Cruelty vs Compassion Theme Analysis

Though many characters in Flaubert’s “A Simple Heart” are members of seemingly polite society in nineteenth-century France, the story often demonstrates ways in which they are considerably impolite—and even outright cruel—to one another. Their cruelty stands in marked contrast to Félicité’s compassion, which never wavers throughout the narrative. By contrasting cruel and compassionate moments throughout the novella, Flaubert demonstrates that all people—regardless of their station in life—are provided with many opportunities to choose cruelty or compassion throughout their lives, and that their choices either way will have both immediate and enduring consequences.

Acts of cruelty abound in the narrative of “A Simple Heart.” Though there are many kinds of interpersonal coldness and abuse that occur in the story, many of these acts are committed when characters choose to ignore the value of others’ lives, priorities, and emotions. For instance, Félicité’s parrot, Loulou, is mistreated by several visitors to Madame Aubain’s home. Though Loulou is Félicité’s prized possession, several characters regard him as a nuisance, and treat him as such. Paul Aubain blows cigarette smoke up the parrot’s nose, for example, and a visitor prods him with the tip of her umbrella. Not only do these characters fail to recognize the value that the parrot has in Félicité’s life, but they also fail to respect the parrot as a living being. Furthermore, by disrespecting the parrot, the other characters are, by extension, disrespecting Félicité and sending the message that she is not important.

Similarly, Félicité’s room, described as “something between a chapel and a bazaar,” is a testament to the ways in which individuals misunderstand the internal lives and priorities of others, thus causing them to act selfishly. Most of Félicité’s belongings are “keepsakes that [mean] so much to her,” but that Madame Aubain regards as disposable. This contrast repeats when Madame Aubain passes away, and her opportunistic son and daughter-in-law strip the house of several items that Félicité holds dear, proving that they are prioritizing only their own material interests and choosing to ignore Félicité’s feelings—and perhaps even the memory of Madam Aubain herself.

Though Félicité’s employers and their well-off friends are some of the most unfeeling characters in the novel, cruelty is not only associated with the wealthier classes in the novella. Though Flaubert’s narrator depicts the wealthy as particularly self-interested, the novella argues that all people are capable of selfish and unkind acts, thus emphasizing that they are afforded the opportunity to choose either at any given moment. Félicité is overjoyed to rediscover her lost family members, but they do not turn out to possess her commendable “natural goodness.” Though her sister and her new family also come from a humble background, the novella implies that they are not good people. Flaubert writes: “Victor had always been treated cruelly by his parents and Félicité preferred not to see them again. They did not get in touch with Félicité either; perhaps they had simply forgotten about her or perhaps poverty had hardened their hearts.” This moment demonstrates that it is not only wealth and privilege that can cause people to act selfishly and coldly toward others, but also—as Félicité surmises here—the bitterness produced by difficult circumstances. Though Félicité comes from the same background of poverty and trauma that her sister does, she chooses not to become bitter or to mistreat others as a response to her circumstances in life; instead, she spends her life helping others who have fallen upon difficult times, like the cholera victims and Polish refugees she cares for in Pont-l’Eveque.

By describing the traumatic effects of cruelty and the healing results of compassion, Flaubert implies that a single moment of cruelty or compassion can profoundly affect the course of a human life; thus, this choice between cruelty and compassion is one of the most important and impactful decisions any person can make. After her beloved parrot dies, Félicité embarks upon a climactic journey to get him stuffed by a taxidermist. When she arrives at an oceanside town to mail the parrot’s corpse, the horrors of her life come back to her, “and her wretched childhood, the disappointment of her first love affair, the departure of her nephew and the death of Virginie all came flooding back to her like the waves of an incoming tide.” In this moment, Flaubert demonstrates the way in which Félicité has not only been negatively impacted by her class status and her bad luck, but by the ways in which others have treated her. In her “wretched childhood,” she was abused and undervalued by her employers, and the “disappointment of her first love affair” was the result of Theodore’s decision to abandon Félicité and betray the promises he had made to her. Though at this point in the story, many years have passed since these events, Flaubert implies that they are still firmly rooted in Félicité’s mind.

In the same way that the cruelty of human beings powerfully influences Flaubert’s characters, the fruits of human compassion are evident in the narrative as well. Félicité’s important embrace with Madame Aubain—catalyzed by a moment in which they both grieve over Virginie’s death—does not have a fleeting impact on her relationship to her employer. Instead, “from then on she doted on her mistress with dog-like fidelity and the reverence that might be accorded to a saint.” In this way, it is clear that although Madame Aubain did not commonly engage in acts of kindness, her single act of embracing Félicité was impactful enough to create a notable change in her “from then on,” suggesting the power of such a choice during that emotional time in the women’s lives. The novella thus argues that acts of compassion—like acts of cruelty—have wide-reaching implications and can stick with people for a long time.

Throughout “A Simple Heart,” Flaubert focuses on the ways in which his characters fail to fully recognize the humanity in one another, and contrasts their egotism and malicious intent with Félicité’s unwavering compassion for others. By demonstrating the influential nature of acts of cruelty upon the lives of his characters, and by illustrating the ways in which compassion can have profoundly beneficial results, Flaubert implies that characters would do well to live as Félicité does, and to exercise compassion when presented with such a vital choice.