Introduction

Gustave Flaubert’s tale “A Simple Heart” chronicles the internal and external struggles of Félicité’s difficult life. Although Félicité’s quality of life deteriorates as the story progresses, her level of holiness increases because she never abandons her piety. Which ultimately leads to her transcendence. However, this is not a religious significance as most critics expect, but rather an ironic commentary on it. Although it is generally accepted that Théodore and Victor represent the Father and the Son, this does not mean that Loulou necessarily symbolizes the Holy Spirit (Jehlen 86). Therefore, the aim of this intervention is to focus on how all the characters, who are an object of Félicité’s desire, facilitate her demise through an analysis of the repeated relationship between her piety and her trials. So, in this way, objects of desire do not mean sexuality (Heep 71), but rather something that is made dear in all forms. Loulou is in an independent category from Théodore and Victor because he finally fulfills her as they never could, or even tried, to do. 

Finally, my analysis will be divided into three parts on the most significant characters for Félicité: Théodore, Victor, and the parrot Loulou. With this formula, we will see how Flaubert gradually leads the reader to prepare for an atypical character like Loulou so that Félicité can achieve her sainthood. 

Theodore

First, it is necessary to examine the relationship with Théodore because, although this relationship unfolds very quickly in the tale, it represents one of the most crucial moments in her life. Without these promises of engagement from Théodore, Félicité would never have left "the farm, declared her intention to leave [...] and went to Pont-l'Évêque" (15) nor would she have ever become Madame Aubain's servant. The reader knows that she left because of Théodore when her "messy grief" (15) follows immediately after hearing the truth of her departure: Théodore "had married a very rich old woman..." (14) to avoid conscription. These feelings are juxtaposed with those on the previous page, where "the idea of ​​serving frightened him. This cowardice was for Félicité a proof of tenderness" (14). This rapid change in behavior underlines how much Félicité suffers from Théodore. Her promises prove to be worthless. She leaves out of necessity. As a woman without a husband, her resources for achieving social mobility are limited, especially after the death of her parents. Her grief motivates her to move because “[…] she had no reason to doubt the capacity of conventional language to authentically mediate thoughts and feelings—not, that is, until Theodore's betrayal left her wordless, grief-stricken, moaning” (Stipa 618) throughout the night. The move is her way of starting over because she does not believe his lie. This initial disappointment not only sets a somber tone but also sets her up for the difficult work she will have for the rest of her life.

On the other hand, every aspect of this interaction reinforces her holiness as she devotes herself faithfully to him without doing anything morally reprehensible. In this case, Félicité associates Théodore with sexual desire; however, what makes her purer is the fact that she never commits the stain of adultery. Although it can be argued that it is impossible for a woman to devote herself entirely to a man if she does not have a sexual relationship with him, at least from the historical context, because of the possessiveness towards women at the time, it is still an issue that drives Théodore's narrative arc. Even if it does not happen explicitly, one can notice this exact idea as soon as Théodore first shows up in the story when he tries to rape Félicité: "At the edge of an oat field, he threw her down roughly. She was afraid and began to scream" (13). Yet, "He went away" (13). In Harmut Heep's article, he claims that "the issue of rape has conveniently been elided" (72), in order to ignore the negative gender stereotypes that Theodore reinforces through his brutality. However, this is not true. The assault is the reason why Félicité remembers him and is afraid of him when he returns. However, because of his "cossuous appearance" (12), Félicité forgives him and becomes infatuated. These new feelings can be seen in comparison to how Flaubert describes all the characters around them during their second meeting. Flaubert "brutally" switches from description to using nature symbolism ("The wind was soft, the stars shone..." [13]) to depict Theodore as his first object of desire. Heep criticizes Stirling Haig's explanation that "'Loulou like Theodore and all the other objects of Félicité's affection, is truly a divine gift'" (quoted in Heep 72); On the other hand, the name "Theodore" even means "a gift from God" ("Theodore", Dictionary.com). From this definition, we can conclude that Félicité indeed considers that Theodore carries the same power of God. Theodore's name alone illustrates her devotion. This implies that she believes that her piety towards Theodore will ensure him good morals.

Similarly, Félicité is able to have total devotion to Théodore because she indirectly promises to give him her chastity after "he proposed to marry her. She hesitated to believe him. He made great oaths" (Flaubert, 14). Here, Heep notes that "Félicité develops a moral sense far superior to Théodore's" because "Félicité's interest in sex decreases at the moment of Théodore's sexual arousal. In other words, Félicité becomes more of a degendered saint, while Théodore is seen as a sex-hungry animal" (73). It is evident that Félicité understands what the consummation of marriage means. Flaubert again uses the symbolism of nature to show that "She was not innocent in the way of young ladies,—the animals had taught her;—but reason and the instinct of honor kept her from failing" (14). However, Heep writes: "her moral system does not allow for her to degrade herself in the same way" (73). On the other hand, "[t]his resistance exasperated Theodore's love, so much so that to satisfy it (or perhaps naively)" (Flaubert, 14). It should also be noted that Félicité's piety towards him can be seen through the indirect description when "she ran towards the lover" (14). It would not be naive to believe that part of the reason he rejected her was the fact that she had nothing more to offer him. In short, potential happiness becomes a traumatic experience (Heep 72) that makes her path begin towards death but also towards holy enlightenment. 

