![]()
1
âTHE GRIEF THAT DOES NOT SPEAKâ: CONSTANT AND HIS FATHER (1767â1783)
Give sorrow words: the grief that does not speak Whispers the oâer-fraught heart, and bids it break. (Macbeth, IV. iii) |
It was a calamitous beginning. Scarcely was Benjamin Constant born, on 25 October 1767, a frail baby who was not expected to live, than the attention and anxieties of his family were directed away from him to his 25-year-old mother, Henriette, neĂ© de Chandieu. There may have been complications at the birth; we do not know. What is certain is that Benjamin Constantâs mother died on the sixteenth day after his birth, that is on 10 November 1767, no doubt after unimaginable suffering.1 Benjamin immediately became the focus of a quarrel between his two grandmothers as to who should have charge of him. The argument was won by Henrietteâs mother, Françoise-Marie-Charlotte, neĂ© de Montrond (1722â77), but the tensions which already existed between the Constant and Chandieu families were aggravated: as Constant grew older they were indeed to become chronic.2 Benjamin was baptized on 11 November at the Calvinist church of Saint-François in Lausanne, and the following day Henriette de Constant was buried in the Saint-François cemetery. Shortly before the funeral, her husband Juste, desperate at the loss of the woman he had married only the previous year, was stricken with a seizure: he was unable to move, he could not get his breath, his pulse apparently stopped, and he was only saved by the intervention of a doctor.3 A second tragedy was thus narrowly averted. Colonel Juste de Constant lived on to return to Holland and the Swiss regiment of which he was commanding officer there. Meanwhile his son was no doubt left in the care of a nurse or nanny about whom we know nothing, whom Benjamin Constant never mentions and who concerned herself with the mundane task of keeping him alive. From time to time during these early months he would suddenly find himself in the midst of a constellation of grandmothers and aunts who would briefly take him in their arms, and then leave him to return to their daily social round.
Benjamin Constant almost never speaks about the first five years of his life, and it is not difficult to see why. During those years he wanted for nothing material. As an infant prodigy he was doted on and spoiled, his every utterance was applauded, and he soon learned how to captivate an audience of female relatives. Nevertheless his later life seems to tell a different and sadder story about the pattern of his childhood experience. Let us begin with the first catastrophe of his existence, the loss of his mother. There is no way of knowing how such a separation can affect so young a baby, and child psychologists maintain a prudent silence on the subject. All the evidence tends to suggest that the effects of what happened to Constant could have been mitigated, as common sense would suggest, by the establishment of a continuous and loving bond with a substitute for the mother, for example a nurse. Whether this happened in Constantâs case we do not know. Constantâs father Juste was a highly impulsive and quarrelsome man and, for all we know, may have changed his sonâs nurses as he would later change his tutorsâoften. The long-term effects of such treatment have been exhaustively documented in our own century, notably by such clinical specialists as Michael Rutter and the late John Bowlby, and several of their conclusions remind us unmistakably of Benjamin Constant.4
But before considering them, there is another crucial factor to consider in respect of Henriette de Constantâs death: the reaction to it of her husband. We saw a moment ago the extraordinary effect of grief on Juste de Constant, a seizure which brought him close to death. And we can add to this the knowledge of the coupleâs happiness during the sixteen months of their marriage (22 July 1766 to 10 November 1767), a fact about which Gustave Rudler was sceptical when he wrote his magisterial 1909 study La Jeunesse de Benjamin Constant, but which the correspondence surrounding Henrietteâs death seems to confirm. Losing her left Juste de Constant in total disarray, the more remarkable for his being in normal circumstances a stern and exceptionally strong-willed personality. He had, for a while, no idea what to do with himself or his son. Then his composure returned, he made arrangements for Benjaminâs immediate future and left to rejoin his regiment in Holland. Thereafter Juste returned periodically to Lausanne, and we can easily imagine the bewilderment of his young son whose pattern of life his return disrupted and who would become attached to him on each visit only to undergo another inevitable separation.
