Parallel Structures and Binary Oppositions in André Gide's L ...

Parallel Structures and Binary Oppositions in André Gide’s
L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite
Jennifer Lawrence
Thesis submitted to the
Eberly College of Arts and Sciences
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Masters of Arts in Foreign Languages
with a specialization in French
Daniel Ferreras, Ph.D.; Chair
Valérie Lastinger, Ph.D.
Twyla Meding, Ph.D.
Department of Foreign Languages
2004
Keywords : Gide, Immoraliste, Porte étroite
Copyright 2004 Jennifer Lawrence

ABSTRACT
Parallel Structures and Binary Oppositions in André Gide’s
L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite
Jennifer Lawrence
Two of André Gide’s books, L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, exemplify the ethical struggles
that defined the author’s life through the codependence of their singular message. By submitting
these two intrinsically similar works to a structuralist analysis of the binary oppositions that exist
between them, the relationship between good and evil becomes solidified through the structures
and semiotic codes of the novels, the opposition of the protagonists, and the motifs of geography,
personal relationships, nature, and religion.

Acknowledgements
I owe many thanks to everyone who volunteered there time and effort in order to help me write
this thesis, but there are a few people who merit special attention.
Dr. Valérie Lastinger and Dr. Twyla Meding – Thank you for your time, your constructive
criticism, and all the effort you put into correcting the many pages of this thesis. Dr. Lastinger,
thank you for sticking with me through the many changes in content and personnel, and Dr.
Meding, thank you for taking on my thesis at the last minute.
Thanks to Jess, Jeremy, Kristen, Shannon, Thomas, and Birthe for being supportive around the
office.
Last and most importantly, I owe many thanks to Dr. Daniel Ferreras, without whom I would
never have been able to write this thesis. For agreeing to chair my thesis under the worst
possible circumstances, for explaining the unexplainable, for your corrections and your good
advice, and just for putting up with me, I cannot thank you enough. Your support during many
stressful times has been invaluable to me. Thank you.
iii

Table of Contents
Title .................................................................................................................................................i
Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................iv
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 – Narrative Structure...................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 – Geo/topographical Motifs ........................................................................................ 14
Chapter 3 – Interpersonal Relationships ...................................................................................... 28
Chapter 4 – Nature as a Motif ...................................................................................................... 40
Chapter 5 – Religion as a Motif.................................................................................................... 54
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 71
Resume ........................................................................................................................................ 74
iv

Introduction
Moral and religious ambiguities, including the malleable quality of good and evil,
are at the core of the majority of André Gide’s narratives, the protagonists of which often endure
an irresolvable crisis of self. The gidien hero often finds him or herself trapped between the need
to be understood by society and the need to understand one’s self, between constraint and
freedom, leading to a fissure between the individual and society. The dualities which define this
internal conflict, good versus evil, familiar versus exotic, and liberation versus restraint, have
aroused a great deal of critical interest as evidenced in Hilary Hutchinson’s article “Lamiel et
l’immoralisme gidien,” Jean Hytier’s “André Gide et l’esthétique de la personnalité,” Gaetan
Picon’s “Remarks on Gide’s Ethics,” and Jean-Michel Wittman’s “L’Immoraliste ou l’écriture
diabolique du récit gidien.” This criticism reveals the importance of the connection between
Gide’s work and this struggle with morality and lays the framework for the exploration of the
moral code through the comparison of Gide’s novels. The question of morality is one that
Gide’s characters seek to resolve through self-discovery, and serves as the gateway through
which they must pass if they are to reach their goal. In her article, “Le Thème de la découverte
de soi dans la deuxième partie de Si le grain ne meurt et L’Immoraliste,” Maria Mann’s outlines
the capacity of religious confusion to lead Michel into a period of self-discovery. Gide’s works
are thus marked by this quest to define, or in some cases redefine, one’s own morality, through
the comprehension of and the subjection to society’s version of immorality, and through the
balance of good and evil.
Despite the usual separation of this religious battle from Gide’s quest to understand
morality, these two conflicts are in fact intrinsically linked for the author and for his characters.
Many of Gide’s journals serve as an intimate conversation between the author and God as he
1

attempts to resolve a moral crisis invoked by the remnants of his protestant upbringing. Two of
Gide’s works, L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, are particularly pertinent examples of the
destructive power of two moral extremes, in that they represent both the immoral temptations of
Michel and the pious fervor of Alissa, which prove equally disastrous for these two main
characters. If it is the devil’s influence which leads Michel away from society, it is certainly
God’s which steers Alissa toward a similar fate. Morality and immorality are equally damaging
for these two protagonists, each of whom represents one half of a binary opposition between
good and evil. Michel has a negative view of religion though his story ends with a ray of hope;
contrarily, Alissa’s narration ends unhappily despite her positive perception of religion. In his
article “De L’Immoraliste à La Porte étroite: Étude pour les masques de Gide,” Georges Vidal
presents a psychological critique of Gide’s autobiographical exposition of his marriage through
these two characters as a means of understanding this relationship. In the hard-fought discovery
and acceptance of self, Gide finds refuge. It is this struggle, above all others, that influences his
work, as illustrated in Michel and Alissa’s rejections of their past lives, one descending into
immorality and the other embracing religion with a fervor that ultimately destroys her. Though
Gide’s characters may commit acts which society views as immoral, the internal conflict caused
by these acts reveals a substantial comprehension of morality. Evidenced by the conflict that
Michel faces in L’Immoraliste, the struggle to redefine morality proves at least the vestiges of its
existence.
Thus, in his own life, André Gide struggled to find a spiritual equilibrium between God
and the Devil, which explains why most critics never lose sight of an always elusive authorial
intention when they approach this question; however, in examining the texts of L’Immoraliste
and La Porte étroite from a semiotic point of view, the notion of authorial intention can be
2

ypassed allowing this study to contribute to a better understanding of both novels by
approaching the subject from a new angle. Both will be considered as independent significant
structures and analyzed as such rather than interpreted from the point of view of the authorial
intent.
L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite do share many similarities in narrative structure and
narrative motifs, which have not yet been comparatively studied by the critics. Both texts are to
be considered as two different manifestations of a single narrative syntagm, whose semiotic
codes work in a complementary manner to illustrate a semantic binary opposition, in terms of
content as well as form. The goal of this study is to illustrate the parallelisms and existing binary
oppositions in the narrative structure and on a contextual and semiotic level in both novels in
order to describe what Umberto Eco calls the main sign-functions of this minimal pair:
L’Immoraliste/La Porte étroite. The sign-function relates specific elements of the form to the
content of the narrative and, in turn, participates to the interpretation of the motifs presented
through this content. As stated in A Theory of Semiotics, “A sign-function is realized when two
functives (expression and content) enter into a mutual correlation.” (Eco 49). Both
L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite exhibit such sign-functions when considered as the two terms
of a binary opposition: both tell a similar story from an opposing point of view, in respect to both
content and form.
In order to illustrate the symbiotic relationship of L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, it is
imperative to study the texts as they relate to each other rather than on an individual basis,
because in so doing, the singularity of their message will be revealed. The first step towards this
goal will consist in identifying and contrasting the main elements of both narrative structures,
such as narrative voice, speed of narration, character development, and setting. The second
3

phase will be the examination of particularly relevant narrative motifs that both texts have in
common with the goal of relating their specific treatment to the overall message of the text: these
motifs will include geography and topography, interpersonal relationships, nature, and religion.
Each of these categories will be delineated into a series of semiotic elements which will
ultimately reveal that the existing differences between these two narrations serve a single
purpose. Thus, through studying both the structures and semiotic codes of L’Immoraliste and La
Porte étroite, it is possible to identify the relationship between them and explore its significance
in the exposition of a singular message.
4

Chapter 1
Narrative Structure:
Foundations of Opposition
L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite present contrasting worlds, characters, and moralities,
but despite the depth of their apparent contradictions, they are not intrinsically different; in order
to expose and intensify the oppositions that exist between these two works, André Gide couches
them in a parallel structure, opposing the immoral and the devout by contrasting his narrators and
the development of their narratives. By identifying those elements which define the structure of
each novel, narrative voice and point of view and temporal exposition, the contrasts are bared
and heightened by their existence within a similar construction.
Both texts present a biographical description of a tormented and confused individual, but
this is only the beginning of their similarities. An agricultural backdrop, an impossible marriage,
religious and social conflict, and the importance of nature, all serve to intertwine L’Immoraliste
and La Porte étroite, and though the similarities abound, the narratives diverge in two opposing
directions, before reconnecting with a singular message. There are three narrative elements
which, present in both novels, also serve to distinguish them from each other: narrative voice,
point of view, and temporal exposition. The aspect of narrative voice is defined by the
contradiction between the decisive, masculine narration of L’Immoraliste versus the incomplete,
feminine narration of La Porte étroite. Similarly, the question of point of view reveals the
difference between the unity of Michel’s voice and the multiplicity of the voices of La Porte
étroite. The final contrast in narrative structure is the temporal exposition of these two
narrations; the linear style of L’Immoraliste is in direct opposition to the elliptic telling of La
Porte étroite despite the similarities in the retrospective aspect of their depiction. Though
Michel and Alissa must face similar struggles, and their stories are revealed to the reader in a
5

way that illustrates the parallelism of the two novels, the contrasts that exist within this parallel
form allow the opposition of the characters and the lives that they have constructed for
themselves.
A primary component in the exposition of both works, narrative voice also serves to
differentiate the two by the focus of the protagonist. In the role of narrator, Michel, of
L’Immoraliste, and Jérôme, of La Porte étroite, present a biographical description, but while
Michel is able to tell his story with a dominant, authoritative tone, Jérôme can only tell his story
through Alissa. While Michel’s narration is unquestionably masculine, Jérôme’s account
involves the input of so many women that it develops a level of femininity that is absent in
L’Immoraliste. Both narrators give first-person accounts of their stories, but only one, Michel,
knows the whole of his story from motivation to conclusion; therefore only Michel can
accurately recount his story from a constructive and critical viewpoint.
While each story is narrated by a man, there is a distinct difference in gender between the
narration of Michel and that of Jérôme. Michel is master of his actions and his fate and therefore
of his narrative; he presents his story to the reader through his own eyes and his own sexuality.
He talks extensively of his feelings and desires, of his illness, and of his own body. For example,
upon the completion of his recovery, Michel has a revelation:
“ma sensation devenait aussi forte qu’une pensée. . . . Il me semblait – car du fond
du passé de ma première enfance se réveillaient enfin mille lueurs, de mille
sensations égarées. La conscience que je prenais à nouveau de mes sens m’en
permettait l’inquiète reconnaissance. Oui, mes sens, réveillés désormais, se
retrouvaient toute une histoire, se recomposaient un passé. Ils vivaient ! ils
vivaient ! n’avaient jamais cessé de vivre, se découvraient, même à travers mes
6

ans d’étude, une vie latente et rusée. (47)
This ability to ignore the interjections of other characters, especially of Marceline, render the
narration utterly masculine by excluding all possibility of feminine interruption. Michel’s story,
a self-serving confession, is cathartic for him; it is the culmination of a chain of events that has
greatly changed his life. In the telling of his story Michel is able to release the problematic
influences that have been accumulating in his mind and heart. At the arrival of his friends, he
explains, “Je ne veux pas d’autre secours que celui-là: vous parler. – Car je suis à tel point de ma
vie que je ne peux plus dépasser. Pourtant ce n’est pas lassitude. Mais je ne comprends plus.
J’ai besoin… J’ai besoin de parler, vous dis-je. . . . Souffrez que je parle de moi; je vais vous
raconter ma vie . . .” (17). Michel alone makes the decisions that determine his destiny and this
level of control is evident in his narration; Marceline’s sentimentality has very little influence
over Michel; her femininity is overshadowed by, if not totally absent from, his account of their
life together. The focus of this story is not placed upon the failed marriage, but rather upon the
story of a man who exists only for himself and cannot relinquish that control to another.
Contrarily, Jérôme’s attempts to master his situation are fruitless, and it is always Alissa
who controls Jérôme’s fate. It is Alissa who refuses Jérôme’s advances and decides when he
will come to or go from Fongueusemare. He is, in turn, at her mercy and tells his story through
his efforts to understand her. Jérôme explains the submissive aspect of his own nature, “mon
esprit choisissait ses voies selon elle (Alissa), et ce qui nous occupait alors, ce que nous
appelions: pensée, n’était souvent qu’un prétexte à quelque communion plus savante qu’un
déguisement du sentiment, qu’un revêtement de l’amour” (39). Jérôme’s knowledge is
incomplete and this is represented by his submissive role in the narration; he is dependent upon
the others to complete his view of the story, and subsequently, the others are all female. Their
7

feminine influence is evident when Jérôme attempts to explain his relationship precisely because
he himself does not understand it. Alissa’s sentimentality and her faith affect Jérôme’s telling of
the story and reveal the intermingling of their voices. His voice is overshadowed by Alissa’s,
and without her influence on the narration, he is unable to complete his story. Jérôme’s voice is
tainted by Alissa’s and as a result takes on a femininity that comes to define his narration.
Narrative point of view is particularly important in these two works because these similar
narrations are presented from two very different points of view. L’Immoraliste presents a much
more centered narration than that of La Porte étroite, in the sense that Michel is not only the
center of his own internal world but the central and single voice of the narration. Jérôme is
contrarily only the main among a series of other voices, and it is Alissa who is the hub of his
universe. While Michel recounts his story almost without interruption, Jérôme is unable to
present the reader with a complete account of his story and must therefore include letters and
dialogues not only from Alissa but from a great many secondary characters as well. The
difference in point of view when opposing these two narrative structures is therefore the
difference between a single voice and a multitude of voices.
Excluding the first and last pages of L’Immoraliste, Michel tells his story without aid,
sometimes evoking conversations in which he took part but never surrendering control of the
narration from his first word to his last. Unlike La Porte étroite, the only perspective provided
for the reader is that of Michel, and his interaction with other characters, even when they are
quoted directly, is only important as it relates to the narrator himself, because his
phenomenological consciousness is the measure of all things. The unity of the narration leads to
a comprehensive view of Michel’s world; his point of view remains unchanged throughout the
narration and this gives a single perspective on a single world that exists only within the
8

