Au cours de la documentation de 1848 Flaubert a relevé un certain nombre d’incidents où il est possible de constater une part d’ «héroïsme» dans le comportement de ceux qui ont essayé de défendre la République en combattant les insurgés. C’est la raison pour laquelle il est en mesure de répondre à la question qui est posée dans la première esquisse de l’épisode: «Quelle a été l’action d’éclat de Dussardier?», en citant un des incidents sur lesquels il a pris des notes - «Quelque chose d’analogue à Monsieur de la Ferté» Flaubert fournit la réponse à la question, ‘quelle a été l’action d’éclat de Dussardier?’, en bas de la première esquisse. Le travail d’adaptation commence tout de suite. Il s’agit dans les deux cas de saisir un drapeau, soit le tricolore, soit le drapeau rouge mais la motivation de la saisie du drapeau est complètement transformée. Monsieur de la Ferté prend pitié du gamin blessé et l’aide à conquérir le drapeau, tandis que le geste humanitaire de Dussardier est dirigé vers un insurgé de l’autre bord et la blessure est reçue par Dussardier qui devient un des ‘héros de Juin’.

(Ce commentaire est tiré de ‘Dussardier sur les barricades: genèse d’un "cas douteux"’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France)

In the first sketch, having posed the question "quelle a été l’action d’éclat de Dussardier?", he outlines a brief reply in which the main elements of the episode are established.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)

La bribe de dialogue- "«Allez-vous tirer sur vos frères»" - pemet d’insister sur le fait qu’en Juin une partie du prolétariat luttait avec une autre. C’est bien la vie d’un camarade de février que Dussardier veut sauver. En évoquant l’action de Dussardier avec une série de verbes Flaubert en souligne la rapidité. On comprend aussi que le coup qui le blesse "parti d’en bas" est tiré par un insurgé.

(Ce commentaire est tiré de ‘Dussardier sur les barricades: genèse d’un "cas douteux"’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France)

Dussardier on the Barricades

The very rough outline of the first sketch is then expanded and integrated in this sketch. The episode on the barricade is now described in greater detail. Flaubert adds some telling dialogue - «Allez-vous tirer sur vos frères» - stressing the idea that it was one section of the urban proletariat which was fighting another. This provides a new context for Dussardier’s intervention: it is not just any life he wishes to save, but that of a fellow revolutionary from February. It has been said that Frédéric is not the only person who is elsewhere in June: Dussardier is elsewhere, too, that is to say he is behaving in the June Days as if he was still in the February Revolution. There is also the suggestion that, caught in a contradictory situation he only half understands, he can square the circle only by forcibly removing the insurgent, both saving his life and allowing the barricade to be taken. Dussardier’s action is now presented as more energetic through the succession of verbs, "jeté son fusil, bondi sur la barricade, bousculé l’insurgé arraché le drapeau". It is also specified that the shot that wounds him had "parti d’en bas", i.e. that he is shot by an insurgent. Characteristically, Flaubert is moving away from a direct omniscient presentation, indicating in a marginal addition that Dussardier’s action is to be relayed by La Vatnaz: "La Vatnas lui apprend comment il a reçu sa blessure" and that the account that follows will be a summary of what she has said. This sketch also establishes the nature of the obligation La Vatnaz owes to Dussardier: Dussardier’s less than generous reaction to La Vatnaz’s devotion is perhaps meant to make him more human, by virtue of the fact that he compromises himself in an imperfect relationship. This is a far cry from the idealised love of Marius for Cosette in Les Misérables.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)

Dans la troisième esquisse Flaubert continue à faire des ajouts importants. L’incident est localisé et, en spécifiant que Dussardier sort des rangs, Flaubert souligne son indépendance. Comme il arrive fréquemment l’action est obscurcie: "tout avait disparu dans un nuage de fumée", ce qui justifie l’omission du moment où Dussardier reçoit sa blessure. Le contraste entre un instant de clarté, quand Dussardier se lance sur la barricade, et la confusion qui suit est frappant.

(Ce commentaire est tiré de ‘Dussardier sur les barricades: genèse d’un "cas douteux"’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France)

Dussardier on the Barricades

The third sketch, which extends over two folios, gives an even more detailed account and makes a number of significant additions.The location of the action - la barrière Rochechouart - is specified , as are the way Dussardier breaks out of ranks ("Sortant hors des rangs") and the way he knocks the insurgent down in order to seize the flag. Once again the action becomes obscured - "tout avait disparu dans un nuage de fumée" - in a kind of blur and opening up the possibility of a typical Flaubertian ellipsis (of Dussardier’s sensations on being hit). Flaubert’s way with revolutionary action comes very close to challenging the conventions of historical narration: there is a predilection for smoke and mist in the novel, both of which blot out visibility. As Prendergast notes, when the action is glimpsed through smoke it is undone and dispersed the very moment it comes into vision, closing down the narrative potential of the incident which is being depicted. On the other hand, there is an atempt to clarify in this sketch the nature of Dussardier’s doubts and misgivings about his intervention. The listing of his criticisms of the victors of June opens the indictment which is continued in the rest of the chapter. Finally, in a marginal addition, the comment is made that "il ne pouvait pas exprimer son opinion car elle n’était pas nette", allowing Dussardier to join the select band of those who cannot articulate their ideas – always a potentially positive sign in Flaubert’s fictional world and a good example of the way in which history is being coated with a fictional wash.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)

Dans le premier brouillon Flaubert corrige la dernière esquisse (17607, f^o 170) et apporte encore des précisions. Le travail des brouillons inclut des suppressions. Ici on voit Flaubert supprimer "Malgré le défi" – peut-être parce qu’il se rend compte qu’un échange verbal exerce rarement une influence véritable dans une échauffourée.

(Ce commentaire est tiré de ‘Dussardier sur les barricades: genèse d’un "cas douteux"’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France)

Having sketched out in considerable detail the precise nature of Dussardier’s "héroïsme" and the doubts it provokes, Flaubert set about elaborating in a series of rough drafts a definitive account of the incident on the barricade, the wound received by Dussardier, the way the event is interpreted by the papers, and the doubts by which Dussardier is plagued. The first detailed description of the incident on the barricade is close to the last sketch. Here Flaubert is primarily concerned with making his account as concise as possible. There is some hesitation over how much emphasis should be given to the insurgent’s words. "Malgré le défi", which had been added in the last sketch, is finally excised in favour of the more neutral "et comme la masse s’avanç[ait]".

There is one aspect of the episode, however, which caused him considerable trouble, the nature of the wound received by Dussardier. This goes through a total of five versions. In the first we are told that he is "trouvé sous les <décombres> – blessé au genou – «avec une> la balle" (17607, f^o 172) In the second "On l’avait retrouvé sous les décombres sous les morts, la cuisse blessée <percée> d’un lingot <balle>" (17607, f^o 180v). In the third "On l’avait retrouvé sous les décombres, [avec les morts] la cuisse <droite> percée d’un lingot" (17607, f^o 173). In the fourth "On l’avait <retrouvé> [sous les] <sous les> décombres, la cuisse droite [percée d’un lingot] <? d’une balle>" (17607, f^o 163v). In the final version "on l’avait retrouvé sous les décombres; la cuisse [traversée d’une balle Il avait fallu] <percée d’un lingot de cuivre>"(17607, f^o 176). The change from knee to thigh and the hesitation between "une balle" and "un lingot de cuivre" show that Flaubert is not attempting to base his account of the wound received by Dussardier on any one particular source.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)

As far as the reference to similar examples of heroism is concerned Flaubert at first retained the reference in the first two rough drafts (17607, f^os 175, 180v) but removed it in the fair copy which simply refers to "les journaux où l’on exaltait sa belle action" (17607, f^o 176). The reference resurfaces, in a modified form, however, in the next chapter ("Le brave commis était maintenant un héros, comme Sallesse, les frères Jeanson, la femme Péquillet, etc", L'Éducation sentimentale, p.346) but the impact of the insistence on the representative nature of Dussardier’s action is lessened by its deferral.

The last element to undergo revision in the rough drafts is the precise nature of Dussardier’s doubts about the rightness of his action. The first version starts with the direct speech of the last sketch and turns into free indirect style (17607, f^o 175). The hesitations of his thinking are consolidated but the explicit analysis of his lack of clarity - "comme il ne pouvait préciser sa pensée, car elle n’était pas nette" - is deleted, perhaps because it detracted from the anguish provoked by the thought that he had fought on the wrong side. In two further rough drafts the summary of what he tells Frédéric, in style indirect libre, is tidied up, with his mental anguish being emphasised by the substitution of "était torturé par l’idée que" for "il se demandait avec angoisse" (17607, f^o 178v). The fair copy (17607, f^o 176) is virtually identical to the final version. Precision in the evocation of imprecise thoughts is achieved only with a good deal of effort, as these various rough drafts show.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)

Dans le deuxième brouillon il est clairement indiqué que l’insurgé est un gamin et non "un homme" comme dans le brouillon précédent. Ce changement minime est pourtant très significatif. Depuis le tableau de Delacroix, depuis l’invention de Gavroche, le gamin fait partie d’une certaine mythologie révolutionnaire mais on pourrait aussi attribuer ce changement à des pressions plus profondes. Dans les scénarios la structure profonde du chapitre s’articule autour d’une série de confrontations entre les générations. A partir du stade scénarique Flaubert fait ressortir deux incidents qui appartiennent à un tel schéma, d’abord l’épisode dans la salle de garde dans lequel Frédéric imagine que le fusil d’Arnoux pourrait le tuer, puis à la fin du chapitre l’épisode où le père Roque tue un jeune prisonnier dans la terrasse du bord de l’eau.

(Ce commentaire est tiré de ‘Dussardier sur les barricades: genèse d’un "cas douteux"’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France)

In the second rough draft there is a significant change: the insurgent, who in the previous rough draft was "un homme" is now described as "un gamin". Since Delacroix’s painting of Liberty leading the people and Hugo’s invention of Gavroche, the "gamin" had become part of the stock-in-trade of any description of revolutionary action, and wheeling him on may be part of the ironic exposure of clichés and stereotypes which runs through all of Flaubert’s work. The sudden lowering of the age of the insurgent may, however, owe something to the desire to make this episode function as a bridge between the two adjacent confrontations that we have discussed. The change is clearly not made in the interests of historical accuracy but in response to internal structural pressures.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)

La mise au net se rapproche de la version définitive mais est loin d’être stable:

- Le lieu de l’action est précisé de façon différente.

• La chasse aux assonances est indiquée par les syllabes soulignées.

(Ce commentaire est tiré de ‘Dussardier sur les barricades: genèse d’un "cas douteux"’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France)

The fair copy is close to the final version. A new indication of location "dans la rue Lafayette" replaces "à la barrière Rouchechouart" for reasons that are obscure. The preposition "contre" replaces "sur", perhaps to strengthen the idea of a violation of fraternity. Essentially, however, Flaubert has knocked the account of Dussardier’s intervention into its definitive shape.

(This commentary is taken from ‘Dussardier on the Barricades: History and Fiction in L’Éducation sentimentale’, Nineteenth-Century French Studies, 28, 2000, pp. 284-300)