Victor

We must now come to the next example where Félicité feels pious, but this time it is about maternal love. We must understand that the sudden loss of all of Félicité's faithful maternal love contributes to her ultimate disappearance and her final image of Loulou.

Similar to Theodore's situation, it can be contested that she is still devoted to Victor because she is willing to do anything to make him happy like a real mother even though Victor is her nephew and not her son: "At the first stroke of vespers, she would wake him [Victor] up, brush his pants, tie his tie, and go to church, leaning on his arm in maternal pride" (Flaubert 29). While Flaubert expresses this feeling directly, Heep defines it more as a relationship of duty, maternal joy, responsibility, and support (73). Furthermore, Kris Vassilev describes more deeply that "[t]he happiness that Félicité experiences with her nephew is indeed all the more intense, as it allows her to rally religion to what she now believes to be her own family" (94). Heep establishes a complementary idea that demonstrates that Félicité's devotion is on the same level as that described in the Bible: "The death of her nephew represents the archetypical situation of Mary loosing [sic] her son" (73). Aside from this semiotic analysis of her piety, her actions do identify her level of commitment. Consider first also the parallel scene where Félicité runs to try to see Victor before he leaves for Havana. This scene mirrors the moment when Félicité similarly pursues Théodore when he leaves with his new wife. Félicité's action of physically going towards her objects of desire depicts again and again her absolute devotion. In fact, Vassilev suggests that her piety towards Victor is "one of the greatest disappointments in Félicité's life" (94) because Victor's parents "always charged him with getting something out of him […]. He brought his rags to mend; and she accepted this task, happy to have an opportunity that forced him to return" (Flaubert 29). Here, Flaubert again shows directly that Félicité devotes herself totally to her object of desire by the only means she has: work. Victor exploits her. The fact that she enjoys doing it only reinforces his progress towards sainthood. Winifred Woodhall asserts that the main reason why we sympathize with Félicité is found here. We are moved by her devotion without expecting anything in return (153-154).This religious attachment and illusion of intimacy are juxtaposed with the separation, both literally and figuratively, that Félicité feels just before the discovery of Victor's death. This foreshadows the role and importance of her last object of desire, Loulou, at the time of her death.

This idea can be confirmed when Félicité misses what would have been her last meeting with Victor. Vassilev indicates that this scene is a "metaphor of deprivation" (95). He argues that the night is a "premonitory sign of loss and confusion" because she loses her attachment to her nephew and "she undergoes a first mystical vision, similar to the one with which the tale ends" (95). When Félicité arrives at the edge of the quay in order to say goodbye to him and she understands that it is too late, "then the ground lowered, lights crossed, and she thought she was mad, seeing horses in the sky" (30). Vassilev states that there are two elements here that bring the ending closer to Loulou: first "the use of the verb 'to believe'" and then "this opening in the sky that Félicité glimpses at the hour of her supreme delirium" (95). However, Flaubert also announces her death devoted to another object of desire, such as Loulou, by dint of exposing respectively the differences of the description of Félicité in her last moments with these two. When she watches him go, it is the opposite of a religious piety. In fact, Félicité "...wanted to recommend to God what she cherished the most; and she prayed for a long time, standing, her face bathed in tears, her eyes towards the clouds" (31). Vassilev explains that "This touching proof of piety" juxtaposes "the inverted image of a Félicité uttering her prayers kneeling before the stuffed parrot" (95). This proves well that Flaubert had to reestablish Félicité's religious devotion to the objects of desire before her disappearance, which he does through Loulou, the most important figure for Félicité.

Loulou

As a conclusion, one should examine the role of the parrot Loulou, the most important character in the story and in Félicité’s eyes. Loulou is not only an object of desire for Félicité, but also an object that helps her deal with her difficult reality. Due to the repetition of love and loss among her other objects of desire throughout the story, these failed relationships prepare her and lead her to have a perfect relationship with Loulou. Before him, all her other relationships are one-sided. Théodore leaves her, Victor dies, and Madame Aubain is self-centered (Heep 73-74). Thus, it is not surprising that Loulou becomes “almost a son, a lover” (Flaubert, 46) because Flaubert carefully guides the reader to Loulou’s necessary role given the progression of the other objects of desire. The sexual beginning of Félicité and Théodore’s relationship involves reproduction; yet, they do not have children. Then she meets her nephew Victor and cares for him as if he were her own child. In fact, Loulou is presumed to be born in the same place where Victor dies: Havana. So Félicité and the reader can reassign their feelings from Victor to Loulou (Heep 75). Then Félicité also becomes the guardian of the property after Madame Aubain dies. Loulou completes the cycle of Félicité's desire by giving her everything she could never get from her other relationships: a lover and a son. Because he is a pet who relies on her for survival, he becomes a projection of her desires. Woodhall explains in detail that this is to be expected, since none of Félicité's relationships fit either the definition of a "natural" bond or the definition of a "normal" bond (152). The other two relationships are unconventional and even tarnished because they deviate from maternal and marital values. Theodore devalues ​​her by trying to rape her and Victor exploits her—he is not even her own son. She continues to point out that although Loulou is not a "natural" object of desire, since he is not human, he has enough human characteristics such as his imitation of human speech for her to become infatuated.Loulou thus becomes the object of Félicité's most magnificent and grotesque desire (Woodhall 152). Furthermore, Ingrid Stipa shows how Loulou uses her characteristics as a means to have a perfect relationship with Félicité: "Loulou negotiates the distance between self and other more effectively than any of Félicité's former love objects" (623) because they depend on each other equally and have a deeper bond than other objects of desire. The strength of this bond is illustrated by how their body language mirrors each other's when "the great wings of the bonnet and the wings of the bird quivered together" (Flaubert, 46). They also bond when she teaches him to speak; as a result, Loulou will produce the only sound she can hear after she becomes deaf: "A single noise now reached her ears, the voice of the parrot" (46). Stipa establishes that these instances of intimacy "consitute moments of perfect communion unequaled in previous relationships" (623). For this reason, the reader anticipates a final object of desire that resembles Loulou.

This intersection of the material and metaphysical worlds is intensified through Loulou's role as a transformation from a habitual object of desire into a religious icon. Thus, Félicité leads to her own sainthood and disappearance because she gives up her place in the physical world for him. This transformation can be seen after she has him stuffed. Although she has other objects that help her accept the deaths of her family members and remember them, it is not the same. With Loulou, Félicité has the opportunity to keep his ever-present company forever and not worry about whether he will leave her again like the others. One can only keep the memories of a deceased person since it is forbidden for most to keep the body of a human corpse. However, one can keep the body of a stuffed bird. In this way, Félicité can keep Loulou "alive."

Loulou becomes her entire world. Therefore, there is much critical discourse on the idea that Félicité mixes Loulou with the Holy Spirit; however, throughout the story, Félicité carries “...this stubborn attitude towards a religion whose significance escapes her” (Vassilev 98) until Loulou presents himself to her. Stipa explains that Flaubert predicts that Loulou will transform into the Holy Spirit when she exposes him in her chapel in the wardrobe (624) because when she goes to church, she thinks only of the parrot even though she “always contemplated the Holy Spirit” (Flaubert 50). She concludes that their images begin to resemble each other when describing Our Lord: “With his purple wings and his emerald body, he was truly the portrait of Loulou” (50). On the other hand, Félicité still had difficulty “imagining his person; for he was not only a bird, but also a fire, and other times a breath" (26). It is therefore necessary for her, as always in her life, to have a concrete object to understand. At that moment, it is Loulou. In fact, it is obvious that Félicité distinguishes them when "she locked him [Loulou] in her room" (49). According to Vassiley, "Loulou, transformed into a catalyst of belief, thus appears in a closed universe" (100), it is "a 'modern' conception of belief, that is, an autarkic belief, authorizing itself from its own relationship to transcendence" (100). We must therefore not interpret Loulou as a strictly religious and Christian symbol because Félicité's comforts are things that can only be found in the physical world. As soon as Félicité dies, Loulou is no longer important since he will finish decomposing: "The parrot only serves as a means for Félicité to achieve satifaction" (Heep 76). He is no longer beautiful as he had been described before because Félicité is no longer there to continue to see him that way. As a result, Loulou completes the cycle of total sainthood and Félicité's disappearance because there is no implication that she sees nothing but Loulou in her final vision: "When she exhaled her last breath, she thought she saw, in the half-open heavens, a gigantic parrot, hovering above her head" (Flaubert, 57).According to Myra Jehlen, "Her final vision, enthroning the stuffed rotting parrot instead of the insubstantial Holy Spirit, makes Loulou an apotheosis, but not an incarnation. In his own, once magnificent, now shredding self, he is the final destination of Felicite's love, not a stand-in" (90). In the end, this last description does not illustrate the Holy Spirit because she uses concrete objects to get out of it. This is why she sees Loulou before she dies. She is not confused in this dream. There is no suggestion that she thinks she sees the Holy Spirit as a parrot, she simply goes to the object that gave her her own bliss.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although Félicité's devotion increases and reflects religious belief with each new object of desire, it takes on a whole new meaning with the introduction of Loulou. Flaubert used an ironic tone to transform the definition of the word "devotion" to reflect the same level of belief that most people only associated with religion at the time in order to illuminate its ambiguity. This is what Loulou represents, and why Félicité achieves transcendence outside of the influence of religion. However, this would not have been possible without the presence of Théodore and Victor. All of this proves that with each object of desire, if Félicité moves a little closer to death she finds her own happiness through not only integrity and holiness but also the material object that preserves the memory of a being who loved her.