perspective of the sole individual, Michel. The relationship between Michel and the narration
serves to reveal his mastery of it and to reinforce his superiority.
Jérôme’s account of events, on the other hand, is laced with letters from beginning to end
and capped off with a substantial portion of Alissa’s journal. The reader is provided not only
with Jérôme’s view of the situation but with Alissa’s, Juliette’s, Aunt Plantier’s, and his best
friend Abel’s; these other perspectives are necessitated by and act as a complement to the
seeming incomprehension of Jérôme, who needs them to fill in the blanks of his own perception
on the events surrounding his heartbreak. After his temporary banishment following the
engagement of Juliette and Edouard, Jérôme explains his forced detachment from the events that
he perceives will shape his future; “Par ma tante – et par elle seule d’abord – j’eus des nouvelles
du Havre; j’appris par elle quelles inquiétudes le pénible état de Juliette avait données les
premiers jours. Douze jours après mon départ, enfin je reçus ce billet d’Alissa:” (90). Being
unable to bear witness to the events himself, Jérome is forced to accept the incomplete and
belated accounts of Tante Félicie and Alissa in an attempt to piece together a coherent view of
the situation. These supplementary voices reveal Jérôme’s subservience in comparison to
Michel; Jérôme is dependant upon the information provided by the other characters to complete
his story because he is lacking a great deal of knowledge when it comes to the inner-mind of
Alissa. Eric Marty explains this phenomenon in his article “A propos de La Porte étroite
Répétition et remémoration: Le nouvel Abaila” :
. . . du début au fin, il [Jérôme] ne comprend pas, ne comprend rien, semble se
heurter à un être qui déjoue toutes les stratégies, les suppositions. … si Jérôme
échoue en effet, dans le présent de son vécu, de ses agissements et de ses
réactions, à comprendre Alissa, la remémoration qu’il en fait a posteriori achoppe
9

elle aussi – alors qu’elle possède toutes les clefs du problème – non seulement à
comprendre le comportement d’Alissa, mais même à restituer, dans sa vérité, ce
qui s’est passé. La remémoration, comme principe qui pousse Jérôme à récrire ce
qu’il a vécu, est donc impuissante à restituer l’histoire : c’est-à-dire à donner une
cohérence aux comportements des personnages et plus humblement encore à dire
ce qui a eu lieu. . . . et qu’avec son Journal elle [Alissa] dise ce que Jérôme ne
pouvait exprimer. . . (79-80)
Jérôme’s narrative position is consequently weakened by his dependence on outside sources to
complete the story of his own life which is so focused on Alissa that it remains incomplete
without her voice. Like Michel’s narration, Alissa’s portion of the narration is far more
authoritative as well as more comprehensive due to her introspective point of view. The
difference in narrative point of view between L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite is therefore the
contrast between the unity of voice provided by Michel and the multiplicity of voices that
overtake Jérôme’s. In these two works it is the single narrative voice that commands authority,
and Michel’s voice thus becomes more authoritative than Jérôme’s. While Michel controls his
own universe, Jérôme’s is contrarily controlled by others.
The third and final aspect of narrative structure that is placed in opposition in these two
works is that of temporal exposition; though both stories are told retrospectively, the chronology
of L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite is quite different. Michel tells his story in a linear fashion
and accounts for his time as he goes, very rarely skipping over more than a day or two at a time,
while Jérôme’s narration allows large quantities of time to go unaccounted for as he passes time
in years rather than in days. Michel is therefore in control; he can organize the passage of time
in his narrative. Jérôme however is a toy of circumstance, because he cannot reconstitute the
10

time that he lost with Alissa.
Michel goes into great detail in recounting the three year period that spans the narration
of L’Immoraliste. During the honeymoon voyage and during the subsequent travel which
precedes Marceline’s death, the days of the trip are accounted for as the couple passes from one
city to the next. The days spent in recovery are less strictly accounted for but they are equally as
detailed, and very little time passes between Michel’s explanations of his progress. For example,
as Michel recovers from his tuberculosis, he notes, “Le lendemain matin, dans ce même jardin je
revins avec Marceline; le soir du même jour j’y allai seul” (51). It is this meticulous attention to
time that provides a contrast to La Porte étroite which allows time to pass in great lapses.
Michel’s desire to provide a full and accurate description of his life leads him to pay closer
attention to the passage of time and to go into more detail with the events of his past.
While L’Immoraliste spans only three years and does so in a linear fashion, La Porte
étroite follows Jérôme from the age of twelve through the completion of his military service
which would have lasted five years beyond the termination of his studies. In order to cover at
least three times as many years in an identical number of pages, the chronology of La Porte
étroite is much more elliptical. While Michel often gives a day to day or at least a week to week
account of events, Jérôme, recounting his story as a memoir, often allows years to pass without
description. He remarks, “Les semaines, les mois s’écoulaient dans des occupations monotones .
. .” (107) and later “Pourtant je revis encore Alissa … Ce fut trois ans plus tard, vers la fin de
l’été” (145). Jérôme’s remarks illustrate the extent to which he has been dispossessed from his
life; he has lost control of his time, and life seems to be passing him by as he desperately
attempts to grab hold. Though there are periods of time that are glossed over in L’Immoraliste,
they are sparse in comparison with La Porte étroite. This opposition also lends credence to the
11

points about narrative voice and point of view because while both stories are accounts of events
as they occurred, the linear exposition provides more details over a shorter period of time in
greater depth than the elliptical version.
The differences that exist between the narrative structure of L’Immoraliste and that of La
Porte étroite are such that they help to call attention to the differences that exist in the content as
well as in the main characters. Though both novels have a similar narrative structure in that they
are both retrospective, largely autobiographical narrations, the differences that exist in gender of
the narrative voice, in the differentiation between a unified and multiple point of view, and in the
contrast between linear and elliptical exposition are the structure within which the other more
substantive oppositions are constructed.
These elements of narrative structure function in the text as a representation of the
relationship between the content of the works and the form in which they are written. Narrative
voice and point of view and temporal exposition are all the manifestation of the characters and
their actions in the texts. The question of gender in narrative voice reveals the focus of the
content in each book; while the narration in L’Immoraliste is exclusively masculine, as is its
subject, that of La Porte étroite is tinged with femininity because the text is focused on Alissa
rather than Jérôme. The masculine narration is therefore focused on a male protagonist, whereas
the feminine narration, though primarily reported by a man, is focused on a female character.
The multiplicity of voices in La Porte étroite and the elliptic quality of the temporal exposition
are representative of Jérôme’s confusion. Michel on the other hand is completely self-concerned
and therefore only his voice is audible. At the same time, his linear explanation of events is
consistent with his own evolution, whereas Jérôme must attempt to convey the regressing
evolution of Alissa, of which he understands very little. The form therefore becomes an element
12

of the content in the sense that it reveals more information about the characteristics of all of the
characters and the substance of the two narrations. By understanding the form, it becomes
possible to study specific aspects of the text which confirm the contradiction between Michel and
Alissa. In order to fully explore the binary opposition between L’Immoraliste and La Porte
étroite, the next phase requires the investigation of four common motifs that will exemplify the
difference between Michel and Alissa: geography and topography, interpersonal relationships,
nature, and religion.
13

Chapter 2
Geographical and Topographical Motifs:
From the Back Alleys of Paris to the Lush Gardens of Biskra
The importance of geography in the definition of self lies in its malleability; being one of
the few factors that man can control from his first steps to his last, it is this choice of
environment that defines man through his relationship to the outside world. From the back alleys
of Paris to the lush gardens of Biskra, André Gide defines his characters through the exploitation
and manipulation of the locales that surround them and succeeds in exposing their traits through
their geographical preferences. Although geography may seem superficial and distinctly exterior
to the determining factors of identity, it is in fact a seminal influence on the personality,
mentality, and physicality of the individual; Gide’s attention to environment is therefore a
reflection of its importance in his work. Geographically, André Gide subjected himself to a
constantly evolving world, and his travels allowed him to shake off the yoke of the religious and
societal demands that constrained him. It was this extensive geographical and therefore self
exploration that inspired great transformations in his life, including the political, philosophical,
and sexual revolutions that shape his work.
As Gide expands his geographical horizons, he finds himself to be both liberated and
defined by the landscape which surrounds him and chooses, in turn, to subject his characters to
this same mingling of freedom and restraint. Michel, of L'Immoraliste, and Alissa, of La Porte
étroite, are not immune to this process and exemplify the two extremes of geographical
definition through the binary opposition of their obstinate characters. Although in contrary
fashions, they both find themselves shaped and eventually branded by their respective
environments. The transient instability of Michel contrasts starkly with the homebound
stagnancy of Alissa, but both are equally defined by their opposing views of travel, which can be
14

divided into two polar oppositions: immobility versus transience and familiarity versus
exoticism. It is through the constraints of geography that each one will make the choice that the
other could never make; Michel must choose life, while Alissa must choose death.
Exoticism: Disenchanted Enchantment
The contradiction between familiarity and exoticism constitutes the first opposition
between Michel and Alissa and is a direct reflection of their geographical choices. Alissa seeks
not only the familiarity of home but also the ideals of attraction and corporality that are upheld
within the confines of that existence. Contrarily, Michel rejects familiarity in favor of exoticism
by seeking out foreign locales and embracing the less socially acceptable forms of attraction and
corporality, including homosexuality and pederasty. Both L'Immoraliste and La Porte étroite
exemplify the link between identity, sexual preference, and the choice of environment. It is also
important to note that France itself plays a role in the illustration of this contrast through its
opposition with Africa; while both characters are judged by and judge themselves through the
French consciousness, Alissa’s continental devotion is contrary to Michel’s seeming rejection of
his homeland. In order to find the exoticism he seeks, Michel must expand the horizons of his
existence through foreign travel, but Alissa, on the other hand, is fiercely loyal to her society and
her country.
In her refusal to abandon Fongueusemare, Alissa clings to all the traditional roles of
courtship and virginity, and through the denial of her sexuality, she is able to remain virginal and
detached from Jérôme while at the same time luring him into her garden hideaway through her
self-destructive seclusion. If she will not come out, he is obliged to come in, with or without an
invitation. In a conversation between Jérôme and Juliette, Alissa’s sister, Jérôme explains, « Un
jour, je lui ai demandé si elle souhaitait voyager. Elle m’a dit qu’elle ne souhaitait rien, et qu’il
15

lui suffisait de savoir que ces pays existaient, qu’ils étaient beaux, qu’il était permis à d’autres
d’y aller… » (Porte étroite 52). She cannot diverge from the familiar path of virginity due to a
paralyzing fear of the exotic or even the abnormal. This is evidenced by her incessant worrying
over society’s opinions on her actions and acquaintances. By putting the needs of others above
her own happiness, she subjugates herself to her family and therefore avoids the exterior,
marriage, and the experience of life. She will not even allow herself the possibility of escaping,
even briefly, from her life at Fongueusemare. For Michel, on the other hand, it is the exoticism
of Biskra that heals him, and he is reborn under the warm African sun, almost simultaneously
discovering his own homosexuality. It is the escape from all that is familiar that allows Michel
to live for the first time in his life, to pass from an intellectual to an active human being.
The final example of this contrast between the familiar and the exotic is found in the
topographical differences between France and Africa and in Michel and Alissa's reactions toward
their own home country of France. Before broaching the subject of preference and its causes, the
variations in topography must first be detailed. While the topography of France is familiar to
both characters, that of Africa is enchanting for Michel precisely because of its differences. The
arid desert lands, the oases, the brilliant sun are all comforting for Michel, because their novelty
serves as proof of the distance he has imposed between himself and France.
The reactions of Michel and Alissa toward France are definitively linked to their
interpretation of societal codes and are therefore determined by their ability to exist within that
society. It is France which either protects or rejects the microcosmic worlds of morality and
immorality created by Alissa and Michel. Although it is from the French viewpoint that each is
judged and judges himself, both must find a way to deny the external world in preference of the
internal one. While Michel abandons France at the end of L’Immoraliste, in La Porte étroite,
16

Alissa voyages deeper into the heart of the country with a trip to Paris from which she never
plans to return. Just before her flight to Paris, Alissa writes in her journal, « Cette maison, ce
jardin encouragent intolérablement mon amour. Je veux fuir en un lieu où je ne verrai plus que
Vous » (175). It is not only the memory of Jérôme’s presence in the garden that haunts Alissa
but his capacity to provoke a sexual response in her that she feels she must repress. She
abandons her familial and romantic relationships not only to find her own peace with God but in
order to lift Jérôme to a higher level in her religious schema. For Michel, the experience is one
of new encounters and new experiences, while simultaneously bringing his three best friends to
bear witness to his testimonial. While branching out and building new relationships, Michel
continues to nurture those relationships which are important to him. One of these friends writes,
“Tu sais quelle amitié de collège, forte déjà, mais chaque année grandie, liait Michel à Denis, à
Daniel, à moi. Entre nous quatre une sorte de pacte fut conclu: au moindre appel de l’un
devaient répondre les trios autres. Quand donc je reçus de Michel ce mystérieux cri d’alarme, je
prévins aussitôt Daniel et Denis, et tous trois, quittant tout, nous partîmes » (13). These choices
reflect more than the patriotism, or lack thereof, of the characters however, because they are
representative of both characters’ interactions with the outside world. It seems that Michel’s
friends, in seeking a position for him, help to link him to France, but it is only with an eye
toward changing France that Michel attempts to reconcile with it. In abandoning France
geographically and finding solace and acceptance in Africa, Michel opens himself more
completely to the outside world and the people who inhabit it; according to Pollard, “By
appealing simultaneously to images of heterosexual and homosexual attraction Gide evokes the
pagan quality of such love, unconstrained as it is (in his view) by the bonds of puritanical
Christianity and the conventions of French bourgeois civilization” (118). The element of society
17

and religion that Gide, and in turn Michel, rebels against is precisely that which Alissa
incarnates. Alissa conversely travels to Paris in order to further seclude herself from the world
and to reject those people who seek to change her. Both are bonded to France, but their choices
reveal their differing feelings toward their homeland which in maintaining its idealistic attitudes
comforts Alissa while rebuffing Michel.
The intense effect of geography and travel on the formation of the individual manifests
itself in both La Porte étroite and L’Immoraliste through the exposition of Alissa and Michel’s
reaction to and opinion of travel. In both narratives, the environment in which the character lives
is the environment of his or her choice, and it is the capacity to choose that illustrates one’s
preferred identity. In exposing the conflicting views of these two characters, the relationship
between home and abroad reveals the symbiotic power of each state to influence the identity of
an individual and of the identity to influence the locale. In these two works, Gide uses the
constraint of Alissa and her social acceptance to render her unhappy, while allowing Michel
almost guiltless freedom but punishing him with ostracism and rewarding him with a modicum
of happiness. Their positions could not be more diametrically opposed yet they are both defined
by the world in which they place themselves and the reciprocity between each one and his own
world exhibits not only the influence of environment on Alissa and Michel but their influence on
the exterior world.
Haven or Hell
The second opposition between Alissa and Michel is that of lifestyle. The transience of
Michel is in sharp contrast to the immobility of Alissa, and the reasons behind this conflict are
reflected in the oppositions of home and travel and of self-acceptance and self-delusion. These
oppositions reflect the binary relationship between both Michel and Alissa and L’Immoraliste
18

and La Porte étroite, but more importantly, they reveal the relationship between the definition of
self and geography. One must either embrace or abandon the identity provided them by their
home and, in so doing, arrive at a turning point where the decision must be made to accept or
deny this exterior identity in relation to the interior identity of the individual.
The home is a common motif between L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, both novels
present a family home, a place of origin, but the way in which the principal characters view these
homes is quite different. Home may be at once a comfort and a curse, because while offering
shelter and protection, it can simultaneously force a stagnation of self and become a snare for the
soul enmeshed in confusion. Fongueusemare, Alissa’s family home, and La Morinière, Michel’s
inherited home, form the backdrop for this opposition and reveal the intrinsic differences
between the two characters.
Gide presents Fongueusemare as a haven from the outside world; its walls, both natural
and man-made, shelter the characters from the harsh but true realities of life. It is only when the
sanctuary becomes a self-created prison that the dangers and delusions of this isolationism
become clear. The name itself, Fongueusemare, supports this interpretation of stillness,
stagnancy, and decay; Fongueuse meaning fungous and mare meaning pond are both indicative
of Alissa’s physical and mental state. La Porte étroite introduces the reader first to the family
home of les Bucolin in Fongueusemare and subsequently to its inhabitants, Alissa among them.
Gide’s introduction to the house reveals its striking similarity to Alissa herself; as he will
subsequently with Alissa, Jérôme remarks not only its beauty but its age.
. . . la maison des Bucolin, blanche, à deux étages, ressemble à beaucoup de
maisons de campagne du siècle avant-dernier. Les fenêtres sont à petits carreaux
quelques-uns, récemment remplacés, paraissent trop clairs parmi les vieux qui,
19

auprès, paraissent verts et ternis. Certains ont des défauts que nos parents
appellent des ‘bouillons’; l’arbre qu’on regarde au travers se dégingande; le
facteur, en passant devant prend une bosse brusquement. (Porte étroite 14-15)
In this simple architectural exposition Gide reveals the physical problems which encumber the
relationship between Alissa and Jérôme; Alissa’s age as well as her religious convictions are
exemplified in the age of the house while the contrast between the old and new windows reveals
the burden of the romantic age gap and Alissa’s perceived incongruity beside Jérôme. The
physical ties however are not the only link between Alissa and her home, as her existence is
recounted in relation to her presence in the home; the reader is constantly aware of her location
and is unable to interpret her behavior without this spatial coordination. The reader is not alone,
however, in this geographical preoccupation as Alissa cannot separate herself, physically or
psychologically, from Fongueusemare; she defines herself by her presence and her role in the
home. It is only within the confines of this home that she is a daughter, a sister, and a caretaker.
The establishment of any distance between Alissa and Fongueusemare leaves her feeling futile,
and she therefore travels very rarely and languishes in an unhappy homesickness when she does.
She turns herself into a nun and Fongueusemare into her convent; her life becomes one of self-
imposed sacrifice, service, and celibacy, rather than one of physical joy and self-fulfillment.
While visiting her sister during one of very few absences from Fongueusemare, Alissa writes,
“. . . le bonheur de Juliette devrait me combler… pourquoi mon Coeur cède-t-il à une mélancolie
incompréhensible, dont je ne parviens pas à me défendre? La beauté même de ce pays, que je
sens, que je constate du moins, ajoute encore à mon inexplicable tristesse… » (108-9). Even
when she abandons her home on her funereal voyage to Paris, she is still haunted by the ghosts
of Fongueusemare and never completely succeeds in excising them from her psyche. Alissa
20

views travel and the rented room as the death of her identity, because she cannot exist in her
current virginal, sheltered state outside of her home. To extricate herself from the environment
she has chosen would necessitate a life change, presumably her mariage and, in turn, what she
considers the betrayal of her sister, her father, and most importantly of herself.
Alissa chooses to devote her life to God in an act of piety, to force herself down a path of
despair in order to guarantee Jérôme’s eternal happiness. In making this last pilgrimage to Paris,
Alissa isolates herself not only from Jérôme but also from her family and from Fongueusemare
in order to take her place beside God, but this itinerant life without possessions or family ties is
completely contrary to the lifestyle she has chosen up to that point. The rented room is therefore
a place of empty discontent for Alissa, who makes no attempt to possess the room or to mark it
as her own. While she is seemingly attempting to run toward God, she is in fact running away
from herself, her sexuality, her past, and her future.
In direct conflict with Alissa’s isolationist ideals, Michel lives a lifestyle so intensely
transient that he is unwilling to associate himself with la Morinière for any period of time. He
finds a brief refuge in the tranquility of the countryside but quickly becomes entrenched in
boredom and begins to amuse himself with the exploits of his workers. What time he does spend
there, he uses to taint his image among those people who know him best and gradually distance
himself from society by the trivialization of those opinions which negate his own. He spends a
great deal of time exploring the limits of his domain, pushing the envelope of his current life.
Contrary to the lived-in, cozy feeling of Fongueusemare, la Morinière has a museum quality
upon the couple’s arrival. Gide writes, “Marceline, trois domestiques, moi-même parfois y
aidant, nous avions fort à faire d’en animer une partie. Notre vieux garde, qui se nommait
Bocage avait déjà fait apprêter de son mieux quelques pièces: de leur sommeil de vingt années
21

les vieux meubles se réveillèrent” (82). Michel does not dislike his home; he admires its
exterior beauty, but the pleasant memories it evokes have the disadvantage of sending him
backward in time to a moment before his self-exposition and acceptance. It is this anachronistic
quality of a new life in an old world which seems to provoke Michel’s further explorations and
eventual exploits.
In order to continue the reformation of his life, Michel illustrates his developing
homosexual and pederastic tendencies first in his seduction of Charles, the son of his caretaker,
and second, by befriending a young poacher, to the extent of doubly funding his nightly
excursions, and eventually becoming fascinated by the incestuous relationships of the boy’s
family. Michel is therefore only truly satisfied by his home when he is using it as a means of his
own destruction and rebirth, be they social or physical. L’Immoraliste, as a result, invokes the
importance of travel through the rejection of home and self. It is not at his family home that
Michel seeks refuge but in the rented room near Biskra where he cannot be defined by his prior
existence. Michel’s present life is completely dissociated from the expectations of his friends,
because in distancing himself from his home, he seeks also to distance himself from the
judgment of his peers and his society. It is only in his experiences abroad that he is able to attain
the level of self-exploration that he seeks, and it is this state that leads him to initiate the changes
that bring him a state of peace. For Michel, home is representative of death and stagnation,
because it represents the regression of his self-acceptance. It is only in escaping the boundaries
of his home that Michel can continue his quest for freedom and self-indulgence. While travel
represents death for Alissa by stripping away her prior identity, it is precisely for this reason that
Michel sees it as his rebirth.
The disparity between Michel’s voyage to Biskra and Alissa’s trip to Paris serves to
22

illustrate the difference between their perceptions of travel. Alissa chooses to leave her home
only as a last resort, knowing that she will never return. To make this trip, she must abandon her
prior existence and embrace death, because she cannot survive outside of this familiar
environment. Michel, on the other hand, travels to Biskra and beyond by choice in the vein of
exploration; it is here that he heals from his bout of tuberculosis, and when his health is restored,
he finds himself experiencing a more significant change than expected. The sun and the gardens
of Africa give birth to a new self and awaken his latent desires. To deny or accept one’s own
identity is the question that arises between these two personages, because it is this question
which defines their actions and choices.
Eden: Good and Evil in the Garden
The final contradiction between Michel and Alissa is the representation of the garden;
this topographical element exemplifies the differences between the two principal characters and
serves as an extension of their morality and ideals. Gardens appear in many of Gide’s works and
often function differently depending on the context. In an article on the importance of the garden
in Gide’s works, Patrick Pollard writes,
Within a town, a garden is a privileged space. It is where the regimented
order of civilization ceases to exist. But it is, of course, also arranged in
relation to the world outside. It is in a particular sense an oasis – a place where
the body and the soul may be refreshed. Such locations are variously described
by Gide, and their value within the texts where they appear is not uniform
throughout his writings. A garden may, for example, be portrayed as an
enchanted place where the normal rules of restrained conduct are suspended and
where delight reigns. (116)
23

Pollard’s quote underlines the two influences upon Michel’s and Alissa’s gardens, in that that of
Alissa is a civilized oasis defined by the rules of society, while that of Michel is defiant of
societal rules. In L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, the reader is therefore confronted with two
images of the garden; the enclosed privacy of Alissa’s family garden at Fongueusemare and the
exotic freedom of Michel’s public gardens in Biskra.
The gardens of Alissa and Michel are lush and abundant in their contradictions. Alissa’s
garden is unquestionably private; much like Alissa herself, it is not only the property of her
father but is also ensconced by walls which prohibit the entrance of outsiders. Gide describes the
angular privacy of the garden, writing « Le jardin, rectangulaire, est entouré de murs. Il forme
devant la maison une pelouse assez large, ombragée, dont une allée de sable et de gravier fait le
tour. . . . Une allée, riante de fleurs, devant les espaliers au midi, est abritée contre les vents de
mer par un épais rideau de lauriers du Portugal et par quelques arbres » (Porte étroite 15). The
presence of doors implies the ability to control access to the garden; the doors can be closed to
shut out unwanted visitors. In his article, “André Gide and the Disintegration of the Protestant
Cell,” Martin Turnell describes the readers reaction to Gide’s description of the garden; “In spite
of the air of neatness and symmetry, we begin to feel that we are being enclosed, that walls and
avenues of trees are winding themselves about us, cutting us off from the rest of the world” (22).
It is precisely this feeling which makes the reader uncomfortable by its oppressiveness, which
comforts Alissa through the protection that it provides her.
Michel’s garden in Biskra, however, is a public park which he values for the mélange of
acquaintances he discovers there. The dark-skinned exoticism of the Arabs, especially the
children, enchants Michel, and the absence of constraint encompasses the freedom that he feels
in his first adventure into the garden. The only factor which hinders his freedom of action and
24

expression is the presence of Marceline, his wife, which he eliminates in the majority of his
future excursions. Unlike in Fongueusemare, nature is the garden’s only protector. It is only the
extension of the garden, the oasis, which is encircled by walls, but Michel’s curiosity and
invigoration allows him to traverse this barrier with ease and to enter into the luscious heart of
the garden. Gide writes, « C’était un lieu plein d’ombre et de lumière; tranquille, et qui semblait
comme à l’abri du temps; plein de silences et de frémissements, bruit léger de l’eau qui s’écoule,
abreuve les palmiers, et d’arbre en arbre fuit, appel discret des tourterelles, chant de flûte dont un
enfant jouait » (Immoraliste 50). He is completely overcome by his experiences in these gardens
and passes from one to another with increasing fascination, encountering the children with whom
he becomes enamored. Gide invokes the sexual powers of these gardens in the previous
quotation; Michel remarks the young child playing a flute, and the reader is confronted with the
relationship between the child and the phallus, which acts as a metaphor for oral sex. The garden
in L’Immoraliste is thus a starting point for Michel’s sexual exploration and serves as a sexual
focal point in the narration.
The garden plays an important role in both novels and is representative of sexuality,
especially female sexuality. Following this connection between the garden and sexuality, the
garden at Fongueusemare reflects Alissa’s ideas about sex. The garden is the birthplace of life in
Fongueusemare; life flourishes within its boundaries, while Alissa herself deteriorates. She
cultivates her garden, and Jérôme is rarely allowed to penetrate it, and when he does, this
controlled environment renders him utterly powerless against the will of Alissa. The fertility of
the garden is representative of Alissa’s own fertility and thus the garden represents the uterus
which Jérôme seeks to enter through a slender portal. Taking a sexual interpretation of the title,
la porte étroite is the narrow vaginal passageway through which Jérôme seeks his pleasure.
25

Toward the end of the novel, Michel, hearing Alissa’s call and believing that their love will
finally come to fruition, forces the small door leading into the garden. In this sense, the narrow
entryway into the fertile garden symbolizes Alissa’s sexuality. Instead of allowing Michel to
realize his pleasure, Alissa breaks Michel’s heart and pushes him back out of the garden. The
gardens of Biskra play a dual role for Michel, because they are not only the inspiration for his
recovery, but it is also there, in the seat of the female sex, that he rejects his traditional wife in
favor of his more exotic pederastic tendencies. When Marceline introduces Michel to a group of
children on their first expedition into the garden, he remarks her presence, « Mais ce qui me
gênait, l’avouerai-je, ce n’étaient pas les enfants, c’était elle » (43). It is therefore at this moment
surrounded by children in a serenity of sexuality and femininity, when he should be thinking of
his wife and the family they will have together, that he first rejects his wife in favor of the young
Arab boys. After the death of Marceline, he will bury her in a lush garden and with her his only
link to society’s sexual ideals. The garden is hence a private refuge for Alissa where she chooses
to shelter herself from the outside world, whereas it is for Michel an opportunity to open himself
to the exoticism of this strange land and its people.
These geographical and topographical contradictions are representative of the intrinsic
differences between Michel and Alissa. Gide traveled extensively and these travels greatly
influenced his life and in turn those of Michel and Alissa. To travel, to manipulate topography
according to one’s preferences, is to free one’s self from the boundaries imposed by society and
to engage in a self-discovery that is not limited by the morals and values of the native society.
Alissa’s rejection of travel and her affinity for Fongueusemare are the result of an attempt to
preserve the innocence of her past. Her path diverges with that of Michel in the contempt that
the latter feels for the judgment that is intertwined with his home. Michel discovers himself
26

through his travels and is in turn forever changed by them. In reference to Gide, Pollard writes,
“so important for him were his early pederastic experiences in North Africa and his sense of
dépaysement that there is often an unmistakable undertow of eroticism which complements the
exotic quality of the picture,” and these words apply equally to Michel, who seeks out the exotic
in order to achieve self-fulfillment and rebuff society’s expectations (113). While Alissa must
define herself through her home and country, Michel must abandon his past in order to embrace
the unknown and in turn accept himself.
27

Chapter 3
Interpersonal Relationships:
Friend versus Foe
The study of geography and topography illustrates the opposition between Michel
and Alissa on an environmental level, but it can also be explored by studying their interactions
with the other characters and their families. Interpersonal relationships are the foundation of all
social interaction from the bond between parent and child, to that between friends, lovers, and
finally spouses; while some of these relationships are inherent to the individual, others are based
on preference and therefore reflect upon the self-perceived identity of the individual, rather than
the preconceived identity provided by family relationships. Friends, lovers, and spouses are all
chosen by the individual rather than inflicted upon him, but even the recluse, who chooses to
neglect these relationships, cannot escape the parental and familial bond into which he is born. It
is these relationships that force the development of different dimensions of the individual; it is a
division of self that serves to define the whole and give depth to the identity. Though Gide often
considered himself an exile, he was not without family, friends, and lovers who shaped his
spiritual and physical being both through their presence and their absence, their love and their
disgust; these relationships are equally influential for Michel and Alissa as they struggle to come
to terms with themselves through the people that make up their lives.
Michel and Alissa are again opposites in their reactions to their interpersonal
relationships; their positions and tribulations are not dissimilar, but their responses can often go
to two very different extremes. While Michel is open and extroverted, Alissa is decidedly
closed off and introverted, and though both sacrifice themselves at a certain point in order to
please their families, Michel by following the advice of his father and Alissa by ignoring the well
wishes of her family, neither is able to achieve a state of physical or emotional satiation. Finally,
28

neither is able to truly love their significant other; Michel loves Marceline but not to the extent of
extending the charade, while Alissa denies herself the love of Jérôme expressly to push him
closer to a relationship with God. The common elements between the interpersonal relationships
of Michel and Alissa which provide a basis for comparison are the contradiction between
introvert and extrovert, the relationship between parent and child, the child as a recipient of
affection, and association of innocence or culpability with sex.
The difference between introvert and extrovert is an important distinction between the
main characters of La Porte étroite and L’Immoraliste, because both are defined by their ability,
or more accurately inability, to maintain the relationships that should sustain them. Michel’s
extroversion is taken to excess; he opens himself even to those influences that others fear and
ridicule, such as Ménalque. Contrarily, Alissa is introverted to the point of disappearing into the
fold of her family.
L’Immoraliste opens with Michel, surrounded by his closest and yet remarkably distant
friends, recounting the story of the birth and destruction of his marriage and of his exploits
during this time. He is not without friends in this exotic locale either though; he has opened
himself to the natives and with each voyage continues to expand his list of acquaintances. The
reader constantly witnesses the arrival and departure of friends, both new and old, during the
many stops along his unending journey. His encounters with new friends are not the sole proof
of his extroversion, as his return to Paris allows him the opportunity to frequent his old friends as
well. He spends weeks visiting two to three friends a day, passing from lunch with one to dinner
with another, to an evening at the home of another. He is constantly reevaluating his old friends
while opening himself to new ones. It is this ability to embrace the unknown that inspires and
encourages Michel’s extroversion. He is open to nurturing friendships with those people whom
29

the rest of society has rejected out of fear or disgust. The quintessential example of this free-
spirited approach to friendship is the shady, somewhat ubiquitous character of Ménalque. At the
time of the first encounter, Gide writes of Ménalque,
Récemment, un absurde, un honteux procès à scandale avait été pour les
journaux une commode occasion de le salir; ceux que son dédain et sa supériorité
blessaient s’emparèrent de ce prétexte à leur vengeance ; et ce qui les irritait le
plus, c’est qu’il n’en parût pas affecté. . . .Mais la ‘bonne société’ s’indigna et
ceux qui, comme l’on dit, ‘se respectent’ crurent devoir se détourner de lui et lui
rendre ainsi son mépris. Ce me fut une raison de plus: attiré vers lui par une
secrète influence, je m’approchai et l’embrassai amicalement devant tous. (107)
Ménalque, this man that others avoid, is for Michel attractive due to his exile, and the stronger,
more visible the social rejection, the warmer Michel’s feelings of friendship. This friendship
runs so deep that Michel abandons his ill wife in order to spend a last fleeting evening with
Ménalque, and the cost of this evening is the miscarriage of his unborn child.
While Michel embraces the unknown, Alissa clearly fears it; she finds herself surrounded
solely by her family, and it is consequently the lack of acquaintances that marks her
relationships. Her introversion is so complete that throughout the entirety of La Porte étroite,
she makes only one new social contact, Edouard de Teissières, who, with his marriage to her
sister Juliette, also becomes a member of her extended family. Those friends that she does have
make very few appearances, and when they do arrive on the scene they become more an excuse
to avoid Jérôme than an opportunity to invest herself in the affairs of the outside world. Jérôme
complains, “J’arrivai bien avant l’heure du repas, mais trouvai Alissa causant avec une amie
qu’elle n’eut pas la force de congédier et qui n’eut pas la discrétion de partir” (115). It is not
30

with friends that Alissa’s interests are piqued but rather with her siblings, Juliette and Robert,
and her father. When she does leave the isolation of her home, it is to the homes of her relatives
that she flees, and it is their opinions which she values above all others. The reader often sees
only a fleeting, indeterminate image of Alissa as she passes between her different family roles.
At the Christmas party, Jérôme tries time and again to find a moment alone with Alissa, but she
goes from one task to another without slowing down to acknowledge his appeal. After the news
that Juliette is to marry M. de Teissières, Jérôme is exiled from his aunt’s home and is only later
contacted by letter. Alissa prefers the written word to the spoken and is therefore able to avoid
face to face contact even with Jérôme. It is by letter that she first officially withdraws from their
relationship; she writes, “Mon ami, quel triste revoir! tu semblais dire que la faute en était aux
autres, mais tu n’as pu t’en persuader toi-même. Et maintenant je crois, je sais qu’il en sera
toujours ainsi. Ah ! je t’en prie, ne nous revoyons plus !” (118). Alissa is therefore introverted
to the point of isolation and avoidance and succeeds in furthering her condition to the point of
ruining her relationship with Jérôme.
In L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, the parent plays an important role in the
formation of self. Be it the father or mother, the opinion of the parent often determines the self-
perceived value of the individual. There lies a power in this parental bond that can devastate the
child; only the creator has the power to destroy that which he has created. Michel’s and Alissa’s
parents play pivotal roles in the development of their children despite their relatively small roles
in the text. When abandoned by these seminal influences, both Michel and Alissa find
themselves scarred by their upbringings and struggling to fulfill the expectations of the absent
parent.
The character of the mother, though only briefly mentioned in L’Immoraliste, plays an
31

important role in the lives of both characters. It is from his mother that Michel is encumbered
with the strictness of the protestant faith, and it is therefore through her eyes that he looks down
upon himself. Although with time, he has not only erased this harsh upbringing from his mind
but his mother’s picture as well. While Michel’s mother was an influence on his youth, Alissa’s
will be her undoing. Alissa’s mother, Lucile Bucolin, was not altogether well and her reputation
was stained by extra-marital affairs and an irrepressible sexuality. Jérôme himself falls victim to
this sexuality; he remembers,
. . . sortant son petit miroir, elle attire contre le sien mon visage, passe autour de
mon cou son bras nu, descend sa main dans ma chemise entrouverte, demande en
riant si je suis chatouilleux, pousse plus avant… J’eus un sursaut si brusque que
ma vareuse se déchira; le visage en feu, . . . je m’enfuis ; je courus jusqu’au fond
du jardin ; là, dans un petit citerneau du potager, je trempai mon mouchoir,
l’appliquai sur mon front, lavai, frottai mes joues, mon cou, tout ce que cette
femme avait touché. (21-2)
This woman who should be a paragon of motherly virtue is in fact just the opposite, and Alissa,
physically resembling her mother, cannot separate herself from the intensity of of Lucile’s vice.
Lucile Bucolin demands to be surrounded by Juliette and Robert but consistently separates
Alissa from the others. Alissa is left alone in her room while the other children sit at their
mother’s bedside. “Ces tristes jours, Alissa s’enfermait dans sa chambre, où parfois son père
venait la retrouver; car il causait souvent avec elle” (22). Alissa’s future isolation will be self-
inflicted, but it has at its origins this feeling of rejection at the hands of her mother. Lucile is
intentionally absent from her daughter’s life long before she physically takes her leave of the
entire family to run off with a young lieutenant. It is important to note that it is her mother’s
32

example of infidelity that frightens Alissa away from marriage. Alissa’s abandonment at the
hands of her mother, executed in the name of infidelity, is most certainly a turning point in the
life of Alissa. Due to the destructive force of her mother’s sin and indifference, and because, as
the oldest daughter, it forces her into the role of mother and wife, this is a cardinal moment in the
life of Alissa.
It is at the loss of his wife that Alissa’s father gains a more important role in La Porte
étroite. As she is forced to take over her mother’s role in the home, Alissa loses a great deal of
the freedom that she would otherwise enjoy. As her father ages, Alissa becomes his caretaker,
and, as her siblings grow, she puts their needs above her own. She refuses Jérôme’s proposal of
marriage in the belief that Juliette should be the first to marry. She chooses to stay at
Fonguesemare in order to care for her father and their home rather than to start a life of her own.
Her father and her siblings become a burden that she feels she must bear in order to avoid the
vice that tainted her mother’s life. There is therefore a mixture of freedom and constraint for
Alissa, because while she frees herself from the perceived vice that she believes she has inherited
from her mother, she is also constrained by her familial responsibilities.
In L’Immoraliste, Michel is also on the verge of losing a parent; his father’s last wish is
that Michel should marry so that he will not be alone after his father’s passing. It is the desire to
please his father that leads Michel to make this life changing decision that he would otherwise
never have made. Until the death of his father and his subsequent marriage, Michel lives a life of
scholarly seclusion. He publishes articles under his father’s name in order to test the academic
waters and continues a life lived in the past; archeology, architecture, and history fascinate him,
but he has yet to experience any corporal pleasure. “Ainsi j’atteignis vingt-cinq ans, n’ayant
presque rien regardé que des ruines ou des livres, et ne connaissant rien de la vie; j’usais dans le
33

travail une ferveur singulière. . . . Au demeurant, j’ignorais mes amis, comme je m’ignorais
moi-même. Pas un instant ne me survint l’idée que j’eusse pu mener une existence différente ni
qu’on pût vivre différemment” (20). Having no life outside of his studies and having a
relationship with his father based on academic success, Michel sees no choice but to follow his
father’s wishes though he feels no desire for the woman that he will marry, nor for any other.
His father’s influence is on of the determining factors in his life; Michel admits that he married
Marceline “beaucoup pour complaire à mon père, qui, mourant, s’inquiétait de me laisser seul”
(18). Any joy that Michel takes in his marriage is in the peace it brings to his dying father.
Michel’s relationship with his parents is also a mixture of liberation and constraint in the sense
that his father’s death liberates him from his past life and his familial obligations, but it also
forces him into a marriage that does not suit him.
The role of children in the lives of Michel and Alissa presents an interesting contrast
between the two; while Alissa views children as a means of continuation and has a motherly
affection towards them, Michel sees them as an object of sexual desire. Alissa is overjoyed at
becoming an aunt and thinks only of the wellbeing of Juliette’s children. She coddles them and
brags of their beauty and talent as a mother would of her own children. In a letter to Jérôme
Alissa writes, “Que d’heures j’ai passées, penchée sur ce petit berceau plein d’espérance” (110).
Her affection towards children is motherly and socially acceptable, whereas that of Michel is just
the opposite. Upon meeting the children in the garden in Biskra, Michel is immediately drawn to
them; he comments on their beauty and their deviousness with a sense of excitement and
anticipation. Michel sees children as beings which provoke a sexual reaction rather than a
paternal one, and he pushes his wife away in favor of the children’s company. While Alissa’s
affection towards children is socially acceptable, that of Michel ostracizes him from society.
34

Unattainable love is an important concept in La Porte étroite and L’Immoraliste as both
texts revolve around the attempt to force the success of an unlikely union, and this problem can
be linked to the idea of sex as an act of innocence or guilt. Michel and Marceline and Jérôme
and Alissa are all trying to come to terms with the incompatibility of their relationships but they
only succeed in distancing themselves one from the other. There are similarities in the
dysfunction of these two couples, but the reasons behind their failures are quite different. Michel
steps into marriage with little understanding of the emotional cost, while Alissa, knowing the
potential downfalls of marriage and seeing Juliette’s inclinations toward Jérôme, restrains herself
from making the commitment. The two views of marriage, one so uninformed the other utterly
disenchanted, reveal the potential of a single person to change the direction of each relationship.
After watching the destruction of her parent’s marriage, Alissa is less than confident
about the idea of engaging in one herself. Being the oldest child and having watched her mother
ruin her own marriage through deceitful extramarital relationships, the thought of accepting
Jérôme’s proposal is frightening at best. She is acutely aware of the factors that could lead to the
destruction of her own marriage, namely the meager age gap between them and Juliette’s tender
feelings towards Jérôme. Though these issues are not unimportant, they are excuses which
Alissa refuses to relinquish even after the assurances of Jérôme and Juliette’s marriage. When
Alissa first refuses Jérôme’s proposal, his aunt explains Alissa’s reasoning on the subject, “Elle
est très raisonnable, cette petite; elle m’a dit aussi qu’elle n’était pas encore bien convaincue
d’être celle qui te convenait ; qu’elle craignait d’être trop âgée pour toi et souhaiterait plutôt
quelqu’un de l’âge de Juliette…” (77). Despite the fact that the age difference is of only two
years, Alissa cannot accept the idea that Jérôme could love her rather than Juliette. She is
constantly sacrificing herself in order to relinquish her position to Juliette who she feels
35

inevitably deserves it more than she does herself. Alissa is quite conscious of Juliette’s efforts to
make herself more attractive to Jérôme; Juliette’s eavesdropping, studying, and incessant
helpfulness allow her to come between Alissa and Jérôme without his ever understanding what
has happened. After a clandestine conversation at the Christmas party, Juliette decides to
sacrifice herself when she realizes that her feelings for Jérôme are not reciprocated.
JULIETTE. ‘Et tu sais qui elle veut que j’épouse ?’
[JÉRÔME] Je restai sans répondre.
JULIETTE. ‘Toi,’ reprit-elle dans un cri.
JÉRÔME. ‘Mais c’est de la folie !’
JULIETTE. ‘N’est-ce pas !’ Il y avait à la fois du désespoir et du triomphe dans
sa voix. Elle se redressa, ou plutôt se rejeta toute en arrière. . .
JULIETTE. ‘Maintenant je sais ce qui me reste à faire,’ ajouta-t-elle confusément
en ouvrant la porte du jardin, qu’elle renferma violemment derrière elle.
(81)
Alissa, having known for some time that Juliette loves Jérôme, had decided to sacrifice herself
for the happiness of her sister, though it seems likely that even without this catalyst, she would
not have accepted Jérôme’s proposal because of an ingrained fear of marriage, or more
accurately of the failure of marriage. This refusal of marriage is also related to a fear of sex
stemming from her mother’s exploits. Alissa associates sex with guilt, because her mother’s
actions ruined her parents’ marriage and threw the family into turmoil.
Her father, . . ., is struck by her resemblance to her mother, and tells her of it, to
Alissa’s distress. For her the awakening of passion, the languor, the thoughts of
her mother translating themselves into an actual physical resemblance mean just
36

