What do you think?
Rate this book
Lélia
George Sand, Pseudonyme d‘Amantine Aurore Lucile Dupin, baronne Dudevant, est une romancière, dramaturge, épistolière, critique littéraire et journaliste française, née à Paris le 1er juillet 1804 et morte au château de Nohant-Vic le 8juin 1876. Elle compte parmi les écrivains les plus prolifiques, avec plus de 70 romans à son actif et 50 volumes d‘oeuvres diverses dont des nouvelles, des contes, des pièces de théâtre et des textes politiques. À l‘image de son arrière-grand-mère, qu‘elle admire, Madame Dupin (Louise de Fontaine 1706-1799), George Sand prend la défense des femmes, prône la passion, fustige le mariage et lutte contre les préjugés d‘une société conservatrice. George Sand a fait scandale pas sa vie amoureuse agitée, par sa tenue vestimentaire masculine, dont elle a lancé la mode, par son pseudonyme masculin, qu‘elle adopte dès 1829, et dont elle lance aussi la mode.
290 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1833
52 people are currently reading
1076 people want to read
About the author
George Sand
2,894 books926 followersAmantine Lucile Aurore Dupin de Francueil, best known by her pen name George Sand, was a French novelist, memoirist and journalist. One of the most popular writers in Europe in her lifetime, being more renowned than either Victor Hugo or Honoré de Balzac in England in the 1830s and 1840s, Sand is recognised as one of the most notable writers of the European Romantic era. She wrote more than 50 volumes of various works to her credit, including tales, plays and political texts, alongside her 70 novels.
Like her great-grandmother, Louise Dupin, whom she admired, George Sand advocated for women's rights and passion, criticized the institution of marriage, and fought against the prejudices of a conservative society. She was considered scandalous because of her turbulent love life, her adoption of masculine clothing, and her masculine pseudonym.
Like her great-grandmother, Louise Dupin, whom she admired, George Sand advocated for women's rights and passion, criticized the institution of marriage, and fought against the prejudices of a conservative society. She was considered scandalous because of her turbulent love life, her adoption of masculine clothing, and her masculine pseudonym.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
July 3, 2022
“Qui es-tu? et pourquoi ton amour fait-il tant de mal?”
After reading George Elliot, it was time to read the other George, her French counterpart, George Sand. This book was mentioned in the foreword to Middlemarch as it was published in 1833,* roughly the same time period as Middlemarch (1834 and the Reform Bill). The two books are completely different but ask the same question, “why does love hurt so much?”
Lélia is a complicated woman. Or shall I say George Sand (Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin is her real name, 1804-1876)?
Lélia is an older woman who suffered falling for Trenmor, an older “stoic”man, who did not return the love. He sought a platonic relationship. Then came Magnus, a renegade priest who fell for her but she rejected him. Then she caught cholera and on her sick bed, realized neither religious men could help her, and after recovering, began to resist love, god and religion (becoming an atheist like Sand). Hélas!
Enter in Sténio, a young poet who was in love with Lélia. He picked the wrong time as he was too young, too immature, and too jealous of her other loves while she was too jaded. So she gave him a month marching orders.
During his absence, Lélia decided to travel to Italy to visit prince Bambucci. While there she meets a famous courtesan, Zinzolina and her sister Pulchérie. Lamenting her fate with men, god and life, Pulchérie advises her to try sexual love to find happiness. Sex can be her religion. Quelle modernite!
Our young poet can’t resist his love for Lélia and shows up unexpected. She is furious and through Pulchérie, who pretends to be Lélia, she pays him back. Distraught, angered and plain miffed, he packs up and heads into real depression.
Trenmor suggests that Sténio join a monastery, to assuage his anger, only to discover Magnus is also there. Magnus maintains that he still loves Lélia. Things couldn’t get worse for the poor poet.
George Sand wanted to write a metaphysical novel, using part of her own life as a background for this story. Moral? Hmm. Love hurts? Men can have love affairs, so why not women? However, we must remember that often love can change, fade, become disillusioned and down right bad. This is where I started. Maybe it just comes down to human pride? Winner does not take all.
Is Lélia the problem? Is she really that frigid, as some say she is? She was burned so we must give her that history. Sténio is too young. Trenmor is too spiritual, too aloof. Magnus is too deceitful, not to mention what about that vow of chastity? Is Pulchérie right, just enjoy sex and don’t get too involved? And where do we put God? Best not to go there.
In Middlemarch, there were a lot of characters that interact while in Lélia, there are only a handful. Religion takes part in both books, as do manners and customs. One could say the French are more liberal than the English. Sex is not mentioned at all in Middlemarch. Maybe that’s not a bad thing in light of this book.
Love plays a big part in both books. In Middlemarch, love is under the radar (or at least downplayed) while in Lélia, love is present, even though the main character Lélia is trying to reject it. Dorothea doesn’t seem to know her place, although a great many seem to want to put her in her place, while Lélia has purposely chosen her cynical view against god and life, while others try to correct her. Sadly, it’s too late.
So you can see George Elliot, who probably did read George Sand, wrote a different kind of book. We must keep in mind that Elliot wrote later in the Victorian period while Sand, wrote in the earlier romantic period.
Sand called the book, “un essai poétique, un roman fantasque.” It was an analysis of customs but not completely allegorical. Epicureanism and spiritualism are the mainstays as Sand delved into 19th century philosophy. It shows. The book is very erudite and at times, very deep. Conversations turn into philosophical treatises. That can be both very good and bad. At times, a little too much. She states her case but will we buy it?
Love and sex are always welcome in literature. How can one go wrong here?
3.5 rating
*In 1839, after Sand (and Chopin) spent the winter in Mallorca,** she rewrote parts of Lélia and republished the book. In my 1960 edition, the editor P. Reboul added in the changed parts of the story.
Sand developed Trenmor, Sténio became a Don Juan character and Lélia joins a convent and becomes an abbess. The ending was changed plus more of the focus more on the philosophical aspect (and I thought the first book was deep, this was was much deeper). I guess Sand couldn’t resist reinforcing her views. Personally I liked the first version better although there is some very good writing in the second edition.
**I read and have also reviewed “Un hiver en Majorque.”
After reading George Elliot, it was time to read the other George, her French counterpart, George Sand. This book was mentioned in the foreword to Middlemarch as it was published in 1833,* roughly the same time period as Middlemarch (1834 and the Reform Bill). The two books are completely different but ask the same question, “why does love hurt so much?”
Lélia is a complicated woman. Or shall I say George Sand (Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin is her real name, 1804-1876)?
Lélia is an older woman who suffered falling for Trenmor, an older “stoic”man, who did not return the love. He sought a platonic relationship. Then came Magnus, a renegade priest who fell for her but she rejected him. Then she caught cholera and on her sick bed, realized neither religious men could help her, and after recovering, began to resist love, god and religion (becoming an atheist like Sand). Hélas!
Enter in Sténio, a young poet who was in love with Lélia. He picked the wrong time as he was too young, too immature, and too jealous of her other loves while she was too jaded. So she gave him a month marching orders.
During his absence, Lélia decided to travel to Italy to visit prince Bambucci. While there she meets a famous courtesan, Zinzolina and her sister Pulchérie. Lamenting her fate with men, god and life, Pulchérie advises her to try sexual love to find happiness. Sex can be her religion. Quelle modernite!
Our young poet can’t resist his love for Lélia and shows up unexpected. She is furious and through Pulchérie, who pretends to be Lélia, she pays him back. Distraught, angered and plain miffed, he packs up and heads into real depression.
Trenmor suggests that Sténio join a monastery, to assuage his anger, only to discover Magnus is also there. Magnus maintains that he still loves Lélia. Things couldn’t get worse for the poor poet.
George Sand wanted to write a metaphysical novel, using part of her own life as a background for this story. Moral? Hmm. Love hurts? Men can have love affairs, so why not women? However, we must remember that often love can change, fade, become disillusioned and down right bad. This is where I started. Maybe it just comes down to human pride? Winner does not take all.
Is Lélia the problem? Is she really that frigid, as some say she is? She was burned so we must give her that history. Sténio is too young. Trenmor is too spiritual, too aloof. Magnus is too deceitful, not to mention what about that vow of chastity? Is Pulchérie right, just enjoy sex and don’t get too involved? And where do we put God? Best not to go there.
In Middlemarch, there were a lot of characters that interact while in Lélia, there are only a handful. Religion takes part in both books, as do manners and customs. One could say the French are more liberal than the English. Sex is not mentioned at all in Middlemarch. Maybe that’s not a bad thing in light of this book.
Love plays a big part in both books. In Middlemarch, love is under the radar (or at least downplayed) while in Lélia, love is present, even though the main character Lélia is trying to reject it. Dorothea doesn’t seem to know her place, although a great many seem to want to put her in her place, while Lélia has purposely chosen her cynical view against god and life, while others try to correct her. Sadly, it’s too late.
So you can see George Elliot, who probably did read George Sand, wrote a different kind of book. We must keep in mind that Elliot wrote later in the Victorian period while Sand, wrote in the earlier romantic period.
Sand called the book, “un essai poétique, un roman fantasque.” It was an analysis of customs but not completely allegorical. Epicureanism and spiritualism are the mainstays as Sand delved into 19th century philosophy. It shows. The book is very erudite and at times, very deep. Conversations turn into philosophical treatises. That can be both very good and bad. At times, a little too much. She states her case but will we buy it?
Love and sex are always welcome in literature. How can one go wrong here?
3.5 rating
*In 1839, after Sand (and Chopin) spent the winter in Mallorca,** she rewrote parts of Lélia and republished the book. In my 1960 edition, the editor P. Reboul added in the changed parts of the story.
Sand developed Trenmor, Sténio became a Don Juan character and Lélia joins a convent and becomes an abbess. The ending was changed plus more of the focus more on the philosophical aspect (and I thought the first book was deep, this was was much deeper). I guess Sand couldn’t resist reinforcing her views. Personally I liked the first version better although there is some very good writing in the second edition.
**I read and have also reviewed “Un hiver en Majorque.”
July 18, 2011
It's a very long time since I have read this in my youth and was just reminded of it by something else and so just adding it now.. Before bra burning and Germaine Greer there was George Sand. She was a major influence on the way I thought about equality generally and to think that she was from the 1800's inspired me to believe many impossible things were inf act possible. I particularly liked her relationship with Flaubert and their equal meeting of minds. I very much recommend her autobiography (expunged) and also the one by Andre Maurois.
August 2, 2016
Ok - first of all, I read this a) because I have wanted to fill in the gap in my Sand reading for a while, and b) because I intend to assign this to students in a Sand seminar I will teach next Fall. So, I read Lelia in a rather amazingly well researched edition, in the Garnier-Flammarion edition prepared by Pierre Reboul, who seems to have ready EVERY novel of late 18th and early 19th century that might have influenced Sand. His text shows the extent to which Sand seems to owe her ideas to everyone else, but whatever the influences, what is essential, I think, is to understand that in 1833, only two-three years since she first started publishing, Sand felt a need to create a major philosophical novel, perhaps to place herself in the same company as Balzac (and maybe Stendhal). Whether she succeeds or not is a topic for critical appraisal, but despite my dissatisfaction and admitted cluelessness in the early parts of the novel, once I got past part III, I was drawn into the BIG IDEAS that each of the characters seem to embody. That Sand felt compelled in 1838 to create a revised edition of this novel, with significantly different moral import and plot revisions, shows how much weight she gave to this novel.
July 2, 2009
Sand published two different versions of her controversial Lélia, a bold statement for its time on a young woman's bewilderment regarding how society's expectations of her as well as her own confused sexual desires were hindering and frustrating her search for self. The first Lélia, which appeared in 1833, is a shorter, less developed story than the 1839 version. In the earlier publication, the conflicts are the same, but the ending is more violent (the title heroine is strangled to death by a crazed priest rather than dying the more natural death of the later novel), and the entire episode of Lélia's epiphany about the possibilities for feminist solidarity within a feminine cloister is absent. At the time Sand revised Lélia, she had felt victimized by several unhappy love affairs since her 1833 writing of the novel. These included the infamous Venice stay with Alfred de Musset and the subsequent fling with his Italian physician as well as the ill-fated relationships with Prosper Merimée and attorney Michel de Bourges. The revising of Lélia coincided with Sand's growing attachment to Frédérick Chopin, (which through ultimately temporary, would blossom one of the longest and most romantic and most satisfying relationships of her lifetime).
By 1839, then, with the revised version of Lélia, Sand began to give the idea of the heroine's escape to the convent a different and more positive dimension than it had carried since Madame de Lafayette's 1678 La Princesse de Cleves. The change, however, was a slow, step-by-step process. To Lélia, the convent was, first and foremost, a place of escape from what she felt was the certitude of a disastrous union with the passionate, but mentally unbalanced, Sténio. Therefore, her reasons for entering the convent are fundamentally the same as those of the Princesse de Clèves and Thérèse in Madame de Staël's 1802 Delphine—each of whom had lost hope of ever finding a happy love relationship with a man, and preferred to protect herself emotionally by removing herself from a society that favored men and their caprices and punished women for their romantic feelings and hopes.
Sand, however, was to take the idea of escape via the convent to much more extensive feminist ends than did either Lafayette or Staël. In the novel, when Lélia and Sténio part, and the latter sinks into degradation, the 1833 and 1839 versions take different plot turns. The latter tome becomes more a crusaders' bible for social reform than a Romantic novel as Lélia becomes less the sentimental heroine and more the spokeswoman for progress and equality for her sex. As mentioned earlier, the Lélia of the 1839 edition eventually finds peace by becoming a nun, and later is named abbesse of the Camadules. She explains to the Monseigneur Annibal why her view of life—so incompatible with society—made her decide to choose convent life.
Lélia clearly sees her own view of love as being too impossibly ahead of her time for her to find any happiness in the fullness of society. Therefore, she knows she cannot find happiness in marriage as it exists in her day. “L’hyménée tel que je le conçois, tel que je l‘eusse exigé, n’étais pas encore sur la terre. J’ai dû me retirer au desert et attendre que les desseins de Dieu fussent arrivés à leur maturité (2:95, my italics).
As Lélia had already seen the dreaded example of her sister Pulchérie—a gifted person who fell into vice for having dared to pursue her dream of sexual self-fulfillment—Lélia chose the opposite path—that of cloistered celibacy. She sees the retreat to the convent as an example other women in her position will imitate, and envisions the convent becoming a haven not only for fallen or ruined women, but also for an elite group of virgins and widows who need to build strength and dignity into their lives.
Lélia’s language about the positive promise of convent life is surprisingly unsentimental and sociological: [Le cloître:] a une mission encore, c'est de donner une éducation pieuse à un plus grand nombre, sans les enchaîner à jamais. Là, il me semble qu'elles devraient recevoir de tels enseignments qu'elles ne les missent jamais en oubli, et qu'elles pussent y puiser la force et la dignité dont elles auront besoin dans le cours de la vie (2:96).
As abbesse, Lélia hoped to unite women and teach them to beware of perfidious men and pleasures that were less than those of ideal love, and to mistrust society’s claim that they could attain happy marriages in the modern world, for this is false. “On parle trop [aux femmes:] d’un bonheur possible sanctionée par la société; on les trompe! On leur fait accroire qu’à force de soumission et de dévoûement elles obtiendront de leur époux une réciprocité d’amour et de fidélité; on les abuse!” (2:97).
Lélia later describes the peace and ecstasy she has found in her solitude at the convent. In the meantime, far away in her elegant boudoir, Lélia’s sister, the courtesan Pulchérie, lies troubled and bewildered beside a young lover, wondering why she cannot feel any peace, and wishing show could escape her life of vice.
Later, when Sténio finds Lélia at the abbey and urges her to leave with him, the young nun insists on staying the in the cloister, and explains to him that the rules of their society that denigrate women’s interests and ambitions would render impossible any happiness the two might seek together.
Since Lélia has no faith that her society will permit a man and a woman to have a union that is an equal partnership, she sees her personal essence being virtually annihilated as it is engulfed by male existence. “Il faut donc que l’existence de la femme disparaisse, absorbée par celle de l’homme; et moi, je voulais exister” (2:136, my italics).
Lélia, then, chose the isolation of the convent because, even though it precluded life with the man she loved, she found it preferable to the self-obliteration she was sure she would experience as lover or wife. Also, in an avant-garde dimension that goes well beyond the vision of the Princesse de Clèves, Lélia sees the convent as a veritable university where women are not only protected from the sorrows of life, but also instructed in its intellectual and artistic side, and ushered into self-actualization and inner peace.
By 1839, then, with the revised version of Lélia, Sand began to give the idea of the heroine's escape to the convent a different and more positive dimension than it had carried since Madame de Lafayette's 1678 La Princesse de Cleves. The change, however, was a slow, step-by-step process. To Lélia, the convent was, first and foremost, a place of escape from what she felt was the certitude of a disastrous union with the passionate, but mentally unbalanced, Sténio. Therefore, her reasons for entering the convent are fundamentally the same as those of the Princesse de Clèves and Thérèse in Madame de Staël's 1802 Delphine—each of whom had lost hope of ever finding a happy love relationship with a man, and preferred to protect herself emotionally by removing herself from a society that favored men and their caprices and punished women for their romantic feelings and hopes.
Sand, however, was to take the idea of escape via the convent to much more extensive feminist ends than did either Lafayette or Staël. In the novel, when Lélia and Sténio part, and the latter sinks into degradation, the 1833 and 1839 versions take different plot turns. The latter tome becomes more a crusaders' bible for social reform than a Romantic novel as Lélia becomes less the sentimental heroine and more the spokeswoman for progress and equality for her sex. As mentioned earlier, the Lélia of the 1839 edition eventually finds peace by becoming a nun, and later is named abbesse of the Camadules. She explains to the Monseigneur Annibal why her view of life—so incompatible with society—made her decide to choose convent life.
Lélia clearly sees her own view of love as being too impossibly ahead of her time for her to find any happiness in the fullness of society. Therefore, she knows she cannot find happiness in marriage as it exists in her day. “L’hyménée tel que je le conçois, tel que je l‘eusse exigé, n’étais pas encore sur la terre. J’ai dû me retirer au desert et attendre que les desseins de Dieu fussent arrivés à leur maturité (2:95, my italics).
As Lélia had already seen the dreaded example of her sister Pulchérie—a gifted person who fell into vice for having dared to pursue her dream of sexual self-fulfillment—Lélia chose the opposite path—that of cloistered celibacy. She sees the retreat to the convent as an example other women in her position will imitate, and envisions the convent becoming a haven not only for fallen or ruined women, but also for an elite group of virgins and widows who need to build strength and dignity into their lives.
Lélia’s language about the positive promise of convent life is surprisingly unsentimental and sociological: [Le cloître:] a une mission encore, c'est de donner une éducation pieuse à un plus grand nombre, sans les enchaîner à jamais. Là, il me semble qu'elles devraient recevoir de tels enseignments qu'elles ne les missent jamais en oubli, et qu'elles pussent y puiser la force et la dignité dont elles auront besoin dans le cours de la vie (2:96).
As abbesse, Lélia hoped to unite women and teach them to beware of perfidious men and pleasures that were less than those of ideal love, and to mistrust society’s claim that they could attain happy marriages in the modern world, for this is false. “On parle trop [aux femmes:] d’un bonheur possible sanctionée par la société; on les trompe! On leur fait accroire qu’à force de soumission et de dévoûement elles obtiendront de leur époux une réciprocité d’amour et de fidélité; on les abuse!” (2:97).
Lélia later describes the peace and ecstasy she has found in her solitude at the convent. In the meantime, far away in her elegant boudoir, Lélia’s sister, the courtesan Pulchérie, lies troubled and bewildered beside a young lover, wondering why she cannot feel any peace, and wishing show could escape her life of vice.
Later, when Sténio finds Lélia at the abbey and urges her to leave with him, the young nun insists on staying the in the cloister, and explains to him that the rules of their society that denigrate women’s interests and ambitions would render impossible any happiness the two might seek together.
Since Lélia has no faith that her society will permit a man and a woman to have a union that is an equal partnership, she sees her personal essence being virtually annihilated as it is engulfed by male existence. “Il faut donc que l’existence de la femme disparaisse, absorbée par celle de l’homme; et moi, je voulais exister” (2:136, my italics).
Lélia, then, chose the isolation of the convent because, even though it precluded life with the man she loved, she found it preferable to the self-obliteration she was sure she would experience as lover or wife. Also, in an avant-garde dimension that goes well beyond the vision of the Princesse de Clèves, Lélia sees the convent as a veritable university where women are not only protected from the sorrows of life, but also instructed in its intellectual and artistic side, and ushered into self-actualization and inner peace.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 14, 2021
To be honest I was hoping the lesbian incest angle would be explored a little further, but one can't have everything
January 6, 2016
Maybe I missed the point of this book, but I couldn't appreciate it. "Lelia" is not really a novel: the characters are more symbolic/allegorical than realistic and there is barely a plot. Instead, the book is comprised of various long, disjointed "essays" and dramatic monologues that the characters speak. While I appreciate some of Sand's writing (there are a few gorgeous descriptions, especially of natural scenery), overall "Lelia" dragged on and on and I find myself hard-pressed to see the point. Lelia herself is hard to like. While I felt sorry for the way she is consumed by self-hatred, I found her lack of hope for humanity and utter disdain for everything (literally everything) as a symbol of the doomed nature of the human race extremely annoying. Maybe this is an unsophisticated point of view, but much of this novel read like the diary of an angsty teenager who thinks no one understands him/her. When Stenio takes her to a beautiful mountain valley, her response is to complain about how the valley is actually further reason to believe that humans are terrible. She thinks that nature can never be beautiful because if any person were to stay in it, he or she would ultimately try to force the landscape to conform to his or her wishes. While an interesting thought, she seemed needlessly sulky and emo in this scene as in most of the novel. And don't even get me started on Stenio-- all he does for the whole book is moan about how he will (literally) die if Lelia doesn't love him the way he wants her to. To her credit, Sand portrays the ways in which men often read their fantasies onto "ideal" women, rather than see the woman as who she truly is-- a human being. I can appreciate Sand's portrayal of a complex female character as remarkable for its time, especially in her frank discussion of female sexuality (very controversial in the 19th century), but overall "Lelia" felt pretentious, overwritten, and pointless.
July 6, 2024
J'ai enfin terminé Lélia, qui me hantait depuis plusieurs mois. Le plaisir de lecture de l'ensemble était très faible. Mais le niveau de banger de certains extraits ? Endurer des pages - il faut le dire... vraiment chiantes - prenait tout son sens à la découverte régulière de phrases, de paragraphes absolument marquants. Même lorsqu'un nouveau texte a commencé à l'achèvement du premier. Eh oui, il y a deux versions de Lélia. C'était long.
Ce n'est pas un roman que je conseillerais si vous voulez lire un roman. C'est un roman que je conseillerais si vous le mal de vivre au XIXe siècle vous passionne et que vous aimez qu'il ne se passe rien, jusqu'à ce qu'il se passe quelque chose, pour qu'il ne se passe rien à nouveau ensuite. C'est mon cas, et ça a été douloureux, mais ça a aussi été incroyable.
"Qu'est-ce donc cette âme que vous m'avez donnée ? Est-ce là ce qu'on appelle une âme de poète ? Plus mobile que la lumière et plus vagabonde que le vent, toujours avide, toujours inquiète, toujours haletante, toujours cherchant en dehors d'elle les aliments de sa durée et les épuisant tous avant de les avoir seulement goûtés ! O vie, ô tourment ! tout aspirer et ne rien saisir, tout comprendre et ne rien posséder !"
Ce n'est pas un roman que je conseillerais si vous voulez lire un roman. C'est un roman que je conseillerais si vous le mal de vivre au XIXe siècle vous passionne et que vous aimez qu'il ne se passe rien, jusqu'à ce qu'il se passe quelque chose, pour qu'il ne se passe rien à nouveau ensuite. C'est mon cas, et ça a été douloureux, mais ça a aussi été incroyable.
"Qu'est-ce donc cette âme que vous m'avez donnée ? Est-ce là ce qu'on appelle une âme de poète ? Plus mobile que la lumière et plus vagabonde que le vent, toujours avide, toujours inquiète, toujours haletante, toujours cherchant en dehors d'elle les aliments de sa durée et les épuisant tous avant de les avoir seulement goûtés ! O vie, ô tourment ! tout aspirer et ne rien saisir, tout comprendre et ne rien posséder !"
August 20, 2017
Qui es-tu? Et pourquoi ton amour fait-il tant de mal? Il doit y avoir en toi quelque affreux mystère inconnu aux hommes. A coup sur tu n'es pas un être pétri du même limon et animé de la même vie que nous! Tu es un ange ou un démon, mais tu n'es pas une créature humaine. Pourquoi nous cacher ta nature et ton origine? Pourquoi habiter parmi nous qui ne pouvons te suffire ni te comprendre? Si tu viens de Dieu, parle et nous t'adorerons. Si tu viens de l'enfer… Toi venir de l'enfer! Toi si belle et si pure!
Les esprits du mal ont-ils ce regard divin, et cette voix harmonieuse, et ces paroles qui élèvent l'âme et la transportent jusqu'au trône de Dieu?
Et cependant, Lélia, il y a en toi quelque chose d'infernal. Ton sourire amer dément les célestes promesses de ton regard. Quelques-unes de tes paroles sont désolantes comme l'athéisme: il y a des moments où tu ferais douter de Dieu et de toi-même. Pourquoi, pourquoi, Lélia. Etes-vous ainsi? Que faites-vous de votre foi, que faites-vous de votre âme, quand vous niez l'amour? O ciel! Vous, proférer ce blasphème! Mais qui êtes-vous donc si vous pensez que vous dites parfois?
Si tratta forse di uno dei più bei incipit letterari che mi siano mai capitati sotto gli occhi : “Chi sei ? E perché il tuo amore fa così male?”. Sténio, innamorato, quasi posseduto dalla donna-Lélia, si interroga sulla natura della loro relazione e sulla natura della stessa Lélia. La chiama angelo e la fa discendere direttamente da Dio, poi la chiama demonio e la associa agli esseri infernali. La sua voce è canto di serafini e richiamo di sirena… La semplicità non incanta. L’attrazione nasce dal contrasto, dall’ambiguità, è più forte laddove gli estremi sono più vicini.
La natura di Sténio è in realtà devota e credente finché resta nell’ambito del conosciuto, si rivela fragile al cospetto di una creatura fuori dal comune e anche il suo credo vacilla come meglio si nota nel secondo estratto:
Hier, quand nous nous promenions sur la montagne, vous étiez si grande, si sublime, que j'aurais voulu m'agenouiller devant vous et baiser la trace embaumée de vos pas. Quand le Christ fut transfiguré dans une nouée d'or et sembla nager aux yeux de ses apôtres dans un fluide embrasé, ils se prosternent et dirent: "Seigneur, vous êtes bien le fils de Dieu!". Et puis quand la nuée se fut évanouie et que le prophète descendit la montagne avec ses compagnons, ils se demandèrent sans doute avec inquiétude: "Cet homme qui marche avec nous, qui parle comme nous, qui va souper avec nous, est-il donc le même que nous venons de voir enveloppé de voiles de feu et tout rayonnant de l'esprit du Seigneur?" Ainsi fais-je avec vous, Lélia! A chaque instant vous vous transfigurez devant moi et puis vous dépouillez la divinité pour redevenir mon égale et, alors, je me demande avec effroi si vous n'êtes point quelque puissance céleste, quelque prophète nouveau, le Verbe incarné encore une fois sous une forme humaine, et si vous agissez ainsi pour éprouver notre foi et connaitre parmi nous les vrais fidèles!
Sténio vede in Lélia la trasfigurazione di Cristo e questa analogia ricorrerà per tutto il romanzo. S’inginocchia davanti a lei, bacia i suoi piedi come fece la Maddalena con Cristo perché Lélia è il nuovo profeta e Sténio il peccatore, appena iniziato alla nuova religione, meravigliato ed estasiato perché la divinità cammina al suo fianco.
Ma ecco che parla Lélia:
L'amour, Sténio, n'est pas ce que vous croyez; ce n'est pas cette violente aspiration de toutes les facultés vers un être créé; c'est l'aspiration sainte de la partie la plus esthétique de notre âme vers l'inconnu. Etres bornés, nous cherchons sans cesse à donner le change à ces cuisants et insatiables désirs qui nous consument; nous leur cherchons un bout autour de nous et, pauvres prodigues que nous sommes, nous parons nos périssables idoles de toutes les beautés immatérielles aperçues dans nos rêves. Les émotions des sens ne nous suffisent pas. La nature n'a rien d'assez recherché, dans le trésor de ses joies naïves, pour apaiser la soif de bonheur qui est en nous ; il nous faut le ciel, et nous ne l'avons pas ! C'est pourquoi nous cherchons le ciel dans une créature semblable à nous, et nous dépensons pour elle toute cette haute énergie qui nous avait été donnée pour un plus noble usage. Nous refusons à Dieu le sentiment de l'adoration, sentiment qui fut mis en nous pour retourner a Dieu seul. Nous le reportons sur un être incomplet et faible, qui devient le dieu de notre culte idolâtre. Dans la jeunesse du monde, alors que l'homme n'avait pas faussé sa nature et méconnu son propre cœur, l'amour d'un sexe pour l'autre, tel que nous le concevons aujourd'hui, n'existait pas. Le plaisir seul était un lien ; la passion morale, avec ses obstacles, ses souffrances, son intensité, est un mal que ces générations ont ignoré. C'est qu'alors il y avait des dieux et qu'aujourd'hui il n'y en a plus.
Lélia spiega la devozione di Sténio : l’uomo aspira al cielo e a Dio ma, non potendo raggiungerli, ripiega su di un essere imperfetto e mortale attribuendogli qualità divine e il sentimento creato in origine per Dio, l’adorazione, viene riversato sull’uomo. In principio non esisteva l’amore carnale, violento e disperato come oggi lo conosciamo, esisteva solo il piacere. In principio esisteva Dio, ora non più.
In realtà l’idea che mi sono fatta di Lélia è quella di una donna che avrebbe tutto per essere felice: soldi, posizione sociale, bellezza, amore… le manca però la capacità di apprezzare tutto questo, le manca la capacità di amare tutto questo, la capacità di essere felice e si ritrova a vivere l’apatia come scelta.
Je sais aujourd'hui Lélia tout entière, comme si je l’avais possédée ; je sais ce qui la faisait si belle, si pure, si divine: c'était moi, c'était ma jeunesse. Mais, a mesure que mon âme s'est flétrie, l'image de Lélia s'est flétrie aussi. Aujourd'hui, je la vois telle qu'elle est, pale, la lèvre terne, la chevelure semée de ces premiers fils d'argent qui nous envahissent le crâne, comme l'herbe envahit le tombeau, le front traverse de cet ineffaçable pli que la vieillesse nous imprime, d'abord d'une main indulgente et légère, puis d'un ongle profond et cruel. Pauvre Lélia, vous voilà bien changée ! Quand vous passez dans mes rêves, avec vos diamants et vos parure: d'autrefois, je ne puis m'empêcher de rire amèrement e de vous dire : « Bien vous prend d'être reine, Lélia, e d'avoir beaucoup d'esprit; car, sur mon honneur, vous n'êtes plus belle, et, si vous m'invitiez aujourd'hui au céleste banquet de votre amour, je vous préférerais la jeune danseuse Torquata ou la joyeuse courtisane Elvire.»
Ed ecco che tutto si svela, si svela la passione di Sténio per Lélia, si svelano il magnetismo e l’attrazione, la bellezza della donna, la sua divinità.
L’amore di Sténio era il riflesso della sua anima, la vedeva giovane e bella perché il cuore di Sténio era giovane, bello e puro. La vedeva divina e demoniaca perché lui serbava in sé quelle qualità che riuniscono cielo e terra. In fine Sténio si è logorato in una vita dissoluta e così anche l’immagine di Lélia si è logorata con lui. Capelli bianchi e labbra pallide hanno preso il posto di una folta chioma e colori vermigli. Lélia non è più divinità e non è più demonio: è una creatura mortale con tutti i suoi difetti, può dunque essere paragonata ora agli altri mortali e le si possono infine preferire altre donne riconoscendo loro qualità che le possano far risaltare di fronte a lei.
E’ davvero finito tutto?
Si, no, forse. Le restanti pagine del libro cambiano repentinamente ritmo, gli eventi si susseguono con sempre maggiore velocità, il racconto si fa sempre più romanzo e sempre meno trattato.
Non mi sento di consigliare questo libro a nessuno. Nonostante la presenza di alcune pagine davvero brillanti, le stesse impressioni positive hanno il loro lato negativo nell’estrema dilatazione… insomma, ‘na palla
https://marmott79.blogspot.it/2008/08...
Les esprits du mal ont-ils ce regard divin, et cette voix harmonieuse, et ces paroles qui élèvent l'âme et la transportent jusqu'au trône de Dieu?
Et cependant, Lélia, il y a en toi quelque chose d'infernal. Ton sourire amer dément les célestes promesses de ton regard. Quelques-unes de tes paroles sont désolantes comme l'athéisme: il y a des moments où tu ferais douter de Dieu et de toi-même. Pourquoi, pourquoi, Lélia. Etes-vous ainsi? Que faites-vous de votre foi, que faites-vous de votre âme, quand vous niez l'amour? O ciel! Vous, proférer ce blasphème! Mais qui êtes-vous donc si vous pensez que vous dites parfois?
Si tratta forse di uno dei più bei incipit letterari che mi siano mai capitati sotto gli occhi : “Chi sei ? E perché il tuo amore fa così male?”. Sténio, innamorato, quasi posseduto dalla donna-Lélia, si interroga sulla natura della loro relazione e sulla natura della stessa Lélia. La chiama angelo e la fa discendere direttamente da Dio, poi la chiama demonio e la associa agli esseri infernali. La sua voce è canto di serafini e richiamo di sirena… La semplicità non incanta. L’attrazione nasce dal contrasto, dall’ambiguità, è più forte laddove gli estremi sono più vicini.
La natura di Sténio è in realtà devota e credente finché resta nell’ambito del conosciuto, si rivela fragile al cospetto di una creatura fuori dal comune e anche il suo credo vacilla come meglio si nota nel secondo estratto:
Hier, quand nous nous promenions sur la montagne, vous étiez si grande, si sublime, que j'aurais voulu m'agenouiller devant vous et baiser la trace embaumée de vos pas. Quand le Christ fut transfiguré dans une nouée d'or et sembla nager aux yeux de ses apôtres dans un fluide embrasé, ils se prosternent et dirent: "Seigneur, vous êtes bien le fils de Dieu!". Et puis quand la nuée se fut évanouie et que le prophète descendit la montagne avec ses compagnons, ils se demandèrent sans doute avec inquiétude: "Cet homme qui marche avec nous, qui parle comme nous, qui va souper avec nous, est-il donc le même que nous venons de voir enveloppé de voiles de feu et tout rayonnant de l'esprit du Seigneur?" Ainsi fais-je avec vous, Lélia! A chaque instant vous vous transfigurez devant moi et puis vous dépouillez la divinité pour redevenir mon égale et, alors, je me demande avec effroi si vous n'êtes point quelque puissance céleste, quelque prophète nouveau, le Verbe incarné encore une fois sous une forme humaine, et si vous agissez ainsi pour éprouver notre foi et connaitre parmi nous les vrais fidèles!
Sténio vede in Lélia la trasfigurazione di Cristo e questa analogia ricorrerà per tutto il romanzo. S’inginocchia davanti a lei, bacia i suoi piedi come fece la Maddalena con Cristo perché Lélia è il nuovo profeta e Sténio il peccatore, appena iniziato alla nuova religione, meravigliato ed estasiato perché la divinità cammina al suo fianco.
Ma ecco che parla Lélia:
L'amour, Sténio, n'est pas ce que vous croyez; ce n'est pas cette violente aspiration de toutes les facultés vers un être créé; c'est l'aspiration sainte de la partie la plus esthétique de notre âme vers l'inconnu. Etres bornés, nous cherchons sans cesse à donner le change à ces cuisants et insatiables désirs qui nous consument; nous leur cherchons un bout autour de nous et, pauvres prodigues que nous sommes, nous parons nos périssables idoles de toutes les beautés immatérielles aperçues dans nos rêves. Les émotions des sens ne nous suffisent pas. La nature n'a rien d'assez recherché, dans le trésor de ses joies naïves, pour apaiser la soif de bonheur qui est en nous ; il nous faut le ciel, et nous ne l'avons pas ! C'est pourquoi nous cherchons le ciel dans une créature semblable à nous, et nous dépensons pour elle toute cette haute énergie qui nous avait été donnée pour un plus noble usage. Nous refusons à Dieu le sentiment de l'adoration, sentiment qui fut mis en nous pour retourner a Dieu seul. Nous le reportons sur un être incomplet et faible, qui devient le dieu de notre culte idolâtre. Dans la jeunesse du monde, alors que l'homme n'avait pas faussé sa nature et méconnu son propre cœur, l'amour d'un sexe pour l'autre, tel que nous le concevons aujourd'hui, n'existait pas. Le plaisir seul était un lien ; la passion morale, avec ses obstacles, ses souffrances, son intensité, est un mal que ces générations ont ignoré. C'est qu'alors il y avait des dieux et qu'aujourd'hui il n'y en a plus.
Lélia spiega la devozione di Sténio : l’uomo aspira al cielo e a Dio ma, non potendo raggiungerli, ripiega su di un essere imperfetto e mortale attribuendogli qualità divine e il sentimento creato in origine per Dio, l’adorazione, viene riversato sull’uomo. In principio non esisteva l’amore carnale, violento e disperato come oggi lo conosciamo, esisteva solo il piacere. In principio esisteva Dio, ora non più.
In realtà l’idea che mi sono fatta di Lélia è quella di una donna che avrebbe tutto per essere felice: soldi, posizione sociale, bellezza, amore… le manca però la capacità di apprezzare tutto questo, le manca la capacità di amare tutto questo, la capacità di essere felice e si ritrova a vivere l’apatia come scelta.
Je sais aujourd'hui Lélia tout entière, comme si je l’avais possédée ; je sais ce qui la faisait si belle, si pure, si divine: c'était moi, c'était ma jeunesse. Mais, a mesure que mon âme s'est flétrie, l'image de Lélia s'est flétrie aussi. Aujourd'hui, je la vois telle qu'elle est, pale, la lèvre terne, la chevelure semée de ces premiers fils d'argent qui nous envahissent le crâne, comme l'herbe envahit le tombeau, le front traverse de cet ineffaçable pli que la vieillesse nous imprime, d'abord d'une main indulgente et légère, puis d'un ongle profond et cruel. Pauvre Lélia, vous voilà bien changée ! Quand vous passez dans mes rêves, avec vos diamants et vos parure: d'autrefois, je ne puis m'empêcher de rire amèrement e de vous dire : « Bien vous prend d'être reine, Lélia, e d'avoir beaucoup d'esprit; car, sur mon honneur, vous n'êtes plus belle, et, si vous m'invitiez aujourd'hui au céleste banquet de votre amour, je vous préférerais la jeune danseuse Torquata ou la joyeuse courtisane Elvire.»
Ed ecco che tutto si svela, si svela la passione di Sténio per Lélia, si svelano il magnetismo e l’attrazione, la bellezza della donna, la sua divinità.
L’amore di Sténio era il riflesso della sua anima, la vedeva giovane e bella perché il cuore di Sténio era giovane, bello e puro. La vedeva divina e demoniaca perché lui serbava in sé quelle qualità che riuniscono cielo e terra. In fine Sténio si è logorato in una vita dissoluta e così anche l’immagine di Lélia si è logorata con lui. Capelli bianchi e labbra pallide hanno preso il posto di una folta chioma e colori vermigli. Lélia non è più divinità e non è più demonio: è una creatura mortale con tutti i suoi difetti, può dunque essere paragonata ora agli altri mortali e le si possono infine preferire altre donne riconoscendo loro qualità che le possano far risaltare di fronte a lei.
E’ davvero finito tutto?
Si, no, forse. Le restanti pagine del libro cambiano repentinamente ritmo, gli eventi si susseguono con sempre maggiore velocità, il racconto si fa sempre più romanzo e sempre meno trattato.
Non mi sento di consigliare questo libro a nessuno. Nonostante la presenza di alcune pagine davvero brillanti, le stesse impressioni positive hanno il loro lato negativo nell’estrema dilatazione… insomma, ‘na palla
https://marmott79.blogspot.it/2008/08...
July 12, 2012
I tend to get immersed in a writer and read until I run out of interest. If Lelia had been the first book by George Sand I read, it would have been the last. Sand loved the theater, and many of the monologues in this somewhat epistolary novel remind me of histrionic actors ranting from soapboxes. It took tremendous fortitude on my part to get through some of these letter-speeches.
Fortunately, I started with the novels "Horace," then "Indiana," and the biographies by Maurois ("Lelia") and Howe ("George Sand in Search of Love"). The ruminations in "Lelia" don't make much sense, I think, without some historical background.
"Rose et Blanche," "Indiana," and "Valentine," were Sand's first published books, written within two years. "Rose et Blanche" she co-wrote in Paris with her lover Jules Sandeau, with whom she may have consummated her first extra-marital love affair. When she returned home to her husband in Nohant for a six-month stay, she wrote "Indiana." "Valentine" soon followed and she became somewhat discouraged by the Bohemian sloth and profligacy of Sandeau. They parted and she began to wonder what love was all about. In "Lelia" we discover that Lelia/Sand had some sexual satisfaction issues and was really more interested in an impossibly idealized love. Interestingly, the writing of the novel overlaps her affair with the poet Musset, who put some lines in the mouth of the novel's poet, Stenio.
But it is a tortuous path she takes to get herself, and us, through her concerns. She loses her religion, attempts to explicate the dynamics of personal growth and the traditions of conventional relationships, mulls over her frustrations with sex (via conversations with Pulcheria, her prostitute twin sister)...It's clear she was at an extremely confused low point in her life. Thoughts of suicide entered Sands life more than once.
At first she denied that it was at all autobiographical, then came to realize it was, and rewrote a second edition to soften some of the admissions. It is not a novel in the traditional sense, and has been hailed as one of the first books to wander so far from that form and still be called a novel. In a sense, it's almost stream of consciousness. She admits in her autobiography that she remembers nothing about a novel once it's been written.
The first "Lelia" was published in 1833. Sand's life spanned the first 75 years of the nineteenth century, a period of huge political and social upheaval. And Sand was a revolutionary in a revolutionary time, far ahead of her time. Much of her life she preferred to dress and live as a man to enjoy the freedom males enjoyed in 1833. She simply did not seem to believe in inherent differences between the sexes.
I am fascinated with this period in history, which is why I finished reading this book. It's a historic work, important. I will read more of Sand. But this one needs to be approached from so many angles, it's not a stand-alone.
Fortunately, I started with the novels "Horace," then "Indiana," and the biographies by Maurois ("Lelia") and Howe ("George Sand in Search of Love"). The ruminations in "Lelia" don't make much sense, I think, without some historical background.
"Rose et Blanche," "Indiana," and "Valentine," were Sand's first published books, written within two years. "Rose et Blanche" she co-wrote in Paris with her lover Jules Sandeau, with whom she may have consummated her first extra-marital love affair. When she returned home to her husband in Nohant for a six-month stay, she wrote "Indiana." "Valentine" soon followed and she became somewhat discouraged by the Bohemian sloth and profligacy of Sandeau. They parted and she began to wonder what love was all about. In "Lelia" we discover that Lelia/Sand had some sexual satisfaction issues and was really more interested in an impossibly idealized love. Interestingly, the writing of the novel overlaps her affair with the poet Musset, who put some lines in the mouth of the novel's poet, Stenio.
But it is a tortuous path she takes to get herself, and us, through her concerns. She loses her religion, attempts to explicate the dynamics of personal growth and the traditions of conventional relationships, mulls over her frustrations with sex (via conversations with Pulcheria, her prostitute twin sister)...It's clear she was at an extremely confused low point in her life. Thoughts of suicide entered Sands life more than once.
At first she denied that it was at all autobiographical, then came to realize it was, and rewrote a second edition to soften some of the admissions. It is not a novel in the traditional sense, and has been hailed as one of the first books to wander so far from that form and still be called a novel. In a sense, it's almost stream of consciousness. She admits in her autobiography that she remembers nothing about a novel once it's been written.
The first "Lelia" was published in 1833. Sand's life spanned the first 75 years of the nineteenth century, a period of huge political and social upheaval. And Sand was a revolutionary in a revolutionary time, far ahead of her time. Much of her life she preferred to dress and live as a man to enjoy the freedom males enjoyed in 1833. She simply did not seem to believe in inherent differences between the sexes.
I am fascinated with this period in history, which is why I finished reading this book. It's a historic work, important. I will read more of Sand. But this one needs to be approached from so many angles, it's not a stand-alone.
January 14, 2017
Есть такой литературный типаж - байронический герой. Как правило, это красавец-аристократ, надменный и загадочный, но тонко чувствующий (в глубине души, где-то очень глубоко...). Он познал жизнь, разочаровался в людях и "свете", смотрит на мир со скепсисом и ставит себя выше общественных условностей. Характерные его приметы: бледность лица, холодная ироническая улыбка, высокий лоб, омраченный печальными думами. Ну и конечно, он чрезвычайно привлекателен для противоположного пола. Но он одинок среди толпы, в любви и браке он разочарован, как и во всем другом. В русской литературе этот типаж представлен, например, Онегиным и Печориным.
Так вот, заглавная героиня этого романа, Лелия - как раз такой байронический герой, только женского пола. Единственный известный мне случай, когда женщина представлена в такой роли.
И образ, созданный Жорж Санд, глубже и серьезнее похожих мужских персонажей.
Честно говоря, те же Онегин и Печорин никогда не вызывали у меня особого участия. С жиру бесятся, ей-богу. У них были все возможности, которые только могли быть у человека тех времен, но им всё было скучно, всё надоело.
У Лелии гораздо больше причин для разочарования и недовольства. Конечно, она богатая и знатная красавица (без богатства изобразить свободную и независимую героиню в те времена, пожалуй, было сложно). Конечно, мужчины сходят по ней с ума, хотя она далеко не юная девушка - возраст не указан, однако можно предположить, что в начале романа ей около 35. Лелия - не обычная femme fatale. У нее есть веские причины отвергать любовь и брак - те формы, в которых они существуют в ее время, категорически не устраивают ее. Лелия никогда не была замужем, детей у нее нет. У нее был возлюбленный, с которым она прожила три года, но вне брака (скандально для первой половины 19-го века!). После этого романа она разочаровалась в любви, и больше не связывала себя с мужчинами. В любви она согласна только на равенство, но это недостижимо.
У главной героини есть сестра, Пульхерия, и она, в отличие от "аскетки" Лелии, куртизанка. Однако это противопоставление - отнюдь не банальная дихотомия Мадонна/Шлюха. Обе женщины сознательно отказались от якобы наилучшей, самой почетной, роли жены и матери. Но какие могут быть альтернативы? Лелия - ничья любовница, Пульхерия - "любовница всех".
В отличие от байронических героев-мужчин Лелия всё же не отказывается от идеи найти свое место в жизни и изменить общество, в котором она живет. Жорж Санд нашла для своей героини, пожалуй, единственный возможный по тем временам карьерный путь - религию. В итоге Лелия принимает постриг и очень скоро становится аббатиссой. Она сама говорит, что это практичное решение, никак не связанное с религиозной экзальтацией, ее брак с церковью - это "брак по расчету". В этой роли Лелия мечтает заняться образованием девочек и женщин, и ей даже удается начать воплощать свои планы.
Однако финал неутешительный... Ей не дадут реализовать свои замыслы в полной мере.
Так вот, заглавная героиня этого романа, Лелия - как раз такой байронический герой, только женского пола. Единственный известный мне случай, когда женщина представлена в такой роли.
И образ, созданный Жорж Санд, глубже и серьезнее похожих мужских персонажей.
Честно говоря, те же Онегин и Печорин никогда не вызывали у меня особого участия. С жиру бесятся, ей-богу. У них были все возможности, которые только могли быть у человека тех времен, но им всё было скучно, всё надоело.
У Лелии гораздо больше причин для разочарования и недовольства. Конечно, она богатая и знатная красавица (без богатства изобразить свободную и независимую героиню в те времена, пожалуй, было сложно). Конечно, мужчины сходят по ней с ума, хотя она далеко не юная девушка - возраст не указан, однако можно предположить, что в начале романа ей около 35. Лелия - не обычная femme fatale. У нее есть веские причины отвергать любовь и брак - те формы, в которых они существуют в ее время, категорически не устраивают ее. Лелия никогда не была замужем, детей у нее нет. У нее был возлюбленный, с которым она прожила три года, но вне брака (скандально для первой половины 19-го века!). После этого романа она разочаровалась в любви, и больше не связывала себя с мужчинами. В любви она согласна только на равенство, но это недостижимо.
У главной героини есть сестра, Пульхерия, и она, в отличие от "аскетки" Лелии, куртизанка. Однако это противопоставление - отнюдь не банальная дихотомия Мадонна/Шлюха. Обе женщины сознательно отказались от якобы наилучшей, самой почетной, роли жены и матери. Но какие могут быть альтернативы? Лелия - ничья любовница, Пульхерия - "любовница всех".
В отличие от байронических героев-мужчин Лелия всё же не отказывается от идеи найти свое место в жизни и изменить общество, в котором она живет. Жорж Санд нашла для своей героини, пожалуй, единственный возможный по тем временам карьерный путь - религию. В итоге Лелия принимает постриг и очень скоро становится аббатиссой. Она сама говорит, что это практичное решение, никак не связанное с религиозной экзальтацией, ее брак с церковью - это "брак по расчету". В этой роли Лелия мечтает заняться образованием девочек и женщин, и ей даже удается начать воплощать свои планы.
Однако финал неутешительный... Ей не дадут реализовать свои замыслы в полной мере.
July 23, 2025
D’après ce que je lis, la version de 1839 aurait été une lecture plus vive et intéressante pour moi parce que plus nettement didactique et militante. L’édition Folio Classique donne la préférence à la version de 1833 et préfère au refus féministe de participer à une société patriarcale un conte philosophique étrange et difficile à suivre.
Le style de Sand est magnifique - mais le propos m’échappe et dans son désir de créer des types, notre romancière oublie de donner un tour romanesque et immersif à son écrit.
La complainte de Sténio m’a touchée cependant - l’idée que l’être aimé n’est jamais aussi beau ou parfait que l’esprit amoureux veut bien le voir est une idée que je trouve marquante, notamment dans un récit qui fustige les hommes dans leur impossibilité de voir les femmes comme des êtres à part entière.
J’ai hâte de lire la version de 1839 !
EDIT : J’ai été bien trop sympa. Plus je lis George Sand, plus je réalise que c’est vraiment son pire livre. Un gros bla-bla sans forme ni structure, boooh 👎🏼
Le style de Sand est magnifique - mais le propos m’échappe et dans son désir de créer des types, notre romancière oublie de donner un tour romanesque et immersif à son écrit.
