The Devils of Loudun by Aldous Huxley

I did not take this reading seriously until I realized what this book was actually about. Needless to say, you must not be put off by the title, or else try to interpret it in another way. This is definitely not a book about witchcraft and demonic possession, but an essay disguised as a history book. In fact, it is the history of the events which took place in the town of small town of Loudun in Poitou, France, together with an attempt of biography of Urbain Grandier and mixed with several chapters and passages of the authors opinion on the most varied subjects. To be completely honest, I think I started with the wrong book, however, I believe it gave me more than I expected. My intention is to read novels on different topics but chronologically, this is why I chose The Devils of Loudon, first published in England in 1952 by Chatto and Windus. By this time, Aldous Leonard Huxley (born on July 26, 1894, in Godalming, Surrey, England) was already a famous writer living in Hollywood, California, with his wife Maria and his son Matthew. Huxley was a humanist and pacifist, but was also interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism. By the end of his life Huxley was considered a leader of modern thought and an intellectual of the highest rank. He was also well known for advocating and taking LSD (it is said that on his deathbed, unable to speak, Huxley made a written request to his wife for "LSD, 100g, intramuscular".) He died on 22 November 1963, aged 69. During the 1950s Huxley's interest in the field of psychical research grew keener, and his later works are strongly influenced by both mysticism and his experiences with the psychedelic drugs. Huxley, however, said that a novel should be full of interesting opinions and arresting ideas, describing his aim as a novelist as being 'to arrive, technically, at a perfect fusion of the novel and the essay'.1 The present novel is an example of how seriously Huxley took his work; it is a non-fiction novel, based on a thorough research derived from numerous sources, which the author cites all along the book. Moreover, he quotes several other authors (such as Descartes, Jean Jacques Bouchard, John Donne, Walt Whitman and D.H. Lawrence) to support his own ideas and arguments. I must confess that this fact made the reading a bit difficult for me, first because of the vocabulary used and second, due to these constant allusions to authors and works I knew little about. Nevertheless, after some chapters, I stopped resorting to the dictionary and began to focus on the writers opinion and reflections on the narrated events, which made me enjoy the book on a more elevated level. In 1960 playwright John Whiting adapted Huxley's book as the play The Devils and Ken Russell directed a feature film adaptation The Devils in 1971, starring Vanessa Redgrave and Oliver Reed. The book consists of eleven long and wordy chapters, plus an appendix and bibliography, and it is also enriched with illustrations from the time. The first chapter sets the historical and social frame in the aristocrat religious world of the seventeenth-century France, when the main character, Urbain Grandier, educated in the Jesuit college of Bordeaux, after taking his vows in 1615, is appointed as the new parson for the Church of Saint Pierre du March at Loudon. The author describes him as a clean, good-looking young scholar, with the manners of a gentleman and depicts him as promiscuous rogue, incapable, where his passions were involved, of acting with prudence. However, he points out that He had suffered no hurt that he could feel, only an imperceptible coarsening and hardening, only a progressive darkening of the inner light, a gradual narrowing of the souls window on the side of eternity. It was not until the end of the novel that I understood that this villain was in fact a victim of himself, since every soul must bear the burden of its own wrong-doing. The first of the many ill-actions that took him to Hell is established from this chapter: he set more than his eyes on Philippe, elder unmarried daughter of his friend M. Trincant, Public Prosecutor of Loudon. The real problems began when she becomes pregnant. All this is well shown in the first five minutes of Ken Russells film. However, the second chapter, which deals with the long period of imprisoning and trial of Grandier, accused of fornication, are not in the film. After three months in jail and apparently repented, he was
1

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

judged and condemned to fast every Friday. The transcendent part for the love-story shown in the film is that the parson falls in love and marries beautiful Madeleine de Brou. The next chapter does not appear in the film either since it is all about the authors reflections on religious self-transcendence, and his conclusion seems to be that religion is an obstacle in the way of realization. It is in the fourth chapter that Grandiers antagonist appears, Sister Jeanne of the Angels, an emotionally twisted and physically deformed nun (played by Redgrave, who gives a compelling performance, especially her sudden sarcasm and the outburst of jeering laughter). It is during her fifth year as Mother Superior in the Ursuline convent that the series of event which took Grandier to his doom took place, the first being the death of the nunsdirector, after which Sister Jeanne tried in vain of having the handsome parson as their spiritual guide. Unfortunately for him, the vengeful Prioress decided to associate herself with Grandiers growing circle of enemies. The next determining event was a rather practical joke: younger nuns and older pupils started the rumour that the house was haunted and the gossip turned it into good sisters being possessed by devils. The film concentrates largely on this part of the narration, providing a revealing insight into the supposed possessions and mainly on the exorcisms practiced at the time. I was shocked when reading about the miraculous enema and later on, horrified to watch the false exorcists treat the nuns as animals and practice colonic lavage with holy water. Conversely, the nuns seemed very happy to relieve their furor uterinus and had no remorse in admitting that Grandier was responsible for their satanic possession. Chapter five is another digression from the story, which I think is not neccessary. Moreover, it cuts the narration rhythm and can cause the reader to loose interest. Huxley, as a historian, expands on the implications of the charges of sorcery for the time. The following three chapters narrate how the Ursuline convent became the touristic centre of Loudon, thanks to the nuns who fell into paroxysms of obscene and heretical frenzies. No one believed them, but all the same Grandier was trialed and found guilty, mainly because he had once offended Cardinal Richelieu. The figure of the latter is much more important in the film, since he appears from the beginning and is shown as the main enthusiast of Grandiers condemnation. The film ends after Grandiers ashes are scattered to the four winds, but the book continues with three further chapters to show that Loudon remained haunted by the devils, for guilty Sister Jeanne never found peace and the rest of the parsons enemies died or had a bitter existence. In addition, in the appendix, the author closes his narration with a reflection on mans deep need of God as a way of escaping the insulated self, which in turn can be achieved by using drugs. In my opinion, the film The Devils fails to show how Huxley viewed society; it is a political thriller, horror film, love story, and black comedy that concentrates on the martyrdom of Urbain Grandier and implies that the ultimate purpose of the whole frame-up was Richelieus wish to be rid of the Huguenots, for he took advantage of the nun's story to have the priest brought up on charges of witchcraft, hoping to finally purge Loudon's protestant community once and for all. Besides, the script is an adaptation, it is not faithful to the original story, in which the characters played by Redgreave and Reed never met. It must be recognized, nevertheless, that the acting is very convincing, especially in the case of Reed; indeed I ended up quite liking Grandier. The actor succeeds in showing a man who regained his soul in his defiance of corrupt rulers, whose faith in Christ kept his spirit, even though his body was broken and finally destroyed, and whose only sin was, as he said before being tortured: I have been a man, I have loved women