one thing: she carries her mother’s nature, the potentiality of her mother’s sin,
within her, as a sort of doom. . . . The reader, . . ., would say that the shock of
discovering her mother’s infidelity has given her an unreasonable horror of all
sex. (March 154)
Sexual desire pushed her mother to abandon her family, and as Alissa becomes physically
attracted to Jérôme, there is a moment of sheer panic in which she realizes that if she were to sin
as her mother did, she too would fall prey to the destructive power of this desire. Feeling that
Jérôme’s attraction for her will ruin his chances to pass through la porte étroite, Alissa writes “Je
ne le comprends que trop bien à présent : entre Dieu et lui, il n’est pas d’autre obstacle que moi-
même. . . . il s’attarde à moi, me préfère, et je deviens idole qui le retient de s’avancer plus loin
dans la vertu. . . . permettez-moi, mon Dieu, accordez-moi la force de lui apprendre à ne
m’aimer plus ; . . .” (166). She believes that sex is the root of this problem and therefore refuses
to marry Jérôme which would mean abandoning her innocence and her virginity.
Michel, on the other hand, freely plunges into a marriage that he does not understand or
desire beyond its temporary effect on his ailing father and which consequently has a damaging
outcome on his bride. He admits that, prior to their marriage, he did not love Marceline nor had
he ever loved a woman and that his marriage was an acquiescence to the wish of his dying father.
Though the marriage is recognized by society as being a true marriage, it is for Michel a false
one, and the more he grows to love Marceline, the more this falsity becomes evident. For a
variety of reasons, fatigue, illness, distaste, the marriage is not consummated until a substantial
amount of time after the actual ceremony, and even then Michel’s feelings are only provoked by
a violent encounter with another man. It is only after she reveals that she is carrying his child
that he begins to put her needs above his own, but this love is directed more towards his unborn
37

child than towards Marceline. She is but the shell that protects his child and therefore must itself
be protected. Michel remembers, “Il me sembla dès lors que je lui dusse des soins nouveaux,
qu’elle eût droit à plus de tendresse ; tout au moins dans les premiers temps qui suivirent sa
confidence je passai donc près d’elle presque tous les moments du jour” (83). Even this desire
though is not strong enough to overcome Michel’s latent desires, and he loses his child the night
he abandons his wife to meet Ménalque. Despite this loss, Michel does not equate sex with guilt,
especially at the end of the novel; for him, it is the most innocent of acts. It is only through
desire that he comes to understand himself, and the culmination of this desire and this
understanding is the sexual act.
Both Michel and Marceline fall ill with tuberculosis during the novel, and this illness
becomes a test of their love and the strength of their marriage. Though Marceline gives all of
herself to care for Michel during his recovery from tuberculosis, Michel moves her from place to
place, even as he watches her health deteriorate, rather than sacrificing himself to help her heal
from the malady. It is no coincidence that, “Marceline mourra un matin, après que Michel a
passé la nuit en compagnie de prostituées” (Labbé 223). It must of course be said that Michel is
not without conflict concerning these exploits, but in the end, it is his need for freedom that wins
out, and he only returns in time to comfort Marceline during those last few moments before she
succumbs to death. For Marceline, the marriage and the love that she feels for Michel are
genuine, but for Michel, his love cannot surmount the illness because it does not have the
strength of that of his wife.
Michel and Alissa do therefore take up opposite sides of the same battles, but are faced
with similar challenges throughout their lifetimes. Be it friendship, family, or love Gide has
created two extremes that both exemplify and exaggerate the problems which exist in
38

interpersonal relationships. “Dans L’immoraliste, comme dans La Porte étroite, comme dans la
vie de Gide, ne s’agit-il pas, en effet, d’un homme et d’une femme qui, s’étant crus destinés l’un
à l’autre, découvrent bientôt qu’un désaccord profond les sépare, qu’il leur est impossible, en
particulier, d’intégrer le désir sexuel réciproque à leur façon de s’aimer ? » (Vidal 88). In both
works, he created characters who are influenced and at times defined by their relationships;
Michel takes comfort in his exotic acquaintances, while Alissa is overcome by the isolation she
feels even among her own family. Alissa is absorbed into her family, while Michel remains
markedly separate; both are greatly influenced by their upbringing, their family, and their
friends, but he detaches himself from them by his socially unacceptable actions, while she
disappears among them.
39

Chapter 4
Nature as a Narrative Motif:
Instinct and Anthropomorphic Significance
In the Gidean text, the uncontrollable, nature, is manipulated to serve a purpose, to reflect
the emotions and mentality of Gide’s characters. In both L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite,
specific aspects of nature take on an anthropomorphic significance; their presence or absence and
their symbolic function in the text being so closely linked to the characters as to evolve in
meaning with the transformations, both major and minor, of Michel, Alissa, and even the
secondary characters. In Gide’s hands, the nature of man is reflected in nature itself; the two
being indelibly linked by the author in order to intensify the semiotic impact of the text and to
expose the development of the characters by symbolizing the inner turmoil which results from
the opposition of good and evil within themselves.
The constant presence of nature in these two texts serves as an indication of its
importance and also of its inseparability from the main characters. Both texts describe the
tempestuousness of the weather, the variations in light, the power of water to both nurture and
destroy, and the role of human sustenance to relate or disassociate an individual from the earth,
and each of these aspects takes on the affectation of either Michel, Alissa, or their companions.
These elements are all necessary to the survival of the individual and therefore illustrate the
relationship between the individual and nature. The power of nature in the narration of these two
texts is to enforce and augment the emotion and confusion that surround the main characters.
Gide brings three elements to the forefront, light, water, and food; each element representing a
different facet of the personalities of his characters. Sun and shadow are representative not only
of the typical opposition between good and evil but also of the contrast between mortality and
immortality. Water also plays an important role, underlining the different perspectives of Michel
40

and Alissa, evoking for one nourishment and expansion, while forcing the other into a state of
deprivation. Finally, food serves to reveal the difference in mentality by opposing the physical
universe of Michel with the ethereal one of Alissa. While the motif of food exists on a different
level in nature than sun and water, it plays a part in the natural function of all physical beings and
by its necessity links each one to the earth. Its place alongside the other two elements is
deserved as it illustrates the differences between the two protagonists, associating Michel with
the earth and Alissa with the ethereal. These three elements epitomize the fundamental
differences between Michel and Alissa but also reveal the similarity of their confusion.
In these categories, the differences between Michel and Alissa can be presented as the
difference between nature and culture. Michel follows his instincts towards pleasure and
contentment, while rejecting that which is imposed on him by society, namely heterosexuality,
marriage, and work. Contrarily, Alissa represses her instinctive desires by denying her physical
needs, her sexuality, and her love Jérôme. In the case of both characters, there is a marked
withdraw albeit towards opposite poles; Michel withdraws from society in order to fulfill
himself, while Alissa withdraws from her natural instincts with the hope of Jérôme’s spiritual
redemption.
In both L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite, the sun reflects the conflict of good and evil
and the opposition of mortality and immortality, morality and immorality. Throughout both
novels, the sun serves to expose and clarify while shadow becomes a means of concealment and
deception, but while the progression from sun to shadow in L’Immoraliste signifies a progression
toward evil, the obscurity presented in La Porte étroite indicates a deepening of Alissa’s faith.
In L’Immoraliste, Michel and Marceline’s honeymoon takes them south into Africa and
will eventually bring them north again through Italy; it is during this voyage that the sun is at the
41

height of its power. The sun plays a substantial role in Michel’s recovery, taunting him to pass
further into the gardens and eventually into the oasis. Michel is in fact reborn on a sensual and a
moral level beneath the Italian sun; in a passage revealing the importance of this moment in the
course of Michel’s life, Gide writes,
. . . je me dévêtis lentement. L’air était presque vif, mais le soleil ardent. J’offris
tout mon corps à sa flamme. Je m’assis, me couchai, me tournai. Je sentais sous
moi le sol dur; l’agitation des herbes folles me frôlait. Bien qu’à l’abri du vent, je
frémissais et palpitais à chaque souffle. Bientôt m’enveloppa une cuisson
délicieuse ; tout mon être affluait vers ma peau. . . . je quittai l’eau, m’étendis sur l’herbe,
au soleil. . . . Je me regardai longuement, sans plus de honte aucune, avec joie. Je me
trouvais, non pas robuste encore, mais pouvant l’être, harmonieux, sensuel, presque beau.
(67-8)
In spite of the prolonged labor, Michel is finally reborn, a new man with a self-appreciation and
a self-revelation which will change the course of his life. The sun gives birth to, what is for
Michel, sexual exoticism and allows him to gradually reject the familiar institution of marriage,
to reject his wife, and to indulge in his less conventional desires. This turning point for Michel is
the apex of the sun’s power, but his transformation continues through the couple’s return to
France and their stay at La Morinière.
While Michel is happy with himself, the sun shines brightly on his existence; after an
early morning spent riding with Charles, the son of the man who manages his farms, Michel
finds him delectably attractive, Gide writes,
le soleil naissant colorait, écartait, dispersait les brumes; puis nous repartions au
grand trot; nous nous attardions sur la ferme; le travail commençait à peine; nous
42

savourions cette joie fière, de précéder et dominer les travailleurs; puis
brusquement nous les quittions; je rentrais à La Morinière, au moment que
Marceline se levait. (94)
At this point in the novel, Michel is enjoying the best of both worlds, and the beauty of the sun
reflects his situation; he is able to spend a great deal of time with Charles and return to his
pregnant, loving wife before she knows that he has gone.
Unfortunately for Michel, this period of joyous elucidation regarding his sexuality does
not last, and shadows begin to take on a more significant role in the narration. It is primarily
with the introduction of the sinister character of Ménalque that darkness creeps into Michel’s
account of events. The night Michel returns from a visit with Ménalque to find that Marceline
has lost the baby, he remarks on the obscurity of the room, “La chambre était peu éclairée; et
d’abord je ne distinguai que le docteur qui, de la main, m’imposa silence; puis, dans l’ombre, une
figure que je ne connaissais pas” (126). Michel’s horror at the death of his child turns the
narration from light to dark, and this change continues throughout the remainder of the story. As
the narrator becomes more conflicted about his sexuality, trying to cope with the pleasure it
brings him and the damage it does to his wife, L’Immoraliste gets progressively darker and
begins to take pleasure in the cover provided by the night;
Mais quand la nuit tombait, -- et la nuit à présent déjà, tombait vite – c’était notre
heure, dont je ne soupçonnais pas jusqu’alors la beauté; et je sortais comme
entrent les voleurs. Je m’étais fait des yeux d’oiseau de nuit. J’admirais l’herbe
plus mouvante et plus haute, les arbres épaissis. La nuit creusait tout, éloignait,
faisait le sol distant et toute surface profonde. Le plus uni sentier paraissait
dangereux. On sentait s’éveiller partout ce qui vivait d’une existence ténébreuse.
43

Michel can lose himself in the night; there is an excitement in the freedom that is gained by
being hidden, but there is also a level of calm and relief that is provided by the dark. When
Michel returns to the hotel on the night of Marceline’s death, he enters “très doucement dans le
noir,” but this darkness hides more than his guilt because he cannot see at first the distress of his
wife. The shadow that commands the second half of the novel is a result of the conflict that
overtakes Michel’s life. When he is reborn under the sun, Michel has a naïveté that allows him
to revise what he knows of his own sexuality and accept the desires that separate him from
society, but as his life and his marriage are destroyed by those desires, the cover of night
provides a certain relief from the ostracism.
Light and shadow have a similar role in La Porte étroite, but instead of becoming more
depraved Alissa simply becomes more withdrawn and more intensely faithful. Sun plays an
almost inexistent role in La Porte étroite and its presence is primarily revealed in relation to
Jérôme, who mentions “les premiers beaux jours” that marked his departure for Fongueusemare
(14). Jérôme is also able to maintain a much more cheerful point of view than that of Alissa;
during the happy period of his life, before Alissa rebuffs him, he remarks the beauty of the
summer and his ecstasy at spending time alone with the woman he loves. Though this happiness
will prove to be fleeting, Jérôme describes this ecstatic moment, “L’été cette année, fut
splendide. Tout semblait pénétré d’azur. Notre ferveur triomphait du mal, de la mort; l’ombre
reculait devant nous. Chaque matin j’étais éveillé par ma joie; je me levais dès l’aurore, à la
rencontre du jour m’élançais… quand je rêve à ce temps, je le revois plein de rosée” (47). The
sun’s appearance at this moment in the narrative is representative of the apex of Jérôme’s
happiness; the description takes place just before Alissa becomes conscious of her sister
Juliette’s feelings for Jérôme and of her subsequent refusal of his marriage proposal. Alissa also
44

has a brief moment of happiness marked by the sun, “J’ai bien reçu ta lettre de Pise. Nous aussi
nous avons un temps splendide; jamais encore la Normandie ne m’avait paru si belle. J’ai fait
avant-hier, seule, à pied, une énorme promenade à travers champs, au hasard; je suis rentrée plus
exaltée que lasse, tout ivre de soleil et de joie” (102). It is important to note however that
Alissa’s moment of happiness comes at a time when she is physically separated from Jérôme,
while he is only truly happy at her side. Each passes over an apex of happiness that is
symbolized by the ardent power of the sun, but as Jérôme and Alissa grow further apart, their
collective unhappiness begins to blot out the sun, and the focus of the narrative shifts from
Jérôme to Alissa.
The darkness that surrounds Alissa is, as it is for Michel, a means of concealment, but
while the obscurity allows Michel a sense of anonymity and a forum for his immorality, it
provides Alissa with an escape from the world that exists outside of the protective barrier she has
created for herself and an opportunity to pursue her religious devotion. As Alissa becomes more
withdrawn, the words sombre, noir, and ombre recur more frequently in the narration. It is in
the rapport between unhappiness and darkness that the reader first meets Alissa, cowering in her
darkened bedroom. Her actions, taken with pious intent, launch both Alissa and Jérôme into a
spiral of sadness. Just as happiness is symbolized by the bright, clean light of the sun, the
darkness symbolizes the depth of Alissa’s sadness. The day that Jérôme learns of his Aunt
Lucile’s affair, he finds Alissa crying alone in the darkness of her room; “La chambre était déjà
si sombre que je ne distingue pas aussitôt Alissa; elle est au chevet de son lit, à genoux, tournant
le dos à la croisée d’où tombe un jour mourant” (27). This is only the first connection between
sadness and darkness, many other occasions serve to link the two, including Jérôme’s despair
brought about by Alissa’s actions. Abel and Jérôme hide in the obscurity of the entryway as both
45

of their hearts break to see Juliette accept the hand of her new fiancé, Edouard. Jérôme remarks
“La nuit se fermait dans mon cœur,” at the sight of Juliette’s obvious resolution to sacrifice
herself (85). The final and most pertinent example of the link between obscurity and despair
takes place the night that Jérôme and Alissa meet at “la petite porte du potager” for the final
resolution of their relationship. This last chance meeting between Jérôme and Alissa in the
garden also takes place under the cover of darkness, and Alissa, still in mourning for her father,
wears black lace in her hair. As the couple watches the sun setting far off in the sky, Alissa
brings their relationship to a painful end; she pushes Jérôme to move on, to marry another
woman and to have children with her. Jérôme is crushed by the encounter; his last hope for
happiness with Alissa is finally extinguished. After the encounter, Jérôme remembers, “je
tombai contre cette porte, en proie au plus excessif désespoir et restai longtemps pleurant et
sanglotant dans la nuit” (152). Just as Jérôme first sees Alissa kneeling under the weight of her
mother’s infidelity, Alissa leaves Jérôme broken and sobbing; their roles have been reversed
though Alissa’s love requires her to leave Jérôme, while his demands his compassion.
The power of water is twofold; it can nourish as well as destroy, and both facets of its
power are exemplified in L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite. This contrast between
nourishment and deprivation is typical of the contrast between Michel and Alissa. While Alissa
deprives herself, Michel absorbs and relishes his experiences because they provide him with
sexual sustenance. Like the other oppositions that exist in these two works, the difference in the
significance of water is a reflection of the differences between Michel and Alissa.
In L’Immoraliste, water plays a nurturing, sensual role which is intertwined with the
physical and sexual changes that take place in Michel’s life. The presence of the water is often
entangled with moments of sexual arousal, giving birth to Michel’s true sexual nature. The
46

narrative introduction to the water takes place during Michel’s first adventure into the gardens
where he sees the river and the canals that irrigate the gardens. “Une rivière canalisée, je veux
dire plus profonde que large, à peu près droite, longeant l’allée ; puis d’autres canaux plus petits,
divisant l’eau de la rivière, la menant, à travers le jardin, vers les plantes ; l’eau lourde est
couleur de la terre, couleur d’argile rose ou grise” (42). The water comes from the earth and
returns to it in order to refresh and nurture the plants, but it is also at this moment that Michel
takes note of the young Arab children, remarking “Un singulier frisson me saisit . . . je
m’enveloppai de mon châle; pourtant aucun malaise; au contraire…” (42). The nurturing image
of the canal system, carrying water to the plants of the garden and filling the basins that sustain
them, is the backdrop for Michel’s pederastic desires; as the water feeds the vegetation, this
attraction feeds Michel’s soul. To deepen this relationship, the water again becomes important
as Michel’s new self is born under the Italian sun; on this day when he comes to accept himself
and his desires, he finally dives into the cool stream that he has been eyeing for several days.
“Ce quatrième jour, j’avançais, résolu d’avance, jusqu’à l’eau plus claire que jamais, et, sans
plus réfléchir, m’y plongeai d’un coup tout entier » (68). Giving in to his desire to bathe himself
in this cool mountain stream is Michel’s equivalent of giving in to his sexual desires that had
until this moment remained latent. As Michel and Marceline make their way home to France,
these latent desires begin to solidify, and upon their arrival at La Morinière they are already
strong enough to make their presence known. In describing his farm lands, Michel remarks,
“dans chaque creux, de l’eau, étang, marre ou rivière; on entend des ruissellements continus”
(81). In relating the water to Michel’s sexual tendencies, the constant, subversive presence of
these desires becomes evident. Representing inconstancy, water exemplifies Michel’s inability
to commit and his sexually indiscriminant behavior. When Michel is finally pushed toward a
47

particular mark, Charles, the water takes on an additional role bringing the two men together.
While repairing a pond, Michel and Charles join hands to complete a task:
Je l’appelai bientôt pour m’aider à cerner une grosse anguille; nous unissions nos
mains pour la saisir… Puis, après celle-là ce fut une autre ; la vase nous
éclaboussait au visage ; parfois on enfonçait brusquement et l’eau nous montait
jusqu’aux cuisses ; nous fûmes bientôt tout trempés. A peine dans l’ardeur du jeu
échangions-nous quelques cris, quelques phrases, mais, à la fin du jour, je
m’aperçus que je tutoyais Charles, sans bien savoir quand j’avais commencé.
(87-8)
This moment of familiarity and sexuality, cements the evolution of Michel’s homosexuality; it is
the first, albeit innocent, flesh to flesh contact that Michel experiences with another man after his
revival. The parallel between water and sexuality continues when the couple arrives in Syracuse;
Michel goes often to the sea port to watch the common working class men fulfill their daily
tasks. He begins to feel a sense of disdain for the luxury in which he lives and wants to be more
like these working class men in order to get closer to them. Water is the element that nourishes
all human and plant life and, for Michel, his sexuality; its presence has been intertwined with the
conception and development of Michel’s sexuality.
Water takes on the opposite role in La Porte étroite; instead of nourishing Alissa’s
sexuality as it did Michel’s, it is rather a destructive element. Water is often a detriment in La
Porte étroite through the influence of the weather, in the sense that water prevents the characters
from enjoying themselves, but more importantly, it is evidence of Alissa and Jérôme’s downcast
moods. During moments of sadness and extreme disappointment Fongueusemare is often
shrouded in a thick fog caused by the over saturation of the air. On the fated night of the
48

Christmas party, Jérôme’s sadness and confusion is exemplified by the fog: “Tout chancelait
dans ma tête et dans mon coeur. Je sentais le sang battre à mes tempes. . . . Le soir tombait et le
brouillard de mer cachait la ville. . .” (81). Just as the fog hides the city, the true feelings of
Alissa and Juliette remain hidden from Jérôme until they are obliquely laid out by Abel. Shortly
thereafter, existing in a state of confusion over his on-again off-again relationship with Alissa,
Jérôme explains, “Je ne recevais d’Alissa, à qui du reste je ne savais quoi écrire, que les plus
décevants billets. L’épais brouillard d’hiver m’enveloppait ; ma lampe d’étude, et toute la
ferveur de mon amour et de ma foi écartaient mal, hélas ! la nuit et le froid de mon cœur” (91).
The haze that surrounds Jérôme detaches him from Alissa, just as her religious inflexibility
separates them. Alissa’s complacency and the pain it causes Michel are both reflected in this
fog, but the fog is not the only representation of water in La Porte étroite. This text is flooded by
Alissa’s tears; from the initial betrayal of her mother to the last meeting with Jérôme, she cries
again and again, and these tears are not only the representation of her sadness but the obvious
result of it. Alissa’s tears are a temptation for Jérôme, but he can never truly improve her
situation despite his continuous attempts. When he finds her crying in her room, he is driven to
protect her; “Ivre d’amour, de pitié, d’un indistinct mélange d’enthousiasme, d’abnégation, de
vertu, j’en appelais à Dieu de toutes mes forces et m’offrais, ne concevant plus d’autre but à ma
vie que d’abriter cette enfant contre la peur, contre le mal, contre la vie” (28). This desire to
repair the irreparable is the key to Jérôme’s sadness; Alissa’s tears open his heart but in turn
increase his sadness. The link between water and deprivation is therefore the link between tears
and sadness and the power of the weather to prevent happiness and also to reflect the mood of
the main characters.
The motif of food is yet another point of contention between L’Immoraliste and La Porte
49

étroite and can be seen as an indication of the paths chosen by Michel and Alissa. The
importance placed upon food by Michel and the seeming oblivion of Alissa is representative of
their general way of life. Michel accepts all and his adventurous nature pushes him to
continually try new things, including food; while Alissa rejects everything pleasurable, the food
that she must have to sustain herself is never mentioned.
Food plays a substantial role in L’Immoraliste and is present from the beginning of the
narration to the end in a way that it can never be in La Porte étroite because Michel’s utter
acceptance of and desire for life allows him to relish food. The celebration of Michel and
Marceline’s nuptials consists of a meal between the couple and Michel’s three friends. “Dans la
maison de celle qui devenait ma femme, un court repas, sans rires et sans cris, vous réunit à nous
au sortir de l’église. . . » (18). The meal is therefore a point of contact between these friends who
will be separated for several years; food thus incorporates the open and outgoing personality that
Michel is about to develop with his openness and acceptance. Michel takes control of his life as
he attempts to heal himself from his illness, and food plays a tremendous role in this process.
Not only does Michel start to eat more, but he drastically improves the quality of the food that he
is eating in order to improve his health. After resolving to improve his diet, Michel sends
Marceline out to find a more savory menu.
Elle revint bientôt avec une petite terrine que je dévorai presque entière, comme
pour nous prouver à tous deux combien j’avais besoin de manger davantage. . . .
Ce même soir nous arrêtâmes ceci: Les repas seraient beaucoup meilleurs: plus
nombreux aussi, un toutes les trois heures; le premier dès six heures et demie.
Une abondante provision de conserves de toutes sortes suppléerait les médiocres
plats de l’hôtel. . .. (38)
50

This acceptance and enjoyment of food is parallel to Michel’s attitude towards life and sexuality.
This idea is taken a step further when Michel pays a visit to Ménalque and arrives to find his
friend in the middle of dinner. Ménalque’s influence spurs Michel on in his quest of self-
discovery, and when Ménalque offers him a liqueur, Michel is surprised to see him return with
only one glass. Ménalque prefers to intoxicate his guests while remaining lucid himself, and
through this intoxication, he lowers their inhibitions so that they are more likely to relax their
defenses. When the two men do drink together on subsequent occasions, it serves to bring them
closer. The text concludes with a young girl and her brother who bring groceries to Michel and
with whom he has created a relationship that sustains him as no others can; having created a
sexual relationship with the siblings. Even his friends are forced to pass a judgment of sorts on
Michel’s actions and are therefore distanced from him.
The importance of food in La Porte étroite is precisely the absence of it; with the
variance in the plant life at Fongueusemare, one would expect to see fruits and vegetables
growing in abundance, but they are never mentioned. The repression on Alissa’s part is so
complete that there are no meals; nothing has any taste. The austerity of the novel reveals
Alissa’s complete detachment from the world and her oblivion regarding food is an example of
this guardedness. Not only is food not mentioned in the text, but Alissa’s eating is never
mentioned. Despite Edouard and Robert’s agricultural careers, which are only referred to
indicate the status of the supporting characters, food is utterly absent from this text. Everything
outside of Alissa blends together into a dull, bland existence. In his article, “Alissa – Anorexia?
Self-Starvation, Sexuality, and Salvation in La Porte étroite,” David Steel explains the
arguments for and against the idea of Alissa’s anorectic tendencies: Steel writes, “Alissa’s
weight-loss (. . .) is consistent both with her ascetic religious ethic and the predominant metaphor
51

of the text which provides the title of the book. This is a short novel, honed to its essentials, and
governed at numerous levels by a metaphor of reduction” (6). Alissa seems to fade away and
this disappearance is linked to her refusal of food which, in turn, stems from her religious
severity and her desire to save Jérôme. To eat would be to care for herself more than the others,
and she cannot put herself before their happiness or their salvation.
These natural elements of sun and water and the necessity of food, which serves to link
an individual to nature, are therefore a symbolic representation of the way in which Michel and
Alissa have chosen to live their lives. Sun and shadow are present in both novels, and while
Michel passes from sun into shade, his life takes a socially unacceptable turn. The texture of the
light is therefore linked to Michel’s emotional state of being; light for acceptable actions, and
dark for those action that need to be hidden from view. For Alissa, this relationship is one of
happiness and sadness. When Alissa is happy, Fongueusemare is a joyous and sunny place, but
when the tide turns toward unhappiness, darkness and bad weather take over the area. Water has
similar implications in these two texts. For Michel water is a representation of his latent
homosexuality and as these preferences take hold of his life water appears at those moments that
are related to his sexuality. Water plays a much more negative role in La Porte étroite as bad
weather hinders the lives of the characters and Alissa’s tears separate her from Jérôme. Food is
the final common natural element between these two texts and the attitudes of Michel and Alissa
toward food directly represent their attitudes toward life. Michel is all-accepting and eats
heartily, while Alissa represses her feelings and wastes away, oblivious to the importance of
food. These natural elements are therefore each linked to the characters in a different way, but
they all correspond to a specific aspect of their ways of life. Alissa takes a distinctly ethereal
turn, ignoring food, shedding tears of despair, and perceiving the fluctuating weather as she and
52

Jérôme alternate between happiness and despondency. Contrarily, Michel is drawn to the earth,
torn between his own morality and that of society; he makes a shift from light to dark, finds the
potency of his sexuality in the water that surrounds him, and links himself to nature by his
reliance on food. In spite of these differences, light, shadow, water, and food all exemplify the
attitudes and personalities of the characters that live within L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite.
53

Chapter 5
Religion as Narrative Motif:
Battling for Influence: God versus the Devil
The choice between faith and atheism determines an individual’s outlook on life, death,
and the tumultuous events that happen in between, but when this choice is clouded by a mistrust
of the forum in which faith is presented, the conflict that arises can be a lifelong preoccupation.
André Gide was riddled with religious doubt, and his own life was a mixture of acceptance and
rejection, believing in God but not in religion itself. It is therefore logical that religion would
play an important role in his work, and L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite combine to make a
statement on religious temperance and to reveal the depth and importance of this conflict.
Martin Turnell confirms this argument in the introduction of his article, “André Gide and the
Disintegration of the Protestant Cell,” writing, “For at the heart of Gide’s work is the conflict
between the puritan and the spiritual adventurer” (21). Due to this religious inconsistency,
religion and its many markers come to the forefront of the spiritual confusion which seems to be
the focus of these works or at the very least of their protagonists. The first step in analyzing the
significance of religion in L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite is therefore to study the
representation of religion itself through Michel and Alissa. Presenting two opposing views on
religion, Gide reveals the dangers of both and encourages faith without the constraint of religion.
The faith of Alissa in La Porte étroite serves her no better than the atheism of Michel in
L’Immoraliste; Gide consequently puts both faith and atheism on trial by portraying extremes of
each in his characters.
Beyond the exposition of religion itself, specific elements come into play as symbols of
the importance of this debate between faith and atheism. These symbols, both concrete and
abstract, focus the reader’s attention on religion while simultaneously presenting duplicitous
54

views on their value and significance; the cross, a concrete representation of religion, and death,
an abstract result of it, become interpretive markers of the religiosity of his characters. By
passing from the general representation of religion to the specific symbolic aspects of it, these
two texts illustrate not only the religious conflict that exists for both Michel and Alissa but also
the result of that conflict. Through the presence of religion, the cross, and death in both novels,
the opposition of Michel and Alissa is intensified, as is the similarity of their confusion. It is
therefore through examining religion itself, the opposition of faith and atheism, and religious
markers, the cross and death, that Gide’s religious focus, and its importance, becomes evident.
The first and most apparent of the religious oppositions between L’Immoraliste and La
Porte étroite is that of faith and atheism. Though religion is primarily alluded to in
L’Immoraliste and explicitly declared in La Porte étroite, it is the actions of Michel and Alissa
which lend the greatest insight into their religious beliefs, each delving deeper into their
respective belief system with the deepening of their narratives. In “Remarks on Gide’s Ethics,”
Gaetan Picon writes,
Is there a Gidian ethics? . . . The message of each book is opposed by the message
of the following book: what one glorifies, the other disparages. And furthermore
it seems that at the core of each ‘message’, there remains a margin of criticism
and irony. Gide’s voice is never so completely fervent that it does not also
welcome the accent of irony: with him all fervor is ironical. (9-10)
It is much the same with the protagonists of these two works; their religious standpoints seem
contradictory, but in this contradiction, there is a convergence of meaning. Michel and Alissa
will both pass from a moderate stance on their religious views to an extremism that in time
rejects the value of the other’s position. Both characters therefore embody a similar evolution but
55