Yet perhaps more important even than repeated separation was Justeâs attitude towards Benjamin. Portraits of Benjamin Constant from early childhood to middle age reveal a striking facial resemblance to Henriette, whose sandy hair he also inherited.5 Each sight of his son would renew Justeâs sense of loss, a grief it was not in his character to display, but which it would be only too natural for Benjamin to glimpse now and then. The mystery of death, and especially that of oneâs own mother, is, of course, incomprehensible to a very young child, and it must certainly have troubled one as precocious and intelligent as Benjamin Constant. A look or a cross word from his father, the gossip of a servant, perhaps, would be enough to suggest to him that he had some part in the mystery. Not knowing anything about the physical details of birth, Benjamin felt nonetheless some responsibility for what occurred after his own. Jean-Jacques Rousseau offers us a case for comparison, as we can see in this well-known passage from the Confessions (1782):
As we would expect of Rousseau, all the complexity of motive and feeling is brought out in this intensely moving passage: Isaac Rousseauâs reproaches, his heightened sense of his sonâs vulnerability, above all the constant reminder of his dead wife in his sonâs very looks. Painful as it was, this was an essentially healthy reaction towards Jean-Jacques on his fatherâs part. There was no bottling up of grief, and although Rousseau was clearly upset by the situation and powerless to prevent its recurrence, he was left in no doubt about either his fatherâs quite involuntary feelings of blame and resentment or about the abiding reality of his love for him. It is my belief that in this, as perhaps in other ways, Constant was emotionally less fortunate than Rousseau. Such a scene as the one just described in the Confessions had no counterpart in Constantâs experiences. For reasons which he must have tried long and hard to fathom, Constant only knew a father who was critical, ironic, lacking in warmth, above all who seemed permanently unable to come out into the open with what he had on his mind.
John Bowlby has written eloquently about the possible effects of such a failure of communication:
This lack of directness on Juste de Constantâs part was allied to an emotional restraint which must have seemed very much like rejection to a little boy who saw his father so infrequently. A child has no understanding of a personâs character and its history beyond what it sees. Benjamin Constant could not know at this age that genetically the Constant family was afflicted with a certain oddity in behaviour, compensated forâif compensation it can be calledâby considerable intellectual vigour.8 All Benjamin could see in his father was an apparent indifferenceâwhich he would later rationalize as being timidityâwhich chilled him to the quick and destroyed all hope of trust or intimacy between them. The obvious conclusion, in a childâs mind, was: âWhat have I done to displease him?â and there was an immensely disturbing answer ready to hand: that he was responsible for his motherâs death. John Bowlby describes such a situation and its consequences:
âOpen discussionâ: the contrast with Rousseau and his father is instructive. That passage of the Confessions about a bereaved husbandâs anger, sorrow and resentment must have been alarming and depressing for Constant when he eventually came to read it. There was no such communication with Juste de Constant. There was love of a kind, of course, in Juste, as Constant later knew, but a love which, very early, became ambitiousness on Benjaminâs behalf and a desire to rush him into an âadultâ world of intellectual achievement. No tears, no tender feelings, no mothering: Benjamin was under pressure to become a bel esprit, an intellectual and a salon witâand the sooner the better. What damage Juste did to his son by this and other manifestations of a crass disregard for ordinary common sense we shall see later in this book. But we are still at the beginning of the story and that harm was, by the age of 5, already beginning to show itself in Benjamin Constant.
Evidence about Constantâs early childhood is extremely scant and fills only a dozen pages out of the seven hundred which make up volume I of the comprehensive Chronologie de la vie et de lâĆuvre de Benjamin Constant, edited by Dominique Verrey in collaboration with Etienne Hofmann, covering the years 1767â1805.10 It was not until 1810 or 1811 that Constant himself began setting down his early experiences in a systematic and non-fictional form, though there may have been earlier unrecorded attempts. This precious but unfinished account of the years 1767â87 was given the title Le Cahier rouge in 1907 by its first editor after the red cover of the notebook, but Constantâs title was Ma VieâMy Lifeâas can be seen from the first page. On 2 February 1812 Juste de Constant died, and subsequently Benjamin seems to have revised the text of Ma Vie, to what extent is unknown. At all events it was neither completed nor published by him and the narrative ends in November 1787, just before Constantâs reunion with his friend Isabelle de CharriĂšre. Where Rousseauâs Confessions sustain an unbroken flow of events and commentary, stretching back before his birth and reaching the moment when Rousseau sets pen to paper, Ma Vie in its early sections is marked by curious gaps and silences. As Constantâs account moves away from childhood towards late adolescence the writing leaves behind the initial form of brief entries year by year as in a chronicle and begins to resemble a continuous story. When he began writing, Constant may not have intended so detailed a record, with the dialogue, description and reflection that we see in the later sections of Ma Vie, and this might explain the lopsided nature of the whole. One might suppose that after a jerky and uncertain beginning, Constant with practice got into his stride and by the time he reached the midâ1780s was writing with confidence. But is this really the case? I suspect not. Nor was it the case, I believe, that Constant considered accounts of childhood experiences to be lacking in interest: Rousseau had shown they could make absorbing reading. I would suggest rather that a return to the details of his childhood would have been a return to an infernal region, to a time of unrelieved emotional suffering for Constant that he could hardly bear to recall. And the evidence of the text seems to bear this out. Ma Vie begins thus: