises” (231). She plays with his hair and murmurs: “Poor little baby” (231). It is Sophie who insists that Bertrand feed from her. She takes on the protective maternal role, giving herself to Bertrand as a mother gives herself to her child
Finally, there is the parody of Christian love, of agape. The men in the canteen lust for Sophie and she, in her love for Bertrand, loves them all. She loves all of mankind and wants to give herself to all of mankind—literally, not metaphorically.
“At the moment she would have been capable of giving herself to . . . everyone who might have needed her. To the whole battalion that looked at her with lusting, hungry eyes. All those bearded and unshaven faces that wanted the smoothness of her cheeks. All those hard arms that craved to crush her soft body. All those calloused, dirty hands that wanted to touch her with intimate caresses.
And all that love for the whole male world, that welled up in her, rose and bunched itself into her lips” (233).
Each type of love is perverted into a horrid travesty of itself.
**END OF SPOILERS**
Had I known that The Werewolf of Paris was very much a historical novel, I might not have read it. So I’m glad I did not know. This book has given me a lot to think about and the werewolf is the least of it. As a werewolf novel, it is thoroughly satisfying, but as a historical novel, a philosophical novel, and a social commentary it is more than satisfying. It is edifying. If I had to sum it all up in one sentence I would say it has de-romanticized death. And that is a good thing.
Sophie’s adolescent musings about death are fit only for midnight reveries. In reality, death is not beautiful. This novel overflows with death and not one of them is beautiful. War is ugly. Violence and bloodshed are ugly. The werewolf is superfluous in a world of man’s inhumanity to man. But there is one thing that the werewolf, and perhaps only the werewolf, can do: he can show us our true nature, our wolfishness, our innate tendency to turn on our fellows with our teeth bared and our claws extended. What we do with this revelation is up to us.