in opposite directions. The seemingly disparate positions of these characters serve to reveal a
similar extremism.
In L’Immoraliste, Michel’s actions reveal a man who has no faith in the power of religion
and who sees the practice of it as fruitless. Religion is a form of constraint that Michel must
reject because it prohibits any satiation of his physical desires. In Wallace Fowlie’s book André
Gide: His Life and Art, the author writes of Michel,
When he realizes that the conventional morality of his world no longer seems
reasonable or viable for him, he seeks another source for his personal morality,
and finds it in his subconscious, in the innermost forgotten part of his being. But
the rules of this personal morality are not stable and enduring and codified. They
change with the change of days and seasons and with the fluctuations of desire.”
(50)
Michel’s actions epitomize this idea; even at the height of his tuberculosis, he takes a stand
against the religiosity of his wife, refusing to pray for his own survival and requesting the same
restraint of her, putting the power of physicality over that of the ethereality. Beyond this
concrete rejection of religion, Michel’s actions are contradictory to the tenets of his mother’s
strict protestant religion. From his first encounter with the Arab children of Biskra, to his lusty
encounter with the Italian coachman, to his role in Marceline’s death, and finally to his need to
legitimize his actions by involving his friends, Michel continues a life that is considered and that
he himself considers shameful. “Il nous semblait hélas! qu’à nous la raconter, Michel avait
rendu son action plus légitime. De ne savoir où la désapprouver, dans la lente explication qu’il
en donna, nous en faisait presque complices” (179). He has brought his friends into a situation
where they are not only exposed to his corruption but where they must choose between his
56

actions and their feelings of friendship for him; they must either reevaluate their societal and
religious values or reject their lifelong friend.
Beyond his pederastic adventures, it is also possible to say that Michel murdered his wife
and, indirectly, their child by first infecting Marceline with tuberculosis and later seeming to
drag her from one city to the next despite her obvious fatigue and physical deterioration. Toward
the end of their journey, Michel remarks, “Cette nuit Marceline ne peut dormir; …. Je crains
qu’elle n’ait un peu de fièvre. Je l’entends se remuer sur son lit. Le lendemain je la trouve plus
pâle. Nous repartons” (171). This is one of many restless nights that Marceline endures during
this long and strenuous journey. Rather than slowing the pace of their arduous journey, Michel
pushes onward putting his own desires above the health of his wife. Though he attempts to
relocate Marceline for her own benefit; he repeatedly continues his voyage despite her
unremitting decline. Fowlie explains, “If a man takes it upon himself to devote all his energy to
the full realization of himself and to his own pleasure, he will inevitably destroy someone else”
(48). It is precisely this quest for physical rather than ethereal pleasure that exemplifies Michel’s
rejection of religion, seeking pleasure even at the cost of his wife’s health and happiness; the
temptation of earthly pleasures is Michel’s statement against the constraint which he associates
with faith and organized religion.
Contrary to Michel, Alissa submerges herself in religion and abandons herself and her
future to faith; she not only speaks of her piety but acts on it as well, becoming continuously
more devout throughout the novel. From Alissa’s first appearance to her last, she is more
concerned with avoiding sin, including the traps that ensnared her mother, and preserving her
purity than with finding earthly happiness. Early in the narration, Alissa and Jérôme find
themselves in church listening to the sermon from which the book is entitled, “Efforcez-vous
57

d’entrer par la porte étroite, car la porte large et le chemin spacieux mènent à la perdition, et
nombreux sont ceux qui y passent; mais étroite est la porte et resserrée la voie qui conduisent à
la Vie, et il en est peu qui les trouvent,” and it is seemingly at this moment that their lives turn
toward a different course (29). The influence of the church is so extreme that a single sermon
alters Jérôme’s perception of himself, of religion, and of Alissa. Jérôme holds Alissa in such
high regard that he explains, “Et cette porte devenait encore la porte même de la chambre
d’Alissa ; pour entrer je me réduisais, me vidais de tout ce qui subsistait en moi d’égoïsme …”
(30). The influence of this passage is explained by Howard March in his book, Gide and the
Hound of Heaven : “For Jérôme the strait gate suggests the door through which he passed to find
Alissa on her knees in tears; . . .. For Alissa, however, the gate which strips of egoism demands
also and necessarily , the abandonment of earthly ties; to pass into life one has to let go of the
hand of the lover and move forward alone” (152). The abundance of doors in La Porte étroite
reveals the constraints placed upon the characters and serves as an opposition to the importance
of nature in L’Immoraliste; religion is one of the most evident of these constraints despite the
satisfaction that it can simultaneously provide. Jérôme believes that it is through penitence and
cleansing that he will find his way into the heart of Alissa, but that she is already worthy of his
love and of the saintliness that she seeks. Alissa has become a saintly figure in the mind of her
family and of Jérôme; she has never been corrupted and seeks only to preserve this angelic status
with which she has been endowed. Alissa is the devoted daughter, always sacrificing for the
people she loves, for her family and Jérôme; despite her love for Jérôme, she sacrifices her own
happiness for her sister and for the redemption of Jérôme’s soul. It is not haphazardly that the
death of Alissa’s hope for her relationship with Jérôme occurs over the Christmas holiday, while
she plans a last attempt at the resurrection of this relationship for Easter. In order to solidify her
58

ejection of Jérôme, she rejects the books that they enjoyed together in favor of a strictly
religious literature; Jérôme explains, “Je venais de m’apercevoir que ces livres étaient tous
enlevés, remplacés uniquement par d’insignifiants petits ouvrages de piété vulgaire pour lesquels
j’espérais qu’elle n’avait que du mépris” (136). This rejection is one of the many restrictions
Alissa places on herself to attain a higher level of purity and to deter Jérôme from his romantic
expectations. In following this refusal of pleasure, Alissa’s religious devotion prevents her from
marrying Jérôme and sacrificing her virginity in the process. Remaining a virgin until her death,
Alissa marries herself to God long before she sacrifices herself to Him. In a conversation
between Alissa and Jérôme, Alissa’s preference for ethereal happiness becomes clear:
ALISSA: C’est tout seul que chacun de nous doit gagner Dieu.
JÉRÔME : Mais c’est toi que me montres la route.
ALISSA : Pourquoi veux-tu chercher un autre guide que le Christ ? … Crois-tu
que nous soyons jamais plus près l’un de l’autre que lorsque, chacun de nous deux
oubliant l’autre, nous prions Dieu ? (38)
Alissa refuses both physical and emotional love with another human being and avoids sin in
order to preserve her ethereal paradise. In tempering her behavior, Alissa’s actions expose the
profundity of her faith and reveal to the reader a character utterly opposed to that of Michel.
The cross, being both a sign of Christian faith and of persecution, plays a prominent role
in both novels; L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite both reveal the cross as the symbolic
representation of religion. It is through Michel and Alissa’s reactions to the cross that the two
opposing views of religion continue to be illustrated, albeit on a more specific plane. In isolating
those scenes which focus on the cross, the faith of Alissa and the faithlessness of Michel are
clarified by their subsequent rejection and acceptance of the cross itself. These two main
59

characters must make the decision to either cling to the cross and all that it stands for or to reject
it and in so doing reject the society that sustains it, and it is this decision that demonstrates the
symbolic importance of the object itself.
The shape of the cross in L’Immoraliste is a point of conflict between Michel and his
wife, but while Michel’s position is obvious, the evolution of Marceline’s at the hands of her
husband is not. As Marceline stands vigil over Michel, the reader is confronted with his
rejection of prayer, but it is only much later in the novel, after Marceline herself becomes ill, that
her true actions are revealed, and Michel’s influence on her becomes clear. Michel, in
attempting to fulfill a desire of Marceline in her weakened condition, is directed to a small box in
their bedroom; bringing the box to her bedside, he removes the contents one at a time until he
finds “ce petit chapelet” that she is requesting (128). It is at this moment, as Michel goads her a
second time about the futility of her prayers, saying, “J’ai bien guéri tout seul,” that Marceline
admits “J’ai tant prié pour toi” (129). This admission reveals the importance of religion and thus
the cross in her prayers and her faith, but it also serves as the backdrop for a similar encounter on
the night of her death. This time Michel returns home to find Marceline bathed in blood and, on
the floor at her side, the same rosary that had comforted her in the past. He repeatedly places the
rosary in her hand, and each time, she lets it fall; “De nouveau je ramasse le chapelet; je le lui
remets dans la main, mais de nouveau elle le laisse – que dis je ? elle le fait tomber” (178). What
was once a comfort is now a fruitless burden that she will no longer accept to bear; as evidenced
by the change in her opinion, Marceline has been greatly affected by Michel’s actions and by his
religious position. It is this rejection of the cross that reveals not only Michel’s position on faith
but also his influence on Marceline; he has condemned himself by his own actions and now he
has so changed his wife as to condemn her by his influence. The change in Marceline’s
60

sentiments could be attributed to the cruelty of fate, the loss of her baby, the uncertainty of her
husband, and the severity of her illness, or to Michel’s rhetoric, but in either case, it is Michel
who has changed her perspective on religion.
For Alissa, the cross is also a sign of faith, but unlike Michel and Marceline, she clings to
it in order to preserve not only her faith but her way of life. Alissa wears around her neck a
small cross of amethyst that is an outward sign of her inner devotion, but she will later put this
cross and her faith between herself and Jérôme, between herself and happiness. When Jérôme
returns to Fongueusemare to pass his military leave, he promises to take his leave of Alissa at her
first request due to the rocky nature of their romantic relationship. Alissa chooses the cross as a
signal, telling Jérôme that the day she comes to dinner without “la croix d’améthyste que tu
aimes” this will be his last night at Fongueusemare (125). It is as if she is leaving the decision to
God, as if it is out of her hands. It is shortly thereafter that Jérôme again pushes Alissa to act
upon her love for him and talks once more of marriage. She rejects him explaining that they are
not meant for happiness during their time on earth and that she desires “la sainteté” for herself
and for Jérôme (128). That same night “Alissa parut sans le petit bijou d’améthyste,” and
Jérôme resolves to depart without so much as a goodbye (128). It is appropriate that this sign, a
cross given to Alissa by Jérôme to commemorate his strictly protestant mother, marks the end of
Jérôme’s visit, because it is her faith and his salvation that she places above their happiness. The
interpretation of the cross as an artificial barrier placed between the couple by Alissa is
supported by Kevin Newmark in his article, “Love’s Cross in La Porte étroite.” Newmark
writes, “Jérôme’s departure thus signals the commencement of a marshalling of forces in
Alissa’s final drive toward sanctity, . . .” (1102). She considers Jérôme’s eternal life far more
important than their earthly happiness; Alissa goes so far as to write in a letter, “Merci, mon
61

Dieu, d’avoir élu Jérôme pour cette gloire célestielle auprès de laquelle l’autre n’est rien” (107).
This is yet another sacrifice on the part of Alissa who, through her preference for an ethereal life
rather than a physical one, is solidifying the barrier that she has erected between Jérôme and
herself. The cross which Alissa wears around her neck is therefore a constant reminder of her
piety, and its proximity to her heart is symbolic of the importance it holds in her existence.
The relationship between Jérôme and Alissa is not the only relationship in La Porte
étroite that is marked by the presence of the cross. The amethyst cross and all that it represents
is so important to Alissa that she imagines a special role for it in the future. In her journal, she
writes, “Je voudrais lui (Jérôme) remettre cette croix. Il y a longtemps déjà je faisais ce rêve :
lui marié ; moi marraine de sa première fille, une petite Alissa, à qui je donnais ce bijou …
Pourquoi n’ai-je jamais osé le lui dire ?” (173-74). In her desire to pass on her cross, Alissa
wants also to pass on her faith to the next generation of her family. Alissa offers the cross to
Jérôme, but he refuses, and she later requests to be buried with it. It is important to note that this
dream is almost accomplished though it is Juliette who gives birth to Alissa’s namesake and
Jérôme who is the godparent. Though Alissa never truly lives, her interment with the cross
represents the death of their hopes and for Jérôme of their love. While Jérôme remains dense,
the reader is excruciatingly aware of Juliette’s feelings for him and imagines that this situation is
much closer to Alissa’s ideal for him.
Death is a motif that appears in both novels, although far more frequently in
L’Immoraliste, and again helps to solidify Michel and Alissa’s respective standpoints on religion
through the exposition of their beliefs and fears. One of the major differences between faith and
atheism is the disparity between death as a beginning and death as an end, and it is this
opposition that is at the root of the distinction between Michel and Alissa. Michel lives for the
62

pleasure of his earthly life, and Alissa bides her time waiting for the paradise that she anticipates
after her death. Their actions which precede death and their reactions to it make known the
opposing standpoints of Michel and Alissa.
L’Immoraliste opens with the death of Michel’s father, and this death represents the end
of Michel’s youth and of his solitude; consequently, it also represents the beginning of his
marriage, but this is far from a happy beginning and a potentially false one. During the
honeymoon voyage, it is Michel who must face death, coming perilously close to losing himself
to his illness, but it is the threat and fear of death that pushes him to educate himself about his
disease and to cling to life until his body recovers. Believing that death is an end, that there is no
paradisiacal after-life awaiting him, Michel fears the end of his physical life and by force of will
is able to heal himself. After a relapse in his recovery, Michel is overcome with doubts and
fears, “J’étais horriblement ému. Je tremblais. J’avais peur; j’étais en colère. . . . D’où venait
donc ma peur, mon horreur à présent? C’est que je commençais, hélas! d’aimer la vie” (35).
Though he avoids physical death, the cautious banality of Michel’s life is utterly destroyed; he
can no longer exist only through his archeological fascination with the past or through his books.
The death of Michel’s past is most certainly the beginning of his new life, but it is a life which
despite its intense pleasure is also extremely destructive. If the days spent naked under the
Italian sun are considered a rebirth which marks the apex of Michel’s life, those years afterward
are a descent into a level of depravity that is greatly troubling for the narrator. Death touches his
life two more times after this moment, first with the death of his unborn child and later with the
death of Marceline. Michel takes the greatest care of Marceline during her pregnancy, and the
death of their child is a blow to their marriage as well as to Michel; it marks the end of a period
that promised immense happiness for the couple despite the problems that hindered their
63

marriage. When Marceline herself passes away, Michel takes great care to place her in a garden
that she appreciated, considering it her final resting place. Death for Michel is an end rather than
a beginning and that which is born of death has a consistently negative impact on his life.
The staunch religiosity of La Porte étroite reveals a wholly different view on death in the
sense that Alissa sees death as the beginning of her happiness. Alissa constantly rejects all forms
of earthly happiness for herself, putting that of others above her own and ignoring her needs with
the knowledge that all will be provided after her physical death. Alissa writes,
C’est que je n’espère plus rien de la vie. C’est qu’il faut à présent que je me
contente de Dieu, et que son amour n’est exquis que s’il occupe en nous toute la
place…. Je n’ai pris avec moi d’autre livre que la Bible ; mais aujourd’hui, plus
haut que les paroles que j’y lis, résonne en moi ce sanglot éperdu de Pascal :
‘Tout ce qui n’est pas Dieu ne peut pas remplir mon attente.’ O trop humaine joie
que mon cœur imprudent souhaitait… Est-ce pour obtenir ce cri, Seigneur ! que
vous m’avez désespérée ? (176)
In this Pascalien confession, Alissa admits to having had desires, but she also confirms that she
has utterly abandoned these ideas in favor of the paradise that she will find after her death.
Alissa undergoes a moment of confusion as she prepares for her own death; it is unclear whether
she is choosing God by default, or if she is assuring her place in heaven until Jérôme fulfills his
physical life. She isolates herself in order to spend the last days of her life in dialogue with God,
for this is the role of her journal and the direction of her inner thoughts. Dying of an unidentified
illness, Alissa does not fight her death; unlike Michel, she is content to relinquish her earthly
body to the ground and to transcend the physicality of her current life in favor of the ethereal
plane. Early in the narration, after recounting a dream in which Jérôme is dead and she is
64

suffering due to his absence while consequently questing to find a means of bringing the two of
them back together, Alissa explains her view of death; “Je pense qu’elle [la mort] peut
rapprocher, au contraire… oui, rapprocher ce qui a été séparé pendant la vie” (49). This
statement clarifies Alissa’s standpoint on her relationship with Jérôme; though she will never
cede to him during her physical lifetime, she anticipates a second lifetime with him after their
subsequent deaths. Seeing death as a means of rapprochement, Alissa has no reason to fear her
own death which will bring her closer to Jérôme despite the distance that separates them during
their lifetime. Alissa therefore believes that her pleasure and Jérôme’s will be greater in the
afterlife than it ever could be on earth, and hence embraces the death of her body with the utmost
confidence in the sanctity of her afterlife.
Religion and all of its symbolic implications heighten the opposition of Michel and
Alissa as they are respectively exaggerated examples of atheism and faith. Michel’s words and
actions reveal the depth of his disbelief in God and of his belief in the fruitlessness of faith; he
goads his wife, tempts fate with his actions, and outright refuses to believe in God’s help.
Alissa, on the other hand, becomes so focused on her afterlife that she never lives her physical
life, never marries, never experiences physical or psychological pleasure. Though physically
present in the narrative, Alissa is on all levels, psychological and sensual, absent. Despite the
distance between their positions, both are able to use the symbol of the cross to enforce their
position, Michel rejecting the cross and bringing his wife to reject it as well, while Alissa is not
only attracted to it but embraces it even in death. Death itself divides Michel and Alissa, because
their happiness is directly related to the relationship between physicality and faith; Alissa’s body
means little to her in the scheme of her eternal life, however Michel’s pleasure is directly related
to his physical body and the quest for sensation. While Michel fears death, Alissa embraces it,
65

ecause she views it as a passage to a more fulfilling existence. These two extremist characters
become embodiments of their faith or faithlessness only to enforce the idea that neither extreme
reaps happiness.
66

Conclusion
When comparing L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite it becomes evident that there are
many levels on which these two novels can be associated, including both genetic intent and
textual content. The relationship between L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite was superficially
established by André Gide himself who explained that the writing of L’Immoraliste would not
have been possible without a preexisting conception of La Porte étroite. However, Gide’s
comprehension of this relationship is not the only basis for comparison between the form and
content of these two works and was disregarded in favor of a textual approach to this symbiotic
relationship with the idea that even the unforeseen, unintended has significance. In examining
the narrative structure and semiotic code that make up each work, the parallel structure of both
novels and the oppositions which exist within their common motifs become clear and in turn
reveal the singularity of their message and therefore the importance of their interdependent
relationship.
Couched in a parallel narrative structure, the reader finds a collection of similar motifs
centered around: geography and topography, interpersonal relationships, nature, and religion. In
studying these topics, the contextual binary opposition of L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite has
been solidified. It has been shown that while Michel travels to satisfy his need for change and
exoticism, Alissa remains encased in her home due to her devolution and reclusive tendencies.
The importance of the home and the garden in both narrations and the contrary representation of
each expose the differences between the characters and the novels on a semiotic level. These are
but a sampling of a continuous set of differences that are evidenced in each of the motifs that
exist in the above categories. It is precisely by establishing these relationships on both a
structural and semiotic level that it is possible to study an overall interpretation of their meaning
67

and the impact of that meaning in the significance of the works.
The primary opposition is that of the protagonists, Michel and Alissa, who exemplify a
holistic contrast of these two works. The geographical, religious, and sexual freedom of Michel
extends to explain the failure of his marriage and the importance of nature in his evolution.
Alissa, contrarily, is the portrait of restraint, clinging obstinately to her geographical and
religious roots, while simultaneously sabotaging her relationships and denying her sexuality. In
spite of presenting two diametrically opposed characters who live two extraordinarily different
lives, the message of both works is the same: neither religious extreme benefits the individual.
Michel’s rejection of religion, which is directly related to his liberty, leads him into a state of
exile, while Alissa’s religious zeal condemns her to a lonely death far from home. The
presentation of a single message, in and of itself, serves to link these two works, but in order to
comprehend the complexities of this connection, it was necessary to investigate the semiotic
code of each novel. The result of these comparisons is a powerful exposition of the binary
opposition between Michel and Alissa and between L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite. The
religious implication of this contrast between Michel’s life and that of Alissa is the refusal of a
religious extreme.
Once the religiosity of the texts has been established, the representation of good and evil
can be examined through the existing semiotic code. The duplicity of Gide’s vision regarding
good and evil is therefore represented through the use of specific motifs and structural devices in
his novels L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite. Michel’s freedom, be it religious or sexual, is
portrayed as an evil by its unacceptability in society. Although this evil leads to a level of
satisfaction and a modicum of happiness for Michel, he is shunned for it by society and by
religion. Alissa, on the other hand, follows a righteous path which should be viewed as noble
68

and good but is rather revealed as a sort of self-sabotage, and the reader knows that on the day of
her death, she suffers a momentary religious crisis and doubts the utility of her faith. The
oppositions that exist between Michel and Alissa and that separate these two works are the
representation of good versus evil. Just as neither Michel nor Alissa is able to reach an apex of
happiness neither good nor evil can win. It is more precisely the balance of good and evil, rather
than the extreme of one or the other, that will allow the ultimate happiness. An attempt is made,
through the opposition of these two holistically indefinable concepts, to establish an equilibrium
that will delineate the correct path. On a societal level, the existence of good is dependent upon
evil and vice-versa, but simultaneously, on an individual level, each is equally subjective; it is
only through the comparison of the two that the value of either becomes apparent. Similarly,
L’Immoraliste relies on La Porte étroite, just as La Porte étroite relies on L’Immoraliste, to
justify the message of temperance through the revelation of different degrees of these two
extremes. Michel and Alissa represent this same codependence on the level of the protagonist;
the “evil” of Michel is offset by the “good” of Alissa. Independently, each book shows the
downfall of an extreme position, but it is only through their interrelation that the full value of
each is achieved.
In completing this study, the oppositions that exist between L’Immoraliste and La Porte
étroite have been laid bare by their existence within a parallel structure and their use in
establishing a singular message. Michel and Alissa, representative of good and evil, are polar
opposites because this allows an exposé of each of their flaws and transposes the narration from
one of extremism to one of temperance. The importance of this conclusion is to shed light on the
relationship between the semiotic code of Gide’s work and the duality of good and evil. In
establishing this relationship, readers of Gide’s corpus can better interpret all of the author’s
69

works, including L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite. Beyond its use on a textual level, this
interpretation could also be used to gain insight into the life of the author and to support a
biographical study. Though approached from the perspective of the text itself, this study has far-
reaching benefits in the study of both Gide’s life and work.
70

Bibliography
Bettinson, Christopher. “L’Immoraliste and La Porte étroite.” Gide : a study. London :
Heinemann, 1977. 15-33.
Brosman, Catharine. “Gide et le Démon.” Claudel Studies 13.2 (1986) : 45-56.
Dodille, Norbert. ‘ “Qu’est-ce que vous allez chercher là-bas” ?.’ L’Exotisme. Eds. Alain
Buisine and Norbert Dodille. Paris: Didier-Érudition, 1998. 111-21.
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: IUP, 1976.
Fowlie, Wallace. André Gide: His Life and Art. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Gide, André. L’Immoraliste. 1902. Cher : Gallimard, 2001.
---. La Porte étroite. 1909. Ed. Marie-Claude Harder-Simillion. Paris : Gallimard, 2000.
Halévy, Norma. “Du Châle et des ciseaux à la découverte de ‘moi’ dans L’Immoraliste.” La
Revue des Lettres Modernes : Histoire des Idées et des Littératures 688-692 (1984) :
69-85.
Hutchinson, Hilary. “Lamiel et l’immoralisme gidien.” Stendhal Club 100 (1983): 501- 10.
Hytier, Jean. “André Gide et l’esthétique de la personnalité.” Revue d’histoire littéraire de la
France 70.2 (1970) : 230-43.
Ireland, George William. “L’Immoraliste. La Porte étroite.” André Gide. New York: Grove
Press, 1963. 22-44.
Johnson, Michael. “Écrire la maladie: une lecture de L’Immoraliste.” Bulletin des Amis
d’André Gide 29.131-132 (2001): 379-90.
Labbé, François. “Pour une lecture initiatique de L’Immoraliste.” Bulletin des Amis
d’André Gide 13.66 (1985) : 213-28.
71

Lindsay, Marshall. “Gide’s Ethic of the Moment : L’Immoraliste.” Nottingham French Studies
23.1 (1984): 24-36.
Mann, Maria. “La Thème de la découverte de soi dans la deuxième partie de Si le grain ne
meurt et L’Immoraliste.” Chimères: A Journal of French and Italian Literature 18.2
(1986): 53-66.
March, Howard. Gide and the Hound of Heaven. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1952.
Marty, Éric. “À Propos de La Porte étroite Répétition et remémoration : Le nouvel Abailard.”
Revue des sciences humaines 70.199.3 (1985) : 79-105.
---. “La Religion ou la répétition imaginaire.” Bulletin des amis d’André Gide 11.58
(1983) : 199-238.
Nettelbeck, Colin. “L’Immoraliste turns nintey – or what more can be said about André Gide?
An essay on cultural change.” Australian Journal of French Studies 29.1 (1992):
102-24.
Newmark, Kevin. “Love’s Cross in La Porte étroite.” Modern Language Notes 99.5 (1984) :
1094-1115.
Peyre, Henri. “André Gide et les Problèmes d’Influence en littérature.” Modern Language
Notes 57.7 (1942) : 558-567.
Picon, Gaetan. “Remarks on Gide’s Ethics.” Yale French Studies 0.7 (1951): 3-11.
Pollard, Patrick. “Hic Nemus: Gardens and Other Enchanted Places in the Writings of André
Gide.” Romance Studies: A Journal of the University of Wales 22 (1993): 113-22.
Rivalin-Padiou, Sidonie. “Le motif du sang dans L’Immoraliste.” Bulletin des amis d’André
Gide 25.113 (1997) : 7-16.
72

Steel, David. “Alissa – Anorexia? Self-Starvation, Sexuality, and Salvation in La Porte étroite.”
French Studies Bulletin: A Quarterly Supplement 50 (1994): 5-8.
Turnell, Martin. “André Gide and the Disintegration of the Protestant Cell.” Yale French
Studies 0.7 (1951): 21-31.
Vidal, Georges G. “De L’Immoraliste à La Porte étroite : Étude pour les masques de Gide.” La
Revue des Lettres Modernes: Histoire des Idees et des Litteratures 688-92 (1984) : 87-
115.
Wight, Doris. “Confessions in Gide’s L’Immoraliste and Yourcenar’s Coup de Grâce.” Degré
second : Studies in French Literature 12 (1989) : 39-44.
Willen, Margaret. “The Morality of Revolt in Gide’s L’Immoraliste and Camus’ La mort
heureuse.” Dalhousie French Studies 34 (1996): 77-90.
Winegarten, Renee. “André Gide: Faust or Mephistopheles?.” The New Criterion (Apr.
1988): 7-14.
Wittman, Jean-Michel. “L’Immoraliste ou l’écriture diabolique du récit gidien.” Le Mal dans
l'imaginaire littéraire français. Ed. Watthee-Delmotte, Myriam and Metka Zupancic.
Paris : Harmattan, 1998. 245-52.
73

jennycat9@aol.com
Jennifer Lawrence
Experience 2002-2004 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV
Graduate Teaching Assistant
During five semesters and three summer sessions, I have had the opportunity to teach the
four elementary levels of French offered at West Virginia University: 101, 102, 203, and 204.
All classes were taught in a communicative style in accordance with the teachings of Lee and
Van Patten. I have for 3 semesters been responsible for the creation of materials used in
French 204, including the choice of texts and the creation all materials, including vocabulary,
grammar, pre-reading, and post-reading activities. It is the responsibility of the instructor in
all levels to prepare and teach class and also to create oral and written examinations.
Accomplishments:
• Creation and implementation of a website from which students can view their homework,
download worksheets, and engage in practice activities.
• Foundation of the WVU French Club, in which I serve as secretary.
• Creation and presentation of the French Cabaret: A forum which allows students to
showcase their linguistic talent by performing in front of an audience.
Spring 2003 Cheat Lake Elementary School Morgantown, WV
After-school French Instructor
I worked with elementary age children to introduce them to the French language. The
incorporation of games and songs into the curriculum was a necessity to their assimilation of
the elements presented.
1999-Present Annabel Timms Dance Studio Bridgeport, WV
Dance Instructor
As a dance instructor, I have worked with children and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 18.
I have taught ballet, jazz, and stretching and served as a substitute. I am responsible for the
preparation of individual classes as well as performance pieces.
Education 1998-2001 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV
B.A., Foreign Language, Specialization in French; Graduated magna cum laude
2002-2004 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV
M.A., Foreign Language, Specialization in French; Intended date of graduation May 2004
Publications Lawrence, Jennifer and Dr. Sharon Wilkinson. “Introductory College French Program with
Accompanying Feature-Length Film: Débuts and Le Chemin du retour.” Rev. of Débuts and
Le Chemin du retour, by Jay Siskin, Ann Williams-Gascon, and Thomas T. Field. NECTFL
Review 53 (2003): 57-59.
Awards & Honors Nominated for Outstanding Teaching Assistant in the Department of Foreign Languages
(decision pending), Mountaineer Scholarship, Brouzas Foundation Scholarship, Maxwell
Presidential Scholarship, WVU HERF Scholarship, National French Honor Society
74