La complainte de Sténio m’a touchée cependant - l’idée que l’être aimé n’est jamais aussi beau ou parfait que l’esprit amoureux veut bien le voir est une idée que je trouve marquante, notamment dans un récit qui fustige les hommes dans leur impossibilité de voir les femmes comme des êtres à part entière.
J’ai hâte de lire la version de 1839 !
EDIT : J’ai été bien trop sympa. Plus je lis George Sand, plus je réalise que c’est vraiment son pire livre. Un gros bla-bla sans forme ni structure, boooh 👎🏼
May 2, 2016
This was a good book, but it took me a long time to read. I do most of my reading at night before bed and I did not have the energy to concentrate that this book required most of the time--probably because it was written in French almost 200 years ago.
It was way ahead of its time, very feminist. Interesting book.
It was way ahead of its time, very feminist. Interesting book.
November 19, 2025
Lélia is a perfect woman who has everything - the greatest beauty, enormous wealth and a brilliant mind. Sténio is a young, highly sensitive romantic poet, who still believes in ideal romantic love and other lofty ideals that the modern cynical age seems to reject. He tries to persuade Lélia, an object of his affection, to love him back, but Lélia is old enough and experienced enough with men to know that the notion of ideal love is only a trap for a woman.
There is this tension between idealist Sténio and realist Lélia that is a familiar theme of literature of this age, and George Sand clearly stands in opposition to many male writers who would blame a modern woman "without a heart" for breaking a man's heart and make him lose faith in love and, consequently, in all other ideals (I don't know why they all go together in such contexts, but they always do). A clear example of the latter would be Balzac's La Peau de chagrin, in which a woman whom the hero tries to win over for a long time stays true to herself and refuses to submit to a man, which, for Balzac, causes the hero's moral fall (I would argue he was total sh!t before that, not taking clear no for an answer, but deceiving and stalking and fantasizing about murder instead, but what do I know). George Sand has a different opinion on the matter. Her brilliant Lélia patiently explains over and over, both to Sténio and to a reader, that in a current system that favors men over women, and is based on double standards that protect the former and harm the latter, for a woman stakes in love are too high and that no matter what, she ends up losing.
But, additionally, Sand is very careful to not present Lélia as a woman "without a heart" , but on the contrary, she is a woman of a very sensitive heart, yearning for love and dying without it. Yet she is also smart enough to understand that the love she craves for is impossible. Society demands women to forget themselves, to sacrifice themselves for a man, and that she cannot do. Maybe in another few hundred years things will change and a true love between a man and a woman will become possible, but that time is yet to come. For Sand, the system is to blame for the death of romantic love, not women "without heart". Moreover, a man's love is revealed not as a gift but as a threat to a woman's reputation and, consequently, life; no matter how she responds to it, she can always be dragged down just because men desire her.
Going further, the gendered roles that our culture assigns to men and women make romantic love a destructive affair to a man as well, as he is socialized to expect from his romantic interest to fix him and take on herself what should be his sole responsibility, she must act as a moral guidance through her unconditional love she are to give to a man. As a result, if a woman refuses to perform that self-abandoning role, she is labeled immoral and heartless, and a man who found his love unrequited, instead of taking the responsibility for who he is and for his moral growth, blames heartless women on his decay, while himself remaining mentally and morally lazy and weak, like a child who still counts on his mom to help them control their impulses guaranteeing a safe space for a baby while they learn to self-regulate. Only for an adult male relying on a woman to perform the same role as a mother performs for a toddler the learning never ends and he never evolves, and when confronted with a real world on his own he mentally crumbles. I loved this insight because it explains the current "male loneliness epidemic" and responses to it so well. It's sad to report that even 200 years later things are so similar, and Lélia would probably not be able to love anyone in our time too, as things remain so unjust.
Meanwhile, the only place where ideal romantic love in our time is imagined to be truly possible is an equally ideal abode, the heaven:
“Go, Sténio, we will find each other again. And then we will be worthy of each other. My soul is the sister of yours. It is weary, angry with everything. Like yours, my soul has desired without attaining and worked without harvesting [...] But what worth having these long days on earth in the eternity you have already entered? What will they be when I have rejoined you? Perhaps we will be equals, lovers, and brothers. Today I hardly dare regard myself as your fiancée.”
In the novel, there are described two opposing routes for a woman who rejects a traditional path of love and marriage - sex work or monastery. The former is presented through the heroine's sister Pulchérie, who, also disappointed in men and love, decided to become a courtesan. Here is where my issues with the novel start. First, there is a clear Madonna-Whore dichotomy that Sand falls for, despite the writer's attempts to give Pulchérie lots of sympathy and understanding of her motives. While Lélia will eventually choose to enter the monastery, the text fell into temptation to present this as a morally superior choice and, as a result, juxtaposes the heroine with her "fallen" sister. Aside from that, the way sex work is presented is questionable to me. The text is in its overall approach to depicting a society is blind to anyone below upper classes, and prostitution is no exception, the novel only courtesans being wealthy women who do it by choice. But I doubt that very rich women would just choose to enter sex work for funsies. Please throw some books at me that disprove it, I really don't know. But this reminds me too much of a current widespread male sexual fantasy (that you can see in cinema over and over) about a middle class woman who enters a brothel/starts sexually serving men out of boredom from too comfortable life. This fantasy is encouraged by sex work industry itself, because it helps to attracts clients (they must be convinced that sex workers love being exploited just like men love to exploit them, it helps to mitigate their guilt that stands in the way of purchasing sex services), but it just not what happens? Again, throw some books at me or smth to disprove, but I have a hard time believing it.
Of course, in this novel's case, it's not a male fantasy, but just something that helps Sand to elevate Lélia's even higher, in those instances when the text compares her to her sister, plus act as a moral guidance to female readers. Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way is that upon entering the monastery, Lélia immediately refuses to be "just a nun" but demands to be an Abbess straight away. Nobody refuses her because she is very wealthy and the monastery would benefit from her funds and patronage. Again, no shade, this is just how things function in a classist society, of course the wealthiest woman in a monastery would be an Abbess. The problem is in how the writer is bent to justify it and present it as anything but that, but instead tries to frame it as another mark of Lélia's perfection. "I won't do any manual work other nuns do because I won't be good at it, not because I don't want it... Nor would I practice obedience or answer to anybody, I want to govern and teach others because my mind is that huge and brilliant only I can be entrusted with such a mission" - not direct quotes but that's the idea. And then, after witnessing her very privileged life, the text insists on some exceptional sufferings of her soul... Yeah sure!
To illustrate my point even further and muse on another topic at the same time, the dynamic between Lélia and character of a monk reminded me of Esmerelda and Claude Frollo, but Hugo's version also includes awareness and critique of class hierarchies that Sand's work lacks, as Claude Frollo is up there, very powerful figure in still powerful Church, and Esmeralda is down there, a lower class Romani woman. This is upside down in Sand's case, with the monk being of lower clergy, while Lélia is up there class-wise. On the other hand, Sand's version better stresses that even a lower class man has lots of tools provided to him by patriarchal ideology to denigrate even a very otherwise privileged woman, enabling every man to feel superior to any woman, yield power over her. Also I wonder if Sand took direct inspiration from Hugo's work (The Hunchback of Notre Dame came out just a couple years prior to Lélia) or if they both figured on their own that a male character belonging to the Church would be the best to represent sexual oppression and control over women.
In conclusion, 4 stars for Sand arguing with misogynistic writers of her day, not 5 because very classist and too concerned with justifying existing hierarchies and present them as God - given + questionable depiction of sex work coupled with slutshaming (especially as the text assumes that whether a woman enters a monastery or a brothel is a matter of her choice and speaks of her morality, while in fact in many if not most cases it isn't).
There is this tension between idealist Sténio and realist Lélia that is a familiar theme of literature of this age, and George Sand clearly stands in opposition to many male writers who would blame a modern woman "without a heart" for breaking a man's heart and make him lose faith in love and, consequently, in all other ideals (I don't know why they all go together in such contexts, but they always do). A clear example of the latter would be Balzac's La Peau de chagrin, in which a woman whom the hero tries to win over for a long time stays true to herself and refuses to submit to a man, which, for Balzac, causes the hero's moral fall (I would argue he was total sh!t before that, not taking clear no for an answer, but deceiving and stalking and fantasizing about murder instead, but what do I know). George Sand has a different opinion on the matter. Her brilliant Lélia patiently explains over and over, both to Sténio and to a reader, that in a current system that favors men over women, and is based on double standards that protect the former and harm the latter, for a woman stakes in love are too high and that no matter what, she ends up losing.
But, additionally, Sand is very careful to not present Lélia as a woman "without a heart" , but on the contrary, she is a woman of a very sensitive heart, yearning for love and dying without it. Yet she is also smart enough to understand that the love she craves for is impossible. Society demands women to forget themselves, to sacrifice themselves for a man, and that she cannot do. Maybe in another few hundred years things will change and a true love between a man and a woman will become possible, but that time is yet to come. For Sand, the system is to blame for the death of romantic love, not women "without heart". Moreover, a man's love is revealed not as a gift but as a threat to a woman's reputation and, consequently, life; no matter how she responds to it, she can always be dragged down just because men desire her.
Going further, the gendered roles that our culture assigns to men and women make romantic love a destructive affair to a man as well, as he is socialized to expect from his romantic interest to fix him and take on herself what should be his sole responsibility, she must act as a moral guidance through her unconditional love she are to give to a man. As a result, if a woman refuses to perform that self-abandoning role, she is labeled immoral and heartless, and a man who found his love unrequited, instead of taking the responsibility for who he is and for his moral growth, blames heartless women on his decay, while himself remaining mentally and morally lazy and weak, like a child who still counts on his mom to help them control their impulses guaranteeing a safe space for a baby while they learn to self-regulate. Only for an adult male relying on a woman to perform the same role as a mother performs for a toddler the learning never ends and he never evolves, and when confronted with a real world on his own he mentally crumbles. I loved this insight because it explains the current "male loneliness epidemic" and responses to it so well. It's sad to report that even 200 years later things are so similar, and Lélia would probably not be able to love anyone in our time too, as things remain so unjust.
Meanwhile, the only place where ideal romantic love in our time is imagined to be truly possible is an equally ideal abode, the heaven:
“Go, Sténio, we will find each other again. And then we will be worthy of each other. My soul is the sister of yours. It is weary, angry with everything. Like yours, my soul has desired without attaining and worked without harvesting [...] But what worth having these long days on earth in the eternity you have already entered? What will they be when I have rejoined you? Perhaps we will be equals, lovers, and brothers. Today I hardly dare regard myself as your fiancée.”
In the novel, there are described two opposing routes for a woman who rejects a traditional path of love and marriage - sex work or monastery. The former is presented through the heroine's sister Pulchérie, who, also disappointed in men and love, decided to become a courtesan. Here is where my issues with the novel start. First, there is a clear Madonna-Whore dichotomy that Sand falls for, despite the writer's attempts to give Pulchérie lots of sympathy and understanding of her motives. While Lélia will eventually choose to enter the monastery, the text fell into temptation to present this as a morally superior choice and, as a result, juxtaposes the heroine with her "fallen" sister. Aside from that, the way sex work is presented is questionable to me. The text is in its overall approach to depicting a society is blind to anyone below upper classes, and prostitution is no exception, the novel only courtesans being wealthy women who do it by choice. But I doubt that very rich women would just choose to enter sex work for funsies. Please throw some books at me that disprove it, I really don't know. But this reminds me too much of a current widespread male sexual fantasy (that you can see in cinema over and over) about a middle class woman who enters a brothel/starts sexually serving men out of boredom from too comfortable life. This fantasy is encouraged by sex work industry itself, because it helps to attracts clients (they must be convinced that sex workers love being exploited just like men love to exploit them, it helps to mitigate their guilt that stands in the way of purchasing sex services), but it just not what happens? Again, throw some books at me or smth to disprove, but I have a hard time believing it.
Of course, in this novel's case, it's not a male fantasy, but just something that helps Sand to elevate Lélia's even higher, in those instances when the text compares her to her sister, plus act as a moral guidance to female readers. Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way is that upon entering the monastery, Lélia immediately refuses to be "just a nun" but demands to be an Abbess straight away. Nobody refuses her because she is very wealthy and the monastery would benefit from her funds and patronage. Again, no shade, this is just how things function in a classist society, of course the wealthiest woman in a monastery would be an Abbess. The problem is in how the writer is bent to justify it and present it as anything but that, but instead tries to frame it as another mark of Lélia's perfection. "I won't do any manual work other nuns do because I won't be good at it, not because I don't want it... Nor would I practice obedience or answer to anybody, I want to govern and teach others because my mind is that huge and brilliant only I can be entrusted with such a mission" - not direct quotes but that's the idea. And then, after witnessing her very privileged life, the text insists on some exceptional sufferings of her soul... Yeah sure!
To illustrate my point even further and muse on another topic at the same time, the dynamic between Lélia and character of a monk reminded me of Esmerelda and Claude Frollo, but Hugo's version also includes awareness and critique of class hierarchies that Sand's work lacks, as Claude Frollo is up there, very powerful figure in still powerful Church, and Esmeralda is down there, a lower class Romani woman. This is upside down in Sand's case, with the monk being of lower clergy, while Lélia is up there class-wise. On the other hand, Sand's version better stresses that even a lower class man has lots of tools provided to him by patriarchal ideology to denigrate even a very otherwise privileged woman, enabling every man to feel superior to any woman, yield power over her. Also I wonder if Sand took direct inspiration from Hugo's work (The Hunchback of Notre Dame came out just a couple years prior to Lélia) or if they both figured on their own that a male character belonging to the Church would be the best to represent sexual oppression and control over women.
In conclusion, 4 stars for Sand arguing with misogynistic writers of her day, not 5 because very classist and too concerned with justifying existing hierarchies and present them as God - given + questionable depiction of sex work coupled with slutshaming (especially as the text assumes that whether a woman enters a monastery or a brothel is a matter of her choice and speaks of her morality, while in fact in many if not most cases it isn't).
Read
July 29, 2011This book is at times brilliant, in particular the ending, but there are too many long, overly romantic passages to earn the mighty five stars. The young poet Stenio's raging denunciation of the poor, mad, monk Magnus, and, in essence, his religion, is... like reading lightning passing through your pupils. Wicked.
February 8, 2016
Certainly not as readable as my previous George Sand book. When you read fiction, even though the author may be famous, it has to be enjoyable and not a chore.
Ce roman n'est pas pour moi.
Ce roman n'est pas pour moi.
November 6, 2015
Couldn't bear this. Never got a reason for why I should care what she thinks.
January 14, 2026
Ce livre m'a fait rire, ce livre m'a fait pleurer, et j'en suis un peu surprise. Je ne m'attendais pas à m'identifier autant à un personnage si fictif avec des mœurs si différentes.
Cet essai poétique mêle réflexion sur la condition de la femme (et la religion), et fiction avec des personnages à la personnalité exacerbée.
J'ai largement préféré la version de 1833 à celle de 1839 - bien qu'elle ajoute des choses intéressantes, j'aime bien le côté très dramatique, à la Roméo et Juliette, de la première version.
Ce qui m'a le plus touchée, c'est de pouvoir entrevoir à travers le récit une similitude de psychologie avec George Sand - seule une autrice souffrant de dépression peut décrire aussi justement à son sujet au travers de ses personnages. Peut-être que je projette, ou peut-être que je souffre du même mal (regardez-moi à essayer d'être éloquente), et il est impressionnant de constater que les 200 ans qui nous sépare ne change rien à notre nature humaine. On parle différemment. Nos sociétés sont différentes. Mais nos émotions sont les mêmes - et je trouve ça bouleversant. Que des phrases qui arrivent à capturer exactement ce que je ressens ait été écrite il y a 200ans... Brrr, chaire de poule.
Ce qui fait aussi froid dans le dos, c'est de remarquer le déséquilibre dans la relation homme-femme, qui sur certains point à bien changé, mais qui existe toujours sous des formes similaires aujourd'hui.
Je ressors de cette lecture meurtrie, inspirée et contente (regardez-moi, en fait je suis une aristo romantique du 19e)
La réplique qui m'a fait fondre en larmes -
Une des répliques qui m'a fait rire -
Cet essai poétique mêle réflexion sur la condition de la femme (et la religion), et fiction avec des personnages à la personnalité exacerbée.
J'ai largement préféré la version de 1833 à celle de 1839 - bien qu'elle ajoute des choses intéressantes, j'aime bien le côté très dramatique, à la Roméo et Juliette, de la première version.
Ce qui m'a le plus touchée, c'est de pouvoir entrevoir à travers le récit une similitude de psychologie avec George Sand - seule une autrice souffrant de dépression peut décrire aussi justement à son sujet au travers de ses personnages. Peut-être que je projette, ou peut-être que je souffre du même mal (regardez-moi à essayer d'être éloquente), et il est impressionnant de constater que les 200 ans qui nous sépare ne change rien à notre nature humaine. On parle différemment. Nos sociétés sont différentes. Mais nos émotions sont les mêmes - et je trouve ça bouleversant. Que des phrases qui arrivent à capturer exactement ce que je ressens ait été écrite il y a 200ans... Brrr, chaire de poule.
Ce qui fait aussi froid dans le dos, c'est de remarquer le déséquilibre dans la relation homme-femme, qui sur certains point à bien changé, mais qui existe toujours sous des formes similaires aujourd'hui.
Je ressors de cette lecture meurtrie, inspirée et contente (regardez-moi, en fait je suis une aristo romantique du 19e)
La réplique qui m'a fait fondre en larmes -
Qu'est-ce donc que cette âme que vous m'avez donnée ? Est-ce là ce qu'on appelle une âme de poète ? Plus mobile que la lumière et plus vagabonde que le vent, toujours avide, toujours inquiète, toujours haletante, toujours cherchant en dehors d'elle les aliments de sa durée et les épuisant tous avant de les avoirs seulement goûtés ! Ô vie, ô tourment ! tout aspirer et ne rien saisir, tout comprendre et ne rien posséder !
Une des répliques qui m'a fait rire -
Trenmor courrut chercher le prêtre. Sténio voulu jeter le médecin par dessus le balcon.
January 23, 2019
There is too much to be said of "Lelia." Part flow of consciousness, part empathy exercise, part of a 230-paged f**k you to the Catholic Church, part social politics that come within or without the church. It is truly a thinking-feeling book (fellow INFJs, you get that). But what makes "Lelia" the strongest out of Sand's fiction I have read so far, is her willingness to **not entirely** fall into the bedroom politics between men and women trope.
No, for in "Lelia," Sand widens the view into four, five principal mindsets and it is startlingly regardless of gender in most of the book. The characters, although stable in letters full of affirmation and begging or asserting their souls to be truly communicate to another lodged in the pitiful religious institution that begs for those souls, have never felt more real. Their divisiveness, hypocrisy of self versus others versus themselves over others. Plus, we have a faint lipstick-like smudge of pre toxic masculinity awareness towards the end there, how great was that? I near squealed in the coffee shop.
"Lelia" has a soul, a nervous system and it is all Sand's remarkable genius as to how we as souls and nerves attempt to communicate with one another. This is not a book for someone who just wants to read a good ol' best seller. There are some books that are meant to be read and some lived and while I have lived a portion of Lelia's hell within my own subjecitivity, I also see the caricatures of Sand's characters as her own beliefs. Seeing the process in books like this by geniuses by our beloved Aurore makes me as a writer, and I hope others, feel the "noblest on earth: poetry, sciences, and the arts" truly a worthwhile pursuit.
This book could not have come back to me in a better time of my life. Maybe its spirituality will find its way to you and this altogether scattered and vague review holds no bearings for you who will probably read this eventually. If you believe in the soul, "Lelia" will come to you.
No, for in "Lelia," Sand widens the view into four, five principal mindsets and it is startlingly regardless of gender in most of the book. The characters, although stable in letters full of affirmation and begging or asserting their souls to be truly communicate to another lodged in the pitiful religious institution that begs for those souls, have never felt more real. Their divisiveness, hypocrisy of self versus others versus themselves over others. Plus, we have a faint lipstick-like smudge of pre toxic masculinity awareness towards the end there, how great was that? I near squealed in the coffee shop.
