The general colour of the author, allow me to tell you, is a lascivious colour, before, during, and after the falls!  When she is a child ten or twelve years of age, she is at the Ursuline convent.  At this age, when the young girl is not formed, when the woman cannot feel those emotions which reveal to her a new world, she goes to confession: 

“When she went to confession, she invented little sins in order that she might stay there longer, kneeling in the shadow, her hands joined, her face against the grating beneath the whispering of the priest.  The comparisons of betrothed, husband, celestial lover, and eternal marriage, that recur in sermons, stirred within her soul depths of unexpected sweetness.”

Is it natural for a little girl to invent small sins, since we know that for a child the smallest sins are confessed with the greatest difficulty?  And again, at this age, when a little girl is not formed, does it not make what I have called a lascivious picture to show her inventing little sins in the shadow, under the whisperings of the priest, recalling comparisons she has heard about the affianced, the celestial lover and eternal marriage which gave her a shiver of voluptuousness?

Would you see Madame Bovary in her lesser acts, in a free state, without a lover and without sin?  I pass over those words, “the next day,” and that bride who left nothing to be discovered which could be divined or found out, as the phrase in itself is more than equivocal; but we shall see how it was with the husband: 

The husband of the next day, “whom one would have taken for an old maid,” the bridegroom of this bride who “left nothing to be discovered that could be divined,” arose and went out, “his heart full of the felicities of the night, with mind tranquil and flesh content,” going about “ruminating upon his happiness like one who is still enjoying after dinner the taste of the truffles he is digesting.”

It now remains, gentlemen, to determine upon the literary stamp of M. Flaubert and upon the strokes of his brush.  Now, at the Castle Vaubyessard do you know what most attracted this young woman, what struck her most forcibly?  It is always the same thing—­the Duke of Laverdiere, as a lover—­“as they say, of Marie-Antoinette, between the Messrs. de Coigny and de Lauzun.”  “Emma’s eyes turned upon him of their own accord, as upon something extraordinary and august; he had lived at Court and slept in the bed of queens!” Can it be said that this is only an historic parenthesis?  Sad and useless parenthesis!  History can authorise suspicions, but has not the right to establish them as fact.  History has spoken of the necklace in all romances; history has spoken of a thousand things; but these are only suspicions and, I repeat, I know not by what authority these suspicions should be established as facts.  And, since Marie-Antoinette died with the dignity of a sovereign and the calmness of a Christian, her life-blood should efface faults of which there are the strongest suspicions.  M. Flaubert was in need of a striking example in the painting of his heroine, but Heaven knows why he has taken this one to express, all at once, the perverse instincts and the ambition of Madame Bovary!