MYSTIFICATION: SUBVERSION AND SEDUCTION

Since MystGcation was rescued from its oblivion in the Fonds Vandeul in 1951,’ its enigmatic character has led more than one reader to wonder whether it is his confusion, rather than that of any of the characters, to which Diderot’s title refers.

If we approach this problem purely in terms of the plot of the dialogue, we will find that the victim of the deception in question is undoubtedly Mlle Dornet. It is she who stands at the centre of the stratagem described in the text, the attempt to persuade her to relinquish the portraits of her former lover, the Prince de Gallitzin,‘ by convincing her that they are having a deleterious effect on her health. Diderot uses the word ‘mystification’ not only for the title of his tale, but also to describe the actual event on which it is based when he writes about it to Sophie Volland. Indeed, although many of the circumstances which surround this event are well documented in Diderot’s correspondence, the four brief extracts in which this word figures tell us almost all we know about the details and chronology of the incident itself: (21 September 1768): Vous sGavez bien, ces portraits du prince qu’on me chargeoit de retirer. Cela est devenu une mystification dont il y a deja un demi volume d’kcrit. Je reserve tout cela pour les mortes saisons. L’histoire des portraits, que je les obtienne ou non, vous fera dire que je suis quelquefois un grand scelerat (CORR, VIII, pp.179-80) (1 October 1768):3 Notre mystification va toujours son train (CORR, VIII, p. 184) (26 October 1768): Les portraits, les portraits! Loulvari de la petite maison que nous avons evacuee; notre installation dans un hBtel garni, [ont] un peu derange les suites de notre mystification. Ce volume, c’est moi qui I’ai ecrit. C’est la chose comme elle s’est passee (CORR,

(15 November 1768): Voulez vous parler de la mystification? Les embarras d’un depart prochain ont tout suspendu: et le depart, tout reduit a rien. I1 ne nous reste de cela qu’une scene excellente, I’attente trompee de trois ou quatre autres, mais point de portraits (CORR, VIII, p.223) We note in the dialogue that the treatment of which Mlle Dornet is victim is strikingly similar to that meted out in many of the tales included in Jacques le fataliste or in the various subplots of Est-il bon? Est-il rntchant?: Diderot enjoyed both participating in and writing about such situations of deception and manipulation, and Myst@cation is not the only text which results from the desire to record in literary form a plot in which he was actually i n ~ o l v e d . ~

Like so many other texts of the eighteenth century, however, Mystification is also characterized by an attempt to mystify or deceive the reader, by convincing him that it is a true and unadulterated transcript of a real event,

VIII, pp.205-206)

34 Derek F. Connon

a sort of literary objet trouve‘. Diderot pushed this technique further than most by using such texts not merely as a literary convention, a game played between author and reading public, but as weapons against particular individuals in deceptions of the same type as that described in Mystification. Hence the version of La Religieuse which we know today grew from the partially success- ful attempt to trick the Marquis de Croismare,’ and we are told that Naigeon was completely deceived by the first version of Les Deux Amis de Bourbonne.6 Unlike these two texts, which are wholly or principally fictional, Mystijcation is largely factual; as Jacques and Anne-Marie Chouillet comment in their edition of the work: ‘I1 existe peu de recits de Diderot qui portent plus de signes vkridiques que celui-ci’.’ Despite this, Diderot attempted to convince its first reader that it is a more faithful representation of events than such a text could possibly be: ‘C’est la chose comme elle s’est passee’. In addition to the various practical obstacles to total accuracy, Diderot was, as Herbert Dieckmann points out, too accomplished a writer to believe that an unmodified narration of events could be successful as literature: ‘Er weiss, dass ein Dialog nicht buchstablich reproduziert werden kann, dass er ihn als Ganzes neu schaffen muss, um die ursprungliche Frische, Warme und Farbigkeit zu vermitteln’ .

As Desbrosses seduces Mlle Dornet, Diderot through his text seduces his reader, for both character and text are simultaneously alluring and subversive. The success of Desbrosses’s seduction derives largely from the fact that he contravenes social convention; even the far-from-innocent Mlle Dornet is led to protest, however feebly, at the liberties he takes in his first medical examination: (Desbrosses s’approche d’elle, lui penche la tCte en arriere, regarde ses yeux, qu’elle a un peu durs, mais fort beaux, ecarte le fichu, promene sa main sur la gorge, veut lui t2ter le ventre.)

(Desbrosses, sans h i repondre, continue de la parcourir)’ (p.8).

This seduction is not confined to sexual matters. Desbrosses also influences her beliefs by overthrowing her conventional ideas of what is and what is not possible: for example, she initially comments, ‘J’avais cru jusqu’a prCsent qu’un diseur de bonne aventure n’Ctait qu’un fripon’ (p.14), but is later forced to revise her opinion: ‘Ma foi, cela est vrai [. . .] Cela Pest encore [. . .] Mais cela est prodigieux [. . .] Comment est-il possible qu’on ait sa vie Ccrite dans sa main?’ (p.16).

Similarly, Diderot’s text, by its naturalness, seduces the reader into believing that it must be true. But the details which appear so natural do so only because they subvert conventional literary expectation: it is not usual for a narrator to threaten his reader with abandoning his tale if he becomes bored (p.5); the traditional eighteenth-century heroine does not ask a near stranger if he is circumcised (p.12), nor does she make linguistic errors (p.35); the traditional hero does not interrupt the action either because he is hungry (p.25), or because he is tired (p.27); and, above all, literary works do not break off before the completion of the story they are telling (pp.38-39).” These devices are all carefully contrived to seduce the reader into thinking, ‘Ma foi, cela est

M”‘ Dornet - Mais, Monsieur . . .

‘Mystificution ‘: subversion and seduction 35

vrai: on n’invente pas ces choses-la’, as Diderot suggests he should in the literary manifesto which concludes Les Deux Amis de Bourbonne.” It is precisely those aspects which will persuade us of the fidelity of the reproduction which Diderot has chosen to preserve, or even invent, in his literary adaptation of the original event in order to confer on it an aura of truth, an impression which is reinforced by our knowledge that the work is actually based on fact. It is this aspect of the text which has led Jacques Proust to remark: Le corps du rkcit [. . .] a ete redige peu apres les faits, dont ils constituent en quelque sorte le journal. Du journal, il a le caractere si I’on peut dire immkdiat, instantane, et la parfaite authenticite: les personnages sont tous reels, le lieu de leur rencontre est connu, leurs propos sont saisis au vif et, dirait-on aujourd’hui, enregistrh en direct.12

So just as Desbrosses seduces Mlle Dornet by suggesting that he comes from a more natural society in which sexual liberties and mystical insights alien to her experience are usual, Diderot’s text seduces its reader by the suggestion that its absolute veracity allows it to break artistic taboos which exist only in traditional literary convention.

The unity of theme and imagery is one of the principal factors which lead us to mistrust the text’s claim to total spontaneity, and this is nowhere clearer than in its eroticism: Diderot’s seduction of his reader is effected as much by sexual titillation as is that of Mlle Dornet by Desbrosses. The mystification has been described as a rape.I3 This is clearly true on the metaphorical plane: Mlle Dornet’s privacy and peace of mind are invaded in an attempt to wrench from her the gifts which she has received from her former lover. On the literal level, however, Mlle Dornet is much too willing a victim for the term to have any justification. The first medical examination (quoted above) may at first surprise her, but, chorus-like, Mme Therbouche snickeringly suggests that she has enjoyed it: ‘Au moins, Docteur, si vous ne rencontrez pas, ce ne sera pas la faute de Mademoiselle, elle s’est prCtCe de bonne grAce A vos observations’ (p.8). The second examination, which is even more blatantly sexual, is solicited by Mlle Dornet herself (p.9): MI“ Dornet - Monsieur le Docteur, laissez dire Madame Therbouche et comptez sur ma franchise. Et Desbrosses revenant a elle, et lui passant la main sur les joues, Iui prenant la gorge, lui pressant les cuisses, disait: Comme cela Ctait ferme! comme cela Ctait rond!

We should remember too that at this stage in the proceedings Mlle Dornet is not even fully aware of Desbrosses’s (false) credentials for treating her in this manner, for although he has been described by the unspecific term ‘Docteur’ since the beginning of the dialogue, he has not yet made his claim to be a doctor of medicine. The third examination is clearly inaugurated by Mlle Dornet herself (pp.22-23): Ici MI” Dornet Ccartant avec ses deux mains la partie du vetement qui cachait sa poitrine, leur decouvrit une large plaine inkgale, traversee de profonds sillons. Cela aurait fait piti6 a tout d’autres que de mauvais plaisans. Puis elle ajoutait: Monsieur le Docteur, ce n’est rien que cela; donnez-moi votre main. Le Docteur lui donna sa main qu’elle conduisit par les fentes de ses jupons sur ses hanches.

It is Mlle Dornet too who introduces the flirtatious subject of circumcision;

36 Derek F. Connon

the suggestive reply given by Desbrosses makes it clear that we should not assume the motive behind her question to be merely a spirit of anthropological enquiry, and this is confirmed by the whispered exchange between the two women, which suggests giggling adolescents rather than mature adults (pp.22- 23) : Desbrosses - Je suis Turc. M”‘ Dornet - Vous Ctes donc circoncis? Desbrosses - Trb-circoncis. Mile Dornet (bas u M”‘ Therbouche) - Cela doit Ctre singulier, un homme circoncis. M”‘ Therbouche (bus) - N‘allez-vous pas lui parler de cela?

It is clear that Mlle Dornet’s interest in Desbrosses is not confined to the colour of his eyes, or even to the information he can give her about her illness. And Mme Therbouche is certainly not depicted here as the detached artist for whom Diderot posed naked (for a portrait in which only one shoulder is bare!),14 and of whom he wrote to Falconet (CORR, VIII, p.30): Cette femme s’est mise au dessus de tous prejugCs. Elle s’est dit a elle mCme: Je veux &tre peintre, je ferai donc pour cela tout ce qu’il faut faire; j’appellerai la nature, sans laquelle on ne qa i t rien; et elle a courageusement fait deshabiller le moditle. Elle a regard& I’homme nu. Vous vous doutez bien que les begueules de I’un et l’autre sexe ne s’en sont pas tues. Elle les a laisses dire, et elle a bien fait.

This seduction is echoed and supported by many other details, some of which have their roots in reality, but others of which are more purely stylistic. The theme of sexual liaison is present throughout the work, not least in the opening paragraphs where the entire motivation for the events described is shown to derive from Gallitzin’s marriage to a socially acceptable aristocrat and the consequent end of his affair with the dubious Mlle Dornet. A liaison between Desbrosses and M”‘ Therbouche is also hinted at in the opening narration: ‘M”‘ Therbouche avait quittC sa palette, et causait avec Desbrosses de ses affaires, auxquelles je crois qu’il prenait un profond intCrCt’ (p.6). A further hint concerning this same liaison is found in the dialogue between the two women, in which Mme Therbouche also stresses Desbrosses’s interest in Mlle Dornet (p .29) : M”‘ Therbouche - I1 ne faut pas croire qu’il soit toujours comme vous l’avez trouve aujourd’hui. I1 est avec une amie qu’il a perdue de vue depuis deux ans et qu’il revoit pour la premiere fois; il se rencontre vis-a-vis d’une femme jeune et belle; il faut que vous I’ayez singulikrement intCressC pour se l2cher comme i l l’a fait. M”‘ Dornet - 11 aime les femmes. M”‘ Therbouche - Les belles femmes, a la folie. (p.29)

The numerous anecdotes used by Desbrosses to augment the anxiety of his victim conjure up a similar world of attachments which are easily formed and just as easily broken. And. in such an atmosphere, it is difficult not to assume on Naigeon’s appearance that he has become Mlle Dornet’s replacement for the prince.15 Diderot too (the character, not the author) claims to believe that the most obvious reason for Mlle Dornet’s distress is that she has fallen in love, and he stresses their liberal attitude to such an occurrence (pp.31-32): M”‘ Dornet - Puisqu’il faut vous l’avouer, j’ai vu un diable d’homme qui m’a renversC la t&te.

‘ Mystijicntion ’: subversion and seduction 37

Diderot - Vous $tes devenue amoureuse? Ou est le mal? S’il vous convient, vous le garderez; s’il ne vous convient pas, vous le renverrez. M”‘ Dornet - Si ce n’etait que cela! Diderot - Ah, je cornprends: vous voulez Cpouser.

The theme extends to the imagery: ‘Si le present est gros de l’avenir, il faut avouer aussi qu’il en est de cette grossesse du present comme d’une autre, et qu’il faut bien peu de chose pour le ficonder [.. .I et que c’est bien dommage [ . . . I qu’on ne puisse voir clair dans cette matrice la’ (pp.25-26); to the vocabulary, with the repeated recital of erogenous parts of Mlle Dornet’s body: ‘gorge [...I ventre [ . . . I cuisses [ . . . I tetons [ . . . I fesses [ . . . I poitrine [ . . . I hanches’; even to Mlle Dornet’s lapsus concerning the word ‘retine’, which is clearly intended to have humourously sexual resonances: ‘a la tetine [ . . .] la, dans I ’ d ’ (p.35).

A further device employed by both author and principal male protagonist in their respective seductions is the exploitation of mystery to arouse and sustain interest. Desbrosses erupts from nowhere into the life of Mlle Dornet with the air of a virtuosic magician and charlatan, combining in his assumed persona the mystic appeal of the orient and of the fortune-teller. His abrupt departure too is aimed at intriguing his victim, as is Mme Therbouche’s subsequent revelation of the eccentricity of his personality (p.29): M”‘ Therbouche - I1 est parfois bizarre et silencieux. MI“ Dornet - I1 n’en a pas l’air. Mme Therbouche - J e vous dis qu’il est des mois entiers sans sortir et des semaines sans desserrer les dents: il ne parle a ses gens que par signe.

This mystery concerning Desbrosses extends beyond the character he assumes to trick Mlle Dornet: in the opening narration we are told no more about him than that he is ‘un certain brigand, Bonvalet Desbrosses, soi-disant MCdecin Turc’, and ‘un homme leste et capable de bien faire le r61e que j’avais lui donner’ (p.6). The ambiguity of Mme Therbouche’s participation does not help to clarify matters, for, whilst we are never actually told whether or not she is an accomplice of the conspirators, she behaves in a manner which suggests at some times that she is, and at others that she is not; compare, for example: ‘C’est un diable d’homme auquel je n’entends rien. I1 m’a predit 2 Stutgard des choses inouies et qui se sont verifiees 2 la lettre’ (p.26), with: MI“ Dornet (u Mme Therbouche) - Je voudrais bien savoir ce que notre Esprit-fort e n dirait. M”“ Therbouche - I1 dirait que le Docteur est un scelerat bien siffle qui nous joue. (P.17). The result is that we are inclined to find ourselves believing some of her more extravagant claims about Desbrosses, and other evidence within the text indicates that we may be correct to do so, for her description to Mlle Dornet of the oddness of his character seems to be curiously in conformity with his final suicide, the only act which he performs in the entire work as his real self, and which is all the more mysterious for being unexplained.“ And what are we to make of this curiously enigmatic exchange which comes at the climax of Desbrosses’s speech on the danger of the passions, and which seems to anticipate his subsequent shooting of himself (p.24):

38 Derek F. Connon

Desbrosses - Vous riez, Madame Therbouche; vous ne croyez pas a cela? Mme Therbouche - Tout au contraire, Docteur, c’est que j’ai par devers moi un exemple tout pareil. Desbrosses - Un dez a coudre plein d’une certaine poudre noire. Ce n’est rien. Une etincelle de feu; c’est moins encore. Cependant [. . .]?

We cannot assume that these ambiguities derive from the fact that the text was originally intended for Sophie Volland, and that she would have been able to fill in the gaps herself, for the most ambiguous protagonists are those with whom she would have been least acquainted, Desbrosses and Mme Therb~uche , ’~ and, furthermore, Diderot had given her in his letters virtually no details of the events described in the text, for he was clearly intending to save for her the pleasure of reading of his plot in full in Mystification. In other words the allusive quality of the dialogue would have been almost as pronounced for her as for any other reader. Diderot again subverts the practice of more conventional literature by not telling us all we want to know.

Textual ambiguity is increased by the use of contradiction. We have already seen this in use in a minor way in the character of Mme Therbouche, but it is at its most pronounced in the dialogue between Mlle Dornet and Diderot himself, in which the philosophe appears to subvert the entire text by contra- dicting all that has gone before. For he surprises and confuses us by telling his victim the truth about the stratagem which he has himself planned (p.33): Diderot - Eh bien, cet hornme de la connaissance de Madame Therbouche? . . . M”” Dornet - [...I M’a dit tout ce que j’ai pense, tout ce que j’ai fait, tout ce qui m’est arrive depuis que je suis au monde. Diderot - Je le crois, j’en aurais fait presqu’autant. MIie Dornet - Vous me connaissez, vous, mais il ne me connait pas. Diderot - Mais il connait quelqu’un qui vous connait, et cela revient au m&me. [ . . . I Allez, ce prCtendu Medecin Turc est un sot ou un fripon.

The immense subtlety of this device resides in the fact that it allows the author to remind his reader towards the end of his tale of which he has announced only briefly at the opening: that all that has preceded has been a masquerade. And yet it also fits in with the plot in two ways: firstly, it exploits the psychological axiom that the most effective way of reinforcing someone’s opinions is often to disagree with them; secondly, it confirms Desbrosses’s advice by indicating that even someone who rejects his methods accepts the common sense of his recommendations: ‘Je pense qu’on n’a rien de mieux a faire que de se detacher de tous les objets qui reveillent en nous un souvenir fficheux. C’est le plus sOr’ (p.35).

A further method of seduction is the use of idealization. Desbrosses seduces both Mlle Dornet and the reader by a virtuosity so pronounced as to be almost diabolical, comparable with the mythological figure of Mephisto or the legend which was later to surround Paganini, an interpretation which is confirmed by Mlle Dornet’s response to Diderot’s suggestion that she may wish to marry her mysterious Turk: ‘Epouser! Je ne serais pas sa femme pour tout l’or du monde; je craindrais qu’une belle nuit le Diable ne me tordit le cou’ (p.32).

Such idealization extends also to the dialogue: as in all of Diderot’s dialogues the speech of the characters has an eloquence and a fluency which, on the

‘Mystijicntion’: subversion and seduction 39

one hand, belies its claim to spontaneity, and yet, on the other, gives to its reader a much more stimulating impression of vivacity and immediacy than would the laborious reproduction of all of the hesitations and repetitions which characterize natural conversation. l8 Some of Desbrosses’s more extended speeches attain a level of eloquence and scientific complexity which recalls L e RCve de d’AZembert, a fact which has led Roger Lewinter to comment that he has been idealized to the point of becoming Diderot himself. l9

Another feature of this literary idealization is the use of comedy. We are made to laugh by the naivety of Mlle Dornet’s remarks: ‘Ah, je suis donc malade? Dieu soit loue!’ (p.7), or by her gauche attempt to cover up her own over-eagerness: ‘Avec votre permission, Monsieur le Docteur, il faut que je voie tout-6-l’heure; je ne saurais attendre, cela me soucierait. Et puis il faut que je sache tout de suite quelle confiance on peut avoir dans un Art qui m’a paru toujours suspect’ (p. 15). Mme Therbouche’s sarcasm also provides amusement: ‘Ah! Ah! une femme a talens. C’est bien trouve’ (p.8); ‘Allons, mon petit Docteur, mon petit Docteur’ (p.27). But the most fertile source of humour is again Desbrosses’s virtuosity. In a particularly rich extract we see him exploiting and making fun of Mlle Dornet’s mounting anger at another of Mme Therbouche’s sarcasms, deftly finding an explanation for his victim’s completely healthy symptoms which will bring them in line with his efforts to stress the dangers of her illness, and then making a most unflattering compari- son of her with ‘une cruche’, which he quickly rescues by an attribution to Horace, to whom he gives a dubious medical qualification; the extract begins with Desbrosses divining the symptoms of Mlle Dornet’s malady (pp. 10-11): Desbrosses - Les angoisses, les peines d’ame et d’esprit. Mme Therbouche - Peu. MILe Dornet - Pardonnez-moi, Madame, j’ai souffert et beaucoup. Desbrosses - L’humeur et le depit. M”‘ Dornet - On en aurait a moins. Desbrosses - La colere et les emportemens. M”‘ Dornet - Ah, Monsieur le Docteur, si vous saviez, quitter sa maison, courir les champs passer le Mordeck! Encore si j’avais aime; mais c’est que je n’aimais pas. On n’y comprend rien. Desbrosses - Les insomnies. M”‘ Dornet - Oh non, je buvais, je mangeais, je dormais. Desbrosses - De fatigue. Quand une fois les esprits ont pris un certain cours et ces diables de fibres je ne sais quel pli, cela ne se redresse pas comme on veut. L’odeur qu’elle a reque dans sa nouveaute, la cruche la retient. C’est Horace, qui est un de nos grands Medecins, qui l’a dit.

Architecturally the text shows careful structuring, which again betrays the intervention of a literary hand. The dialogue divides into four, or possibly five, main sections, and a process of acceleration can be traced through these various units. The first section takes us from the opening of the work to the exit of Desbrosses, the opening narration flowing so naturally into the dialogue as to be inseparable from it, and accounts for about two thirds of the text. This dialogue proceeds at a leisurely pace with a number of long speeches and many extended interventions by the narrator. The next two sections, formed by the dialogues between Mlle Dornet and Mme Therbouche, and

40 Derek F. Connon

Mlle Dornet and Diderot, are not only much briefer, but also advance more quickly, with no long speeches and the inclusion of narratorial interventions only at the beginning and end of each (the second of these dialogues is a little longer than the first, although this is at least partly disguised by a quicker tempo, created by a larger proportion of very short and even monosyllabic speeches). The text ends, as it began, with an extended narration, but this time the narrative is clearly separated from the preceding dialogue to form the fourth very brief section. And the fifth section, if it may be so considered, is the briefest of all, being formed by the final sentence, which, by its introduction of completely new and unexpected material, seems to stand apart from the rest of the closing narration.

Further structural unity is provided by the ways in which Diderot chooses to end his various sections. The striking final sentence cuts off the story in mid-stream just as surely and as suddenly as the pistol shots end the life of Desbrosses. Such an apparently arbitrary ending confers on the work a considerable feeling of naturalness: literary works are not merely ended, but are concluded. And yet, at the very opening of the text, the narrator has carefully given this sudden ending a literary justification: ‘Commenqons a tout hazard, sauf a laisser 18 mon recit, s’il m’ennuie’ (p.5). Furthermore, the suddenness of this ending to the entire work is anticipated by the abruptness of the endings of all of the various sections. The dialogue between Desbrosses, Mlle Dornet and Mme Therbouche is in full flight and shows no sign of having exhausted its subject matter when, in the space of half a page, Desbrosses undergoes a sudden change of mood and, with a brief explanation by the narrator (‘Desbrosses ne demandait pas mieux que de s’avouer sorcier pour faire plaisir a la belle Dame, mais il Ctait une heure du matin et il avait envie de dormir’ (p.27)), he makes an exit which is chronicled in a single short sentence: ‘I1 prit un air boudeur, se leva et disparut’ (p.27). The two women, after his departure, seem to be set for a long discussion about him, but that too is brought to a close by a reminder of the time (‘Mais il est tard; venons au service que je puis vous rendre’ (p.28)), and the rest of the scene rushes to its conclusion without a sideward glance. Diderot and Mlle Dornet are interrupted in mid-sentence by the arrival of Naigeon, and the events described in the subsequent narration are brought to a sudden end by the disappearance of the two ghosts through a trap-door. This leaves only the most devastating and final interruption, that found in the last sentence, which is both a beginning and an ending in its own right.

But to what extent are these literary subtleties contrived by Diderot, and to what extent are they a mere accident of his material? The short answer is that we cannot tell, for whilst the very real events which form the fabric of the opening narration or of the final sentence are well documented in Diderot’s letters and elsewhere, the details of the masquerade are not: Diderot tells Sophie that the mystification of Mlle Dornet is in progress and then that it has come to nothing, but no more. Certain comments can, however, be made: firstly, it seems absurd to assume that an artist as accomplished and as inventive as Diderot would not in some way mould and interpret his material as he was creating his tale; secondly, we must bear in mind that the impossibility

‘Mystification’: subversion and seduction 41

of producing an accurate transcript of any situation from memory is here compounded by the fact that the events that Diderot was actually present at account for only a fifth of the text, a factor which would have forced an even greater degree of invention upon him; thirdly, the very choice of a form is in itself an artistic decision based on its suitability for the chosen material, and, although in this case Diderot began writing before he knew how the events would turn out, he could easily have completely recast the tale when he came to revise it had he felt it necessary.

The precise nature and extent of Diderot’s revision of his text are impossible to assess, since we possess only one manuscript, but there can be no doubt that some revision did take place, for whilst the letters to Sophie indicate that the initial composition of most of the work was contemporary with the events it describes, the suicide of Desbrosses did not take place until a year later. It seems probable that it was this event which inspired Diderot to return to his unfinished account of the masquerade and to complete it as a sort of memorial for his friend, for, not only does the brutal laconicism and suddenness of the final sentence seem to reflect the horror which Diderot felt at Desbrosses’s death, but a letter to Sophie, written eight days after the event, describes it with an almost identical phrase: Mystification: ‘Mais Desbrosses, quelques jours avant cette singerie, se cassa la t&te de deux coups de pistolet, et la suite bien ou ma1 projettee n’eut pas lieu’ (p.39). Letter to Sophie Volland on 15 November 1769: ‘L’homme que j’estimois s’est, il y a huit jours, casse la tCte de deux coups de pistolet, et la mienne n’en est pas encore remise’ (CORR, IX, p.229). This similarity would appear to contradict the alternative scenario proposed by Herbert Dieckmann and Jacques Proust: ‘Pour que Diderot, en le redigeant, ait pu considkrer la mort de Desbrosses comme ayant rkellement cause l’kchec de la mystification, il faut mCme supposer qu’il 1’Ccrivit [l’epi- logue] longtemps apres le conte’.*” It seems unlikely that Diderot could forget the principal circumstances of such an occurrence whilst still remembering the phraseology of one of his letters on the subject.

This ending is a masterstroke and, by subverting all of our expectations, be they formal or thematic, gives the work an impact which is much more powerful than we expect from the rest of the tale. Shocked by its suddenness, we too experience the horror at the apparent pointlessness of the act that Diderot had experienced, and yet, when we begin to explore the text for literary anticipations we will, as we have seen, find them; the dialogue is a coherent literary whole. Were these anticipations added as part of the revision, or were they already present in the original version? The opening paragaph, with its threat to break off the narration at will, certainly gives the impression of being a later addition, for the ruminative opening sentence is unlikely to have formed part of a text which was being written as the events occurred: ‘Je voudrais bien me rappeller la chose comme elle s’est passee, car elle vous amuserait. CommenGons a tout hazard, sauf a laisser la mon recit, s’il m’ennuie’ (p.5). For the rest, who can tell? Perhaps Diderot had already seen traces of melancholia in the personality of Desbrosses the year before he was to shoot himself.

This ending was perhaps the least obvious, but certainly the most successful

42 Derek F. Connon

that Diderot could have chosen. To have invented a conclusion in which the stratagem is seen to be successful, transforming the original into a conventional literary plot with carefully planned beginning, middle and end, as he does for the events which found their way into Est-il bon? Est-il me‘chant?, would have been the most obvious course, but the result would have been an unremarkable anticipation of the contes of Jacques lefataliste, lacking the force given in both the novel and in Est-il bon? by the use of duplication. A successful conclusion to the plot is, in fact, rejected during the last of the three dialogues which make up the work. This is a climax which is quite deliberately underplayed, but which could easily have been adapted had Diderot wanted to conclude, rather than merely end, his plot at all costs: a passage during which Mlle Dornet has been unable to decide whether to keep or to dispose of the portraits culminates in the following exchange (pp.36-37): Diderot - Si vous I’aimez mieux, faites l’un et l’autre. Mile Dornet - Et comment cela, s’il vous plait? Diderot - Confiez-les-moi. M‘Ie Dornet - Nous verrons. It is, however, difficult to imagine how an ending which resulted from Mlle Dornet’s agreement at this point could have been any more than the literary equivalent of a damp squib, and the same would be true of any ending which made use of the real reason for the failure of the plot, Mme Therbouche’s departure from her apartment in Falconet’s house. The suicide of Desbrosses is not only clearly the most effective possible ending for Mystification, it is also what gives the work its startling impact and originality.

So subversive is this ending, that it immediately causes us to search for an explanation, a meaning for the text, for a meaning is certainly something which would be easily found in a conventional work of literature. Roger Lewinter suggests that the death of Desbrosses is so pronounced an acre gratuit that it proves to us that the entire work is devoid of meaning, a theory which certainly reflects the impression created by the initial impact of the ending: ‘L’auteur, par la mort incomprkhensible de Desbrosses, montre qu’en veritC il n’y a rien a comprendre’.21 Without being quite so radical, both Robert Niklaus and Herbert Dieckmann make a similar point: ‘We should bear in mind that the tales are not intended to illustrate any moral point. They are true, and their moral content lies in their truth’.** It is certainly clear that Diderot was fascinated by such tales of manipulation, as is seen from Jacques le fataliste, Le Neveu de Rameau or Est-il bon? Est-il me‘chant?, but his retellings usually include either an explicit or an implied invitation to moral judgement in the terms given by the title of the third of those works. We find no such invitation in Mystification; indeed, any attempt at such a judgement could prove singularly unfavourable to Diderot and his co-conspirators. A further theme is, however, clearly present in the work: Jacques Proust de- scribes this as ‘la crCdulitC de certaines femmes’, but Jacques and Anne-Marie Chouillet generalize it as ‘[le] phinomihe de la ~ r o y a n c e ’ . ~ ~ The way in which Mlle Dornet falls so completely for the claims of Desbrosses to have mystical powers is clearly of major importance in the text, but its significance finds a literary extension in Diderot’s refusal to believe in another mystic force, that

‘Mystijication ’: subversion and seduction 43

is to say his atheism. The first time this link is made Diderot’s attitude to religion is stressed by referring to him as ‘notre Esprit-fort’, and Desbrosses goes on specifically to relate belief in his powers to religious belief: ‘Je lui servirais d’un autre plat de mon metier qui pourrait Cbranler son incredulitt. Nous en avons retourne d’aussi tclaires et de plus mefians’ (p.17). This relationship is stressed even more firmly in the third dialogue by a metaphor of sickness, which suggests a relationship between Mlle Dornet’s credulity and her illness by pointing out that, unlike her, the atheist Diderot is healthy both in body and in mind (p.37): M”‘ Dornet - Si j’ai rnon Medecin Turc a diner, ou si nous allons souper chez lui, vous en serez, n’est-ce pas? Diderot - Volontiers. M”” Dornet - Savez-vous qu’il a projette votre gukrison? Diderot - Je ne suis pas rnalade. M”‘ Dornet - Vous &tes l’incredule le plus determink que je connaisse. Diderot - Je ne m’en porte que mieux. (p.37)

And not only does Desbrosses play on the credulity of Mlle Dornet in order to seduce her into giving up the portraits, Diderot exploits the credulity of his reader to seduce him into believing his text to be real.

It is undeniable that Mystification does have its roots in fact, but the same is true of many of Diderot’s works. It is also undeniable that it gives a much greater impression of being a totally authentic transcript of the events which it depicts than any other of his works. But to accept the text as a mere journal is to fall into precisely the trap which Diderot has set for us. As Jean Catrysse comments: ‘C’est peut-Ctre quand il pretend nous dire la vCrite que Diderot nous a le plus t r ~ m p e ’ . ~ ~ To accept the work as unadulterated truth is to deny Diderot’s artistry, to by-pass his role as author, almost as if we were taking the advice of the citizens of Langres, who have placed in front of the statue of Diderot a sign indicating that he should be treated as a roundabout.

Derek F. Connon University of St Andrews

1. It was discovered by Herbert Dieckmann, its existence reported in his Znventaire du Fonds Vandeul et inedits de Dideror (Geneva and Lille, 1951), p.91, and it was first published in the edition by Yves Benot and Pierre Daix (Paris, 1954). The forms used in Diderot’s text have been retained for all names. All references to Diderot’s correspondence are to the edition by G. Roth and J. Varloot, 16 vols (Paris, 1955-1970), abbreviated to CORR. The dating of letters also follows this edition. Jean Catrysse has documented Diderot’s fascination with this subject, both practical and literary, in Diderot et la rnysrijicarion (Paris, 1970). The plot was a practical failure, for the conspirators did not achieve their aim of persuading the marquis to return to Paris, but a literary success, for he appears to have been genuinely deceived by the letters written by Diderot in the guise of Mlle Simonin. See Diderot’s letter to Grimm of 8 September 1770 (CORR, X, pp.124-25) and the

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

44 Derek F. Connon

7. 8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

Correspondance litteraire for 15 December 1770. ed. M. Tourneux, 16 vols (Paris, 1877-82),

‘Le Neveu de Rameau’, Satires, Contes et Enrretiens (Paris, 1984). p.130. ‘Zu Diderots Mystification‘, in Studien zur Europaischen Aufklarung (Munich, 1974), pp.471-78 (p.471). Diderot too, at the end of the introduction to the Entretiens sur ‘Le Fils naturel’, points out the inevitable difference between an event and its artistic reproduction, although it there suits his purpose to suggest that his literary version will be inferior to the original (an original which exists only in the fiction of the text): ‘Voici nos entretiens. Mais quelle difference entre ce que Dorval me disait, et ce que j’ecris! [ . . . I Ce sont peut-Stre les m&mes idCes; mais le genie de I’homme n’y est plus [ . . . I C’est en vain que je cherche en moi I’impression que le spectacle de la nature et la presence de Dorval y faisait. Je ne la retrouve point; je ne vois plus Dorval; je ne I’entends plus. Je suis seul, parmi la poussikre des livres dans I’ombre d’un cabinet [...I et j’icris des lignes faibles. tristes et froides’ (Euvres esthktiques, ed. P. Vernikre (Paris. 1968), pp.78-79). All references to Mystification are to the edition by Jacques Proust in Diderot, Quatre Contes (Geneva, 1964). Many of these details anticipate similar devices which Diderot will use elsewhere. most notably in Jacques le fataliste. Euvres romanesques, ed. H. BCnac (Paris, 1962), p.791. Loc. cit., p.xxxvii. See Diderot, ‘Le Neveu de Rameau’ et autres dialogues philosophiques, ed. J. Varloot and N. Evrard (Paris, 1972), p.14. See Salon de 1767 (SaIons, ed. J . Seznec and J . Adhemar, 4 vols (Oxford. 1957-67). III), pp.252-53 and plate 9. The marriage of the prince, as well as his and Naigeon’s liaisons with Mlle Dornet form part of the real background to the text, as is attested by Diderot’s correspondence (see, for example, CORR, VII, pp.115-16, 145; VIII, pp.94-95, 147, 212, 130). The Salon de 1769 also suggests that the relationship between Desbrosses and Mme Therbouche was sufficiently long-term to have been more than mere friendship: ‘L’artiste prussienne et lui s’itait rencontrks dans une cour d’Allemagne. I1 nous I’avait amenee apres avoir circule dans plusieurs Ctats ou il avait montre beaucoup de capacite’ (Salons, ed. cit., IV, 95). In reality the suicide was motivated by financial problems (see CORR. JX, pp.218-19 and Salon de 1769 (Salons, ed. cit., IV), pp. 95-96), but such an explanation has no place in Mystification, where Diderot prefers the act to remain as enigmatic as possible. Mme Therbouche is first mentioned by Diderot in a letter to Mme d’Epinay dated by Roth October 1767 and the words ‘il nous I’avait amenee’ in the Salon de 1769 (see 11.14 above) make it seem probable that he first met Desbrosses at about the same time. The events described in Mystification took place about a year later, in September and October 1768, and Mme Therbouche left France in November. By November of the following year Desbrosses was dead, Diderot’s letters to Sophie during these two years give no indication that she ever met either of them, whilst her acquaintance with Mlle Dornet is well documented (see, for example, CORR, VII, pp.115-16, 124-25, 127, 145, 165-66). One amusing exception is Mlle Dornet’s comic hesitation over the technical terminology used by Desbrosses: ‘Qu’il s’kchappe de IP je ne sais quoi de pernicieux, des simulacres [ . . .] oui, des simulacres, c’est le mot [...I qui s’en vont s’attacher [ . . . I a la titine I...] la, dans I’aeil’ (p.35). In his introduction to the edition of Mystifcation in Diderot, Euvres completes, 15 vols (Pans, 1970), VII, pp.435-72 (p.438). The comparison with Le R2ve de d’Alembert, which is implicit in Lewinter’s text, is also made by Pierre Daix, loc. cit., pp.26-27. Proust, loc. cit., p.XIV. See also Dieckmann, ‘Zu Diderots Mystification’, pp.477-78. Neither critic presents this theory as definitive. LOC. cit., p.439. Niklaus, ‘Diderot’s Moral Tales’, in Diderot Studies, 8 (1966), pp.309-18 (p.314). See also Dieckmann, ‘The Presentation of Reality in Diderot’s Tales’, in Diderot Studies, 3 (1961),

IX, pp.185-86.

pp. 101-28 (pp.116-17).

‘MystiJicution’: subversiorz and seduction 45

23. 24. Op. cit., p.261.

In addition to the works cited above. the following have been consulted:

Benot, Yves, ‘A propos de Diderot: Mystification. ironie romantique et recherche de la veritC’,

Niklaus, Robert, ‘Diderot et le conte philosophique‘, in Cahiers de I’Association infernationale

Perol, Lucette, ed. , Diderot, Conks ef Entretiens ([Paris]. 1Y77).

Proust, loc. cti., p.XII; Chouillet, lot.. cir.. p.6,

in La Pensee, 82 (1958), 65-74.

des etudes francaises, 13 (1961), 299-315.