"Lelia" has a soul, a nervous system and it is all Sand's remarkable genius as to how we as souls and nerves attempt to communicate with one another. This is not a book for someone who just wants to read a good ol' best seller. There are some books that are meant to be read and some lived and while I have lived a portion of Lelia's hell within my own subjecitivity, I also see the caricatures of Sand's characters as her own beliefs. Seeing the process in books like this by geniuses by our beloved Aurore makes me as a writer, and I hope others, feel the "noblest on earth: poetry, sciences, and the arts" truly a worthwhile pursuit.
This book could not have come back to me in a better time of my life. Maybe its spirituality will find its way to you and this altogether scattered and vague review holds no bearings for you who will probably read this eventually. If you believe in the soul, "Lelia" will come to you.
February 26, 2024
Leila" de George Sand est un roman captivant qui plonge le lecteur dans l'Espagne du XIXe siècle, où les passions brûlent aussi intensément que le soleil ibérique. L'histoire de Leila, une jeune femme courageuse cherchant à échapper à un mariage imposé pour suivre son propre chemin, est à la fois inspirante et bouleversante.
À travers les pages de ce roman, George Sand peint un tableau vibrant de la société espagnole, avec ses traditions rigides et ses conventions sociales oppressantes. Le personnage de Leila incarne la lutte pour l'émancipation féminine, défiant les attentes de son époque pour trouver sa propre voie vers la liberté et le bonheur.
L'intrigue est habilement tissée avec des rebondissements inattendus et des moments d'intensité émotionnelle. Chaque page révèle de nouveaux aspects de la personnalité complexe de Leila et des personnages qui l'entourent, créant ainsi une toile riche en nuances et en profondeur.
Quant à la fin du roman, sans révéler de spoilers majeurs, elle offre une conclusion satisfaisante tout en laissant une certaine ouverture à l'interprétation. George Sand parvient à résoudre les principaux conflits de manière convaincante, tout en laissant une note d'espoir pour l'avenir de Leila et des autres personnages.
En conclusion, "Leila" est un chef-d'œuvre de la littérature romantique qui captive et émeut le lecteur du début à la fin. Avec sa prose envoûtante et ses personnages inoubliables, ce roman mérite une place de choix dans la bibliothèque de tout amateur de littérature classique.
À travers les pages de ce roman, George Sand peint un tableau vibrant de la société espagnole, avec ses traditions rigides et ses conventions sociales oppressantes. Le personnage de Leila incarne la lutte pour l'émancipation féminine, défiant les attentes de son époque pour trouver sa propre voie vers la liberté et le bonheur.
L'intrigue est habilement tissée avec des rebondissements inattendus et des moments d'intensité émotionnelle. Chaque page révèle de nouveaux aspects de la personnalité complexe de Leila et des personnages qui l'entourent, créant ainsi une toile riche en nuances et en profondeur.
Quant à la fin du roman, sans révéler de spoilers majeurs, elle offre une conclusion satisfaisante tout en laissant une certaine ouverture à l'interprétation. George Sand parvient à résoudre les principaux conflits de manière convaincante, tout en laissant une note d'espoir pour l'avenir de Leila et des autres personnages.
En conclusion, "Leila" est un chef-d'œuvre de la littérature romantique qui captive et émeut le lecteur du début à la fin. Avec sa prose envoûtante et ses personnages inoubliables, ce roman mérite une place de choix dans la bibliothèque de tout amateur de littérature classique.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 8, 2026
Dans des paysages italiens grandioses et somptueusement décrits se joue le destin de deux personnages.
Sténio, enfant du siècle, jeune poète romantique dont les passions torturées nourrissent la poésie.
Lélia ✨she's not like other girls✨ se veut ascète et soumise à Dieu, tandis que tous les hommes la voient comme une créature charnelle, tentatrice et cruelle.
Un roman d'amour ? Non, un roman romantique, philosophique, sociologique et surtout un roman tragique car tous les personnages sont de giga drama queens 💅🏻
Lélia, c'est le récit de vie d'une femme féministe selon les standards de son époque, qui œuvre à se soustraire à un destin de soumission patriarcale en entrant dans les ordres, avec une vision moderne et réformatrice de l'Eglise.
Le roman comporte de nombreux chapitres de réflexion sur la foi, la société, la beauté, la vertu... Tout cela est fort intéressant mais ces passages sont d'une longueur insoutenable pour mon pauvre esprit du XXIe siècle qui lit pour le plaisir.
À part ces lenteurs, j'ai plutôt apprécié, pour le style lyrique et le personnage complexe de Lélia.
Merci Guy pour l'audiobook de qualité 🫶🏻
Sténio, enfant du siècle, jeune poète romantique dont les passions torturées nourrissent la poésie.
Lélia ✨she's not like other girls✨ se veut ascète et soumise à Dieu, tandis que tous les hommes la voient comme une créature charnelle, tentatrice et cruelle.
Un roman d'amour ? Non, un roman romantique, philosophique, sociologique et surtout un roman tragique car tous les personnages sont de giga drama queens 💅🏻
Lélia, c'est le récit de vie d'une femme féministe selon les standards de son époque, qui œuvre à se soustraire à un destin de soumission patriarcale en entrant dans les ordres, avec une vision moderne et réformatrice de l'Eglise.
Le roman comporte de nombreux chapitres de réflexion sur la foi, la société, la beauté, la vertu... Tout cela est fort intéressant mais ces passages sont d'une longueur insoutenable pour mon pauvre esprit du XXIe siècle qui lit pour le plaisir.
À part ces lenteurs, j'ai plutôt apprécié, pour le style lyrique et le personnage complexe de Lélia.
Merci Guy pour l'audiobook de qualité 🫶🏻
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 15, 2019
Ce livre est extrêmement bien écrit, mais le reste laisse à désirer. Le personnage principal est détestable et ses motifs/ son rôle n'est pas clair. J'ai aussi eu l'impression que l'auteur disait beaucoup des choses sans les démontrer. Il est bien beau d'affirmer que les personnages souffrent à chaque pages, mais si on ne le voit pas et qu'on est comprend pas pourquoi, cela devient inutile et assez lourd. D'ailleurs tout le but (le pourquoi) de l'histoire n'est pas clair, c'est à se demander s'il y en a un. Je pense aussi pouvoir affirmer que ce livre a mal vieilli et que personne du 21e siècle ne peut s'identifier au personnage et à leur vies. Bref, ce livre fut une déception qui me laissa pleine d'amertume et sur ma faim.
french
July 23, 2025Did not finish; stopped near end of part 2. Unable to track in French the long poetical, metaphysical arguments of the characters. Got the main idea that Lelia is down, Stenio is up, Stenio can’t quit Lelia, Stenio is doomed.
Missed the feminist undertones and the connections to Indiana. Do not see the saint simonism involved.
Try again when ready for metaphysical symbolism and the philosophical malaise of the Restoration.
Note: I read this because of the trial of Marie Lafarge, mentioned in Sentimental Education. She was convicted of poisoning her husband from afar. One of the comments at the time: “une femme qui lit, et qui lit de plus Lélia de George Sand et Les Mémoires du diable de Frédéric Soulié, poussée à l'immoralité par la lecture, est déjà coupable.” Wikipedia
Missed the feminist undertones and the connections to Indiana. Do not see the saint simonism involved.
Try again when ready for metaphysical symbolism and the philosophical malaise of the Restoration.
Note: I read this because of the trial of Marie Lafarge, mentioned in Sentimental Education. She was convicted of poisoning her husband from afar. One of the comments at the time: “une femme qui lit, et qui lit de plus Lélia de George Sand et Les Mémoires du diable de Frédéric Soulié, poussée à l'immoralité par la lecture, est déjà coupable.” Wikipedia
June 23, 2018
As others have noted, the book is perhaps best approached as an allegorical social commentary - and in this respect, it is withering. The beautiful writing presents a sordid, fatal romance involving four people, but this pretext is a rather thin veneer for a heavy-hitting discussion about the unjust placement and treatment of women in the society. Even though the book is almost two centuries old, its insights seem still relevant today.
It leans rather heavily on the trope of presenting the story through letters and extended monologues, the latter in particular giving the writing a very theatrical feel. Both aspect might be artifacts of popular writing styles of its time.
It leans rather heavily on the trope of presenting the story through letters and extended monologues, the latter in particular giving the writing a very theatrical feel. Both aspect might be artifacts of popular writing styles of its time.
March 26, 2023
3,5 si on est honnête
Surtout ne lisez pas l'édition Folio de Pierre Reboul si vous voulez passer un bon moment et faire une lecture fluide parce que les notes de bas de page à tout bout de champ qui prennent en fait les 3/4 de la page c'est déjà beaucoup, mais encore en plus quand celles-ci ne font qu'enlever à Sand sa créativité en la renvoyant constamment à ses inspirations toujours masculines BREF
En tout cas vive le roman gothique français 🖤
Surtout ne lisez pas l'édition Folio de Pierre Reboul si vous voulez passer un bon moment et faire une lecture fluide parce que les notes de bas de page à tout bout de champ qui prennent en fait les 3/4 de la page c'est déjà beaucoup, mais encore en plus quand celles-ci ne font qu'enlever à Sand sa créativité en la renvoyant constamment à ses inspirations toujours masculines BREF
En tout cas vive le roman gothique français 🖤
June 5, 2024
Almost died reading this (and not the fun way which of course is to be strangled by a rosary!)…part 3 is my bae and honestly…little else. Some parts were extremely beautiful, but overall, it felt largely pointless and overdone. Maybe I missed the point but girlie I was looking for one the whole damn time and it was…sparse to say the least. Still, good writing for the most part and not totally terrible (just overdone)
January 27, 2018
George Sand is a beautiful writer & I love what she stands for but holy moly I HATED Lélia!!!!! I literally could not bring myself to give a damn about any of these characters throughout the entirety of the book, ugh. I wanted to like this so much but literally wanted to throw it against the wall the entire time I was reading it. I’m sorry but no no no no no!
March 30, 2023
What a fucking ride.
This is for people that wanted the goth counterculture version of Romeo and Juliet but performed as a very over-acted high school theater production that the director let the kids write themselves...
This is for people that wanted the goth counterculture version of Romeo and Juliet but performed as a very over-acted high school theater production that the director let the kids write themselves...
June 6, 2023
5 ✨
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 12, 2024
“to be lover, courtesan, and mother! These are three conditions of woman’s fate that no woman escapes whether she sells herself in a market of prostitution or by a marriage contract.”
November 18, 2024
CRAZYbehaviour
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews