The Sadeian Woman PDF

ANGELA CARTER
AN EXERCISE IN CULTURAL HISTORY
PENGUIN BOOKS
PENGUIN BOOKS
Published by the Penguin Group

Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Street,
New York, New York 10014, U.SA
Penguin Books Ltd, 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5TZ, England
Penguin Books Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia
Penguin Books Canada Ltd, 10 Alcorn Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4V 3B2
Penguin Books (N.Z.) Ltd, 182-190 Wairau Road,
Auckland 10, New Zealand
Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices:

Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England
First published in Great Britain by Vrrago Press Limited, 1979

First published in the United States of American by Pantheon Books, 1979
Published in Penguin Books 2001
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Copyright © Angela Carter, 1979

All rights reserved
CIP Data available.

ISBN 0 14 02.9861 4
Printed in the United States of America

Set in Century
Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to

the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent,
re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's
prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in
which it is published and without a similar condition including
this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
C ON T E N T S
Introductory note 1
POLEMICAL PREFACE 3
pornography in the service of women
THE DESECRATION OF THE TEMPLE 38

. the life of Justine
SEXUALITY AS TERRORISM 78
the life of Juliette
THE SCHOOL OF LOVE 116

the education of a female Oedipus
SPECULATIVE FINALE 137

the function of flesh
POSTSCRIPT 151
Red Emma replies to the Madman o f Charenton
Bibliography 152
INTR O D U C T O RY N O T E
Sade was born in 1740, a great nobleman; and died in 1814,

in a lunatic asylum, a poor man. His life spans the entire
period of the French Revolution and he died in the same
year that Napoleon abdicated and the monarchy was
restored to France. He stands on the threshold of the
modern period, looking both backward and forwards, at a
time when the nature of human nature and of social in
stitutions was debated as freely as it is in our own.
Sade's work concerns the nature of sexual freedom and is
of particular significance to women because of his refusal to
see female sexuality in relation to its reproductive function,
a refusal as unusual in the late eighteenth century as it is
now, even if today the function of women as primarily
reproductive beings is under question. The Sadeian Woman
is neither a critical study nor a historical analysis of Sade; it
is, rather, a late-twentieth-century interpretation of some of
the problems he raises about the culturally determined
nature of women and of the relations between men and
women that result from it - an opposition which is both
cruelly divisive in our common struggle. to understand the
world, and also, in itself, a profound illumination of the
nature of that struggle.
one
P O LE M I C AL P R E F A C E :
P O R N OG R A P H Y
I N T H E S E RV I C E O F W O M E N
Sadism i s not a name finally given t o a practice a s old

as Eros; it is a massive cultural fact which appeared
precisely at the end of the eighteenth century, and
which constitutes one of the greatest conversions of
Western imagination: unreason transformed into
delirium of the heart, madness of desire, the insane
dialogue of love and death in the limitless presumption
of appetite.
Madness and Civilisation,

Michel Foucault
I am not the slave of the Slavery that dehumanised my

ancestors.
Black Skin White Masks,

Frantz Fanon
Pornographers are the enemies of women only because our

contemporary ideology of pornography does not encompass
the possibility of change, as if we were the slaves of history
and not its makers, as if sexual relations were not
necessarily an expression of social relations, as if sex itself
were an external fact, one as immutable as the weather,
4 The Sadeian Woman
creating human practice but never a part of it.,
Pornography involves an abstraction of human in
tercourse in which the self is reduced to its formal elements.
In its most basic form, these elements are represented by
the probe and the fringed hole, the twin signs of male and
female in graffiti, the biological symbols scrawled on the
subway poster and the urinal wall, the simplest expression
of stark and ineradicable sexual differentiation, a universal
pictorial language of lust - or. rather, a language we accept as
universal because, since it has always been so, we conclude
that it must always remain so.
In the stylisation of graffiti, the prick is always presented
erect, in an alert attitude of, enquiry or curiosity or af
firmation; it points upwards, it asserts. The hole is open, an
inert space, like a mouth waiting to be filled. From this
elementary iconography may be derived the whole
metaphysic of sexual differences - man aspires; woman has
no other function but to exist, waiting. The male is positive,
an exclamation mark. Woman is negative. Between her legs
lies nothing but zero, the sign for nothing, that only
beComes something when the male principle fills it with
meaning.
Anatomy is destiny, said Freud, which is true enough as
far as it goes, but ambiguous. My anatomy is only part of an
infinitely complex organisation, my self. The anatomical
reductionalism of graffiti, the reductio ad absurdum of the
bodily differences between men and women, extracts all the
evidence of me from myself and leaves behind only a single
aspect of my life as a mammal. It enlarges this aspect,
simplifies it and then presents it as the most significant
aspect of my entire humanity. This is true of all
mythologising of sexuality; but graffiti lets it be seen to be
true. It is the most explicit version of the idea of different
sexual essences of men and women, because it is the crudest.
In the face of this symbolism, my pretensions to any kind of
social existence go for nothing; graffiti directs me back to
my mythic generation as a woman and, as a woman, my
Polemical Preface 5
symbolic value is primarily that of a myth of patience and

receptivity, a dumb mouth �m which the teeth have �n
pulled.
Sometimes, especially under the influence of Jung, a more
archaic mouth is allowed to exert an atavistic dominance.
Then, if I am lucky enough to be taken with such poetic
pseudo-seriousness, my nether mouth may be acknowledged
as one capable of speech- were there not, of old, divinatory
priestesses, female oracles and so forth? Was there not
Cassandra, who always spoke the truth, although ad
mittedly in such a way that nobody ever believed her? And
that, in mythic terms, is the hell of it. Since that female,
oracular mouth is located so near the beastly backside, my
vagina might indeed be patronisingly regarded as a
speaking mouth, but never one that issues the voice of
reason. In this most insulting mythic redefinition of myself,
that of occult priestess, I am indeed allowed to speak but
only of things that male society does not take seriously. I
can hint at dreams, I can even personify the imagination;
but that is only because I am not rational enough to cope
with reality.
If women allow themselves to be consoled for their
culturally determined lack of access to the modes of in
tellectual debate by the invocation of hypothetical great
goddesses, they are simply flattering themselves into
submission (a technique often used on them by men). All the
mythic versions of women, from the myth of the redeeming
purity of the virgin to that of the healing, reconciling
mother, are consolatory nonsenses; and consolatory non
sense seems to me a fair definition of myth, anyway. Mother
goddesses are just as silly a notion as father gods. If a
revival of the myths of these cults gives women emotional
satisfaction, it does so at the price of obscuring the real
conditions of life. This is why they were invented in the first
place.
Myth deals in false universals, to dull the pain of par
ticular circumstances. In no area is this more true than in
6 The Sadeian Woman
that of relations between the sexes. Graffiti, the most public
form of sexual iconography, one which requires no training
or artistic skill in its execution and yet is always assured of
an audience, obtains all its effects from these false
universals of myth. Its savage denial of the complexity of
human relations is also a consolatory nonsense.
In its schema, as in the mythic schema of all relations
between men and women, man proposes and woman is
disposed of, just as she is disposed of in a rape, which is a
kind of physical- graffiti, the most extreme reduction of love,
in which all humanity departs from the sexed beings. So
that, somewhere in the fear of rape, is a more than merely
physical terror of hurt and humiliation - a fear of psychic
disintegration, of an essential dismemberment, a fear of a
loss or disruption of the self which is not confined to the
victim alone. Since all pornography derives directly from
myth, it follows that its heroes and heroines, from the most
gross to the most sophisticated, are mythic abstractions,
heroes and heroines of dimension and capacity. Any glimpse
of a real man or a real woman is absent from these
representations of the archetypal male and female.
The nature of the individual is not resolved into but is
ignored by these archetypes, since the function of the ar
chetype is to diminish the unique 'I' in favour of a collective,
sexed being which cannot, by reason of its very nature, exist
as such because an archetype is only an image that has got
too big for its boots and bears, at best, a fantasy relation to
reality.
All archetypes are spurious but some are more spurious
than others. There is the unarguable fact of sexual dif
ferentiation; but, separate from it and only partially derived
from it, are the behavioural modes of masculine and
feminine, which are culturally defined variables translated
in the language of common usage to the status of universals.
And these archetypes serve only to confuse the main issue,
that relationships between the sexes are determined by
history and by the historical fact of the economic depen-
PolemiC'al Preface 7
dence of women upon men. This fact is now very largely a

fact of the past and, even in the past, was only true for
certain social groups and then only at certain periods.
Today, most women work before, during and after marriage.
Nevertheless, the economic dependence of women remains a
believed fiction and is assumed to imply an emotional
dependence that is taken for granted as a condition inherent
in the natural order of things and so used to console working
women for their low wages. They work; see little profit from
it; and therefore conclude they cannot really have been
working at all.
This confusion as to the experience of reality - that what I
know from my experience is true is, in fact, not so - is most
apparent, however, in the fantasy love-play of the ar
chetypes, which generations of artists have contrived to
make seem so attractive that, lulled by dreams, many
women willingly ignore the palpable evidence of their own
responses.
In these beautiful encounters, any man may encounter
any woman and their personalities are far less important to
their copulation than the mere fact of their genders. At the
first touch or sigh he, she, is subsumed immediately into a
universal. (She, of course, rarely approaches him; that is not
part of the fantasy of fulfillment.) She is most immediately
and dramatically a woman when she lies beneath a man, and
her submission is the apex of his malehood. To show his
humility before his own erection, a man must approach a
woman on his knees, just as he approaches god. This is the
kind of beautiful thought that has bedevilled the history of
sex in Judaeo-Christian cUlture, causing almost as much
confusion as the idea that sex is a sin. Some of the scorn
heaped on homosexuals may derive from the fact that they
do not customarily adopt the mythically correct, sacerdotal
position. The same beautiful thought· has elevated a
Western European convention to the position of the only
sanctified sexual position; it fortifies the missionary
position with a bizarre degree of mystification. God is in-
8 The Sadeian Woman
voked as a kind of sexual referee, to assure us, as modern
churchmen like to claim in the teeth of two thousand years
of Christian sexual repression, that sex is really sacred.
The missionary position has another great asset, from the
mythic point of view; it implies a system of relations bet
ween the partners that equates the woman to the passive
receptivity of the soil, to the richness and fecundity of the
earth. A whole range of images poeticises, kitschifies,
departicularises intercourse, such as wind beating down
corn, rain driving against bending trees, towers falling, all
tributes to tl?e freedom and strength of the roving, fecun
dating, irresistible male principle and the heavy, downward,
equally irresistible gravity of the receptive soil. The soil
that is, good heavens, myself. It is a most self-enhancing
notion; I have almost seduced myself with it. Any woman
may manage, in luxurious self-deceit, to feel herself for a
little while one with great, creating nature, fertile, open,
pulsing, anonymous and so forth. In doing so, she loses
herself completely and loses her partner also.
The moment they succumb to this anonymity, they cease
to be themselves, with their separate lives and desires; they
cease to be the lovers who have met to assuage desire in a
reciprocal pact of tenderness, and they engage at once in a
spurious charade of maleness and femaleness.
The anonymity of the lovers, whom the act transforms
from me and you into they, precludes the expression of
ourselves.
So the act is taken away from us even as we perform it.
We become voyeurs upon our own caresses. The act does
not acknowledge the participation of the individual,
bringing to it a whole life of which the act is only a part. The
man and woman, in their particularity, their being, are
absent from these representations of themselves as male
and female. These tableaux of falsification remove our
sexual life from the world, from tactile experience itself. The
lovers are lost to themselves in a privacy that does not
transcend but deny reality. So the act can never satisfy
Polemical Preface 9
them, because it does not affect their lives. It occurs in the

mythic dream-time of religious ritual.
But our flesh arrives to us out of history, like everything
else does. We may believe we fuck stripped of social artifice;
in bed, we even feel we touch the bedrock of human nature
itself. But we are deceived. Flesh is not an irreducible
human universal. Although the erotic relationship may
seem to exist freely, on its own terms, among the distorted
social relationships of a bourgeois society, it is, in fact, the
most self-conscious of all human relationships, � direct
confrontation of two beings whose actions in the bed are
wholly determined by their acts when they are out of it. If
one sexual partner is economically dependent on the other,
then the question of sexual coercion, of contractual
obligation, raises its ugly head in the very abode of love and
inevitably colours the nature of the sexual expression of
affection. The marriage bed is a particularly delusive refuge
from the world because all wives of necessity fuck by
contract. Prostitutes are at least decently paid on the nail
and boast fewer illusions about a hireling status that has no
veneer of social acceptability. but their services are suf
fering a decline in demand now that other women have
invaded their territory in their own search for a newly
acknowledged sexual pleasure. In this period. promiscuous
abandon may seem the only type of free exchange.
But no bed, however unexpected, no matter how ap
parently gratuitous, is free from the de-universalising facts
of real life. We do not go to bed in simple pairs; even if we
choose not to refer to them, we still drag there with us the
cultural impedimenta of our social class, our parents' lives,
our bank balances, our sexual and emotio� expectations,
our whole biographies - all the bits and pieces of our unique
existences. These considerations have limited our choice of
partners before we have even got them into the bedroom. It
was impossible for the Countess in Beaumarchais' The
Marriage of Figaro to contemplate sleeping with her
husband's valet, even though he was clearly the best man
10 The Sadeian Woman
available; considerations of social class censored the
possibility of sexual attraction between the Countess and
Figaro before it could have begun to exist, and if this
convention restricted the Countess's activities, it did not
affect those of her husband; he happily plotted to seduce his
valet's wife. If middle-class Catherine Earnshaw, in Emily
Bronte's Wuthering Heights, wants to sleep with Heath
cliff, who has the dubious class origins of the foundling, she
must not only repress this desire but pay the socially
sanctioned price of brain-fever and early death for even
contemplating it. Our literature is full, as are our lives, of
men and women, but especially women, who deny the reality
of sexual attraction and of love because of considerations of
class, religion, race and of gender itself.
Class dictates our choice of partners and our choice of
positions. When fear, shame and prudery condemn the poor
and the ignorant to copulate in the dark, it must be obvious
that sexual sophistication is a by-product of education. The
primal nakedness of lovers is a phenomenon of the middle
class in cold climates; in northern winters, naked lovers must
be able to afford to heat their bedrooms. The taboos
regulating the sight of bare flesh are further determined by
wider cultural considerations. The Japanese bathed
together in the nude for centuries, yet generations of
Japanese lovers fucked in kimono, even in the humidity of
summer, and did not even remove the combs from their
chignons while they did so. And another complication - they
did not appreciate the eroticism of the nude; yet they looked
at one another's exposed genitalia with a tender readiness
that still perturbs the West.
Control of fertility is a by-product of sexual education and
of official legislation concerning the availability of cheap or
·free contraception. Even so, a poor woman may find herself
sterilised when all she wanted was an abortion, her fertility
taken out of her own control for good by social adminis
trators who have decided that poverty is synonymous with
.stupidity and a poor woman cannot know her own mind.
Polemical Preface 11
The very magical privacy of the bed, the pentacle, may
itself only be bought with money, and lack of privacy limits
sexual sophistication, which may not be pursued in a room
full of children.
Add to these socio-economic considerations the Judaeo
Christian heritage of shame, disgust and morality that
stand between the initial urge and the first attainment of
this most elementary assertion of the self and it is a wonder
anyone in this culture ever learns to fuck at all.
Flesh comes to us out of history; so does the repression
and taboo that governs our experience of flesh.
The nature of actual modes of sexual intercourse is
determined by historical changes in less intimate human
relations, just as the actual nature of men and women is
capable of infinite modulations as social structures change.
Our knowledge is determined by the sOCial boundaries upon
it; for example, Sade, the eighteenth-century lecher, knew
that manipulation of the clitoris was the unique key to the
female orgasm, but a hundred years later, Sigmund Freud, a
Viennese intellectual, did not wish to believe that this grand
simplicity was all there was to the business. It was socially
permissible for an eighteenth-century aristocrat to sleep
with more women than it was for a member of the
nineteenth-century bourgeoisie, for one thing, and to retain
a genuine curiosity about female sexuality whilst doing so,
for another. Yet Freud, the psychoanalyst, can conceive of a
far richer notion of human nature as a whole than Sade, the
illiberal'philosopher. is capable of; the social boundaries of
knowledge expand in some areas and contract in others due
to historical forces.
Sexuality, in short, is never expressed in a vacuum.
Though the archaic sequence of human life - we are born, we
fuck, we reproduce, we die - might seem to be universal
experience, its universality is not its greatest significance.
Since human beings have invented history, we have also
invented those aspects of our lives that seem most im
mutable, or, rather, have invented the circumstances that
determine their nature. Birth and death, the only absolute
inescapables, are both absolutely determined by the social
context in which they occur. There is no longer an inevitable
relationship between fucking and reproducing and, indeed,
neither fucking nor reproducing have been activities
practiced by all men and women at all times, anyway; there
has always been the option to abstain, whether it is exer
cised or not. Women experience sexuality and reproduction
quite differently than men do; rich women are more in
control of the sequence than poor women and so may ac
tually enjoy fucking and childbirth, when poor women
might find them both atrocious simply because they are
poor and cannot afford comfort, privacy and paid help.
The notion of a universality of human experience is a
confidence trick and the notion of a universality of female
experience is a clever oonfidence trick.
Pornography, like marriage and the fictions of romantic
love, assists the process of false universalising.lts excesses
belong to that timeless, locationless area outside history,
outside geography, where fascist art is born.
Nevertheless, there is no question of an aesthetics of
pornography. It can never be art for art's sake. Honourably
enough, it is always art with work to do.
Pornographic literature, the specific area of pornography
with which we are going to deal, has several functions. On
one level, and a level which should not be despised, it might
serve as an instruction manual for the inexperienced. But
our culture, with its metaphysics of sexuality, relegates the
descriptions of the mechanics of sex to crude functionalism;
in the sex textbook, intercourse also takes place in a void. So
pornography's principal and most humanly significant
function is that of arousing sexual excitement. It does this
by ignoring the first function; it usually describes the sexual
act not in explicit terms - for that might make it seem
frightening - but in purely inviting terms.
The function of plot in a pornographic narrative is always
the same. It exists purely to provide as many opportunities
as possible for the sexual act to take place. There is no room

here for tension or the unexpected.. We know what is going
to happen; that is why we are reading the book. Charac
terisation is necessarily limited. by the formal necessity for
the actors to fuck as frequently and as ingeniously as
possible. But they do not do so because they are continually
consumed by desire; the free expression of desire is as alien
to pornography as it is to marriage. In pornography, both
men and women fuck because to fuck is their raison d'etre.
It is their life work.
It follows that prostitutes are favourite heroines of the
pornographic writer, though the economic aspects of a
prostitute's activity, which is her own main concern in the
real world, will be dealt With only lightly. Her labour is her
own private business. Work, in this context, is really dirty
work; it is unmentionable. Even unspeakable. And we may
not talk about it because it reintroduces the question of the
world. In this privatised universe pleasure is the only work;
work itself is unmentionable. To concentrate on the
prostitute's trade as trade would introduce too much reality
into a scheme that is first and foremost one of libidinous
fantasy, and pornographic writers, in general, are not
concerned with extending the genre in which they work to
include a wider view of· the world. This is because por
nography is the orphan little sister of the arts; its func
tionalism renders it suspect, more applied art than fine art,
and so its very creators rarely take it seriously.
Fine art, that exists for itself alone, is art in a final state of
impotence. If nobody, including the artist, acknowledges art
as a means of knowing the world, then art is relegated. to a
kind of rumpus room of the mind and the irresponsibility of
the artist and the irrelevance of art to actual living becomes
part and parcel of the practice of art. Nevertheless, eor
nographic writing retains this in common with all literature
- that it turns the flesh into word. This is the real trans
formation the text performs upon libidinous fantasy.
The verbal structure is in itself reassuring. We know we
are not dealing with real flesh or anything like it, but with a
cunningly articulated verbal simulacrum which has the
power to arouse, but not, in itself, to assuage desire. At this
point, the reader, the consumer, enters the picture;
reflecting the social dominance which affords him the op
portunity to purchase the flesh of other people as if it were
meat, the reader or consumer of pornography is usually a
man who subscribes to a particular social fiction of
manliness. His belief in this fiction prevents him from
realising that, when he picks up a dirty book, he engages in
a game with his own desire and with his own solitude, both
of which he endlessly titillates but never openly confronts.
Therefore a cerebral insatiability, unacknowledged yet
implicit, is a characteristic of pornography, which always
throws the reader back on his own resources, since it con
vinces him of the impotence of his desire that the book
cannot in itself assuage, at the same time as he solaces that
loneliness through the medium of the fantasy extracted from
the fiction.
The one-to-one relation of the reader with the book is
never more apparent than in the reading of a pornographic
novel, since it is virtually impossible to forget oneself in
relation to the text. In pornographic literature, the text has
a gap left in it on purpose so that the reader may, in
imagination, step inside it. But the activity the text
describes, into which the reader enters; is not a whole world
into which the reader is absorbed and, as they say, 'taken
out of himself'. It is one basic activity extracted from the
world in its totality in such a way that the text constantly
reminds the reader of his own troubling self, his own reality
- and the limitations of that reality since, however much he
wants to fuck the willing women or men in his story, he
cannot do so but must be content with some form of sub
stitute activity. (The fictional maleness of the pornography
consumer encompasses the butch hero of homosexual
pornography; it is a notion of masculinity unrelated to
practice.)
The privacy of the reader is invaded by his own desires,

which reach out towards the world beyond the book he is
reading. Yet they are short-circuited by the fantastic nature
of the gratification promised by the text, which denies to
flesh aU its intransigence, indeed its sexed quality, since
sexuality is a quality made manifest in being, and por
nography can only allow its phantoms to exist in the
moment of sexual excitation; they Cannot engage in the wide
range of activity in the real world in which sexual per
formance is not the supreme business of all people at all
times.
Yet the gripping �ature of pornography, its directly
frontal assault upon the senses of the reader, its straight
forward engagement of him at a non-intellectual level, its
sensationalism, suggest the methodology of propaganda.
Indeed, pornography is basically propaganda for fucking,
an activity, one would have thought, that did not need much
advertising in itself, because most people want to do it as
soon as they know how.
The denial of the social fact of sexuality in pornography is
made explicit in its audience. Produced in the main by men
for an all-male clientele, suggesting certain analogies with
a male brothel, access to pornography is usually denied to
women at any level, often on the specious grounds that
women do not find descriptions of the sexual act erotically
stimulating. Yet if pornography is produced by men for a
male audience, it is exclusively concerned with relations
between the sexes and even the specialised area . of
homosexual pornography divides its actors into sexual
types who might roughly be defined as 'masculine' and
'feminine'. So all pornography suffers the methodological
defects of a manual of navigation written by and for land
lubbers.
Many pornographic novels are written in the first person
as if by a woman, or use a woman as the focus of the
narrative; bpt this device only reinforces the male orien
tation of the fiction. John Cleland's Fanny Hill and the
anonymous The Story of 0, both classics of the genre,
appear in this way to describe a woman's mind through the
fiction of her sexuality. This technique ensures that the gap
left in the text is of just the right size for the reader to insert
his prick into. the exact dimensions, in fact, of Fanny's
vagina or of O's anus. Pornography engages the reader in a
most intimate fashion before it leaves him to his own
resources. This gap in the text may also be just the size of
the anus or mouth of a young man, subsuming him, too, to
this class that is most present in its absence, the invisible
recipients of the pornographic tribute, the mental mastur
batory objects.
So pornography reinforces the false universals of sexual
archetyPes because it denies, or doesn't have time for, or
can't find room for, or, because of its underlying ideology,
ignores, the social context in which sexual activity takes
place, that modifies the very nature of that activity.
Therefore pornography must always have the false sim
plicity of fable; the abstraction of the flesh involves the
mystifiCation of the flesh. As it reduces the actors in the
sexual drama to instruments of pure function, so the pursuit
of pleasure becomes in itself a metaphysical quest. The
pornographer, in spite of himself, becomes a metaphysician
when he states that the friction of penis in orifice is the
supreme matter of the world, for which the world is well
lost; as he says so, the world vanishes.
Pornography, like satire, has an inbuilt reactionary
mechanism. Its effect depends on the notion that the nature
of man is invariable and cannot be modified by changes in
his social institutions. The primordial itch in the groin
existed before multinational business corporations and the
nuclear family and will outlast them just as it illicitly
dominates them. The disruptiveness of sexuality, its
inability to be contained, the overflowing of the cauldron of
id - these are basic invariables of sexuality, opines the
pornographer, and in itself pornography is a satire on
human pretensions. The judge conceals his erection beneath
his robes of office as he passes judgement on the whore. The

cabinet minister slips away from his office early to visit the
call girl. The public executioner ejaculates as the neck of his
p
victim snaps. And we laugh wryly at the omni otence of Old
Adam, how he will always, somehow or other, get his way;
and we do ourselves and Old Adam the grossest injustice
when we .grant him so much power, when we reduce
sexuality to the status of lowest common denominator
without asking ourselves what preconceptions make us
think it should be so.
Since sexuality is as much a social fact as it is a human
one, it will therefore change its nature according to changes
in social conditions. If we could restore the context of the
world to the embraces of these shadows then, perhaps, we
could utilise their activities to obtain a fresh perception of
the world and, in some sense, transform it. The sexual act in
pornography exists as a metaphor for what people do to one
another, often in the cruellest sense; but the present
business of the pornographer is to suppress the metaphor as
much as he can and leave us with a handful of empty words.
Pornographic pictures, movies and narr ative fiction are
the pure forms of sexual fiction, of the fiction of sex, where
this operation of alienation takes place most visibly. But all
art which contains elements of eroticism (eroticism, the
pornography of the elite) contains the possibility of the
same methodology - that is, writing that can 'pull' a reader
just as a woman 'pulls' a man or a man 'pulls' a woman.
And all such literature has the potential to force the
reader to reassess his relation to his own sexuality, which is
to say to his own primary being, through the mediation of
the image or the text. This is true for women also, perhaps
especially so, as soon as we realise the way pornography
reinforces the archetypes of her negativity and that it does
so simply because most pornography remains in the service
of the status quo. And that is because its elementary
metaphysic gets in the way of real life and prevents us
seeing real life. If the world has been lost, the world may not
be reassessed. Libidinous fantasy in a vacuum is the purest,
but most affectless, form of day-dreaming. So pornography
in general serves to defuse the explosive potential of all
sexuality and that is the main reason why it is made by and
addressed to the politically dominant minority in the world,
as an instrument -of repression, not only of women, but of
men too. Pornography keeps sex in its place. that is, under
the carpet. That is, outside everyday human intercourse.
The sexuality of the blue movie queen, contained by her
social subservience, exhibits no menace. Linda Lovelace
does not believe in the Women's Liberation Movement; how
could she? Fanny Hill gladly gives up the dominant role of
mistress for the subservient role of wife and hands to her
Charles all her hard-eamed money too, which is an infinitely
more far-reaching gesture of submission than that of ac
cepting his sexual mastery and opting for domestic
monogamy and motherhood under his exclusive economic
sanction. Fanny knows in her heart that her Charles is really
her last, most efficient, pimp. 0, less complex because her
economic means of support are not explored as closely as
Cleland explores Fanny's, is more content simply to rejoice
in her chains, a model for all women.
It is fair to say that, when pornography serves - as with
very rare exceptions it always does - to reinforce the
prevailing system of values and ideas in a given society, it is
tolerated; and when it does not, it is banned. (This already
suggests there are more reasons than those of public
decency for the banning of the work of Sade for almost two
hundred years; only at the time of the French Revolution
and at the present day have his books been available to the
general public.) Therefore an increase of pornography on the
market, within the purchasing capacity of the common man,
and especially the beginning of a type of pornography
modelled on that provided for the male consumer but
directed at women, does not mean an increase in sexual
licence, with the reappraisal of social mores such licence, if it
is real, necessitates. It might only indicate a more liberal
attitude t o masturbation, rather than t o fucking, and
reinforce a sollipsistic concentration on the relationship
With the self, which is a fantasy one at the best of times.
When pornography abandons its quality of existential
solitude and moves out of the kitsch area of timeless,
placeless fantasy and into the real world, then it loses its
function of safety valve. It begins to comment on real
relations in the real world. Therefore, the more pornographic
writing aquires the techniques of real literature, of real art,
the more deeply subversive it is likely to be in that the more
likely it is to affect the reader's perceptions of the world.
The text that had heretofore opened up creamily to him, in a
dream, will gather itself together and harshly expel him into
the anguish of actuality.
There is a liberal theory that art disinfects eroticism of its
latent subversiveness, and pornography that is also art
loses its shock and its magnetism, becomes 'safe'. The truth
of this is that once pornography is labelled 'art' or
'literature' it is stamped with the approval of an elitist
culture and many ordinary people will avoid it on principle,
out of a fear of being bored. But the more the literary arts of
plotting and characterisation are used to shape the material
of pornography, the more the pornographer himself is faced
with the moral contradictions inherent in real sexual en
counters. He will find himself in a dilemma; to opt for the
world or to opt for the wet dream?
Out of this dilemma, the moral pornographer might be
born.
The moral pornographer would be an ar,tist who uses
pornographic material as part of the acceptance of the logic
of a world of absolute sexual licence for all the genders, and
projects a model of the way such a world might work. A
moral pornographer might use pornography as a critique of
current relations between the sexes. His business would be
the total demystification of the flesh and the subsequent
revelation, through the infinite modulations of the sexual
act, of the real relations of man and his kind. Such a
pornographer would not be the enemy of women, perhaps
because he might begin to penetrate to the heart of the
contempt for women that distorts our culture even as he
entered the realms of true obscenity as he describes it.
But the pornographer's more usual business is to assert
that the function of flesh is pure pleasure, which is itself a
mystification of a function a great deal more complex, apart
from raising the question of the nature of pleasure itself.
However, the nature of pleasure is not one with whlch the
pornographer often concerns himself; for him, sexual
pleasure is a given fact, a necessary concomitant of the
juxtaposition of bodies.
It is at this point that he converts the sexed woman,
living, breathing, troubling, into a desexed hole and the
breathing, living, troubling man into nothing but a probe;
pornography becomes a form of pastoral, sex an engaging
and decorative activity that may be performed without
pain, soil, sweat or effect, and its iconography a very
suitable subject for informal murals in public places. If, that
is, the simplest descriptions of sex did not also rouse such
complex reactions.
And that is because sexual relations between men and
women always render explicit the nature of social relations
in the society in which they take place and, if described
explicitly, will form a critique of those relations, even if that
is not and never has been the intention of the pornographer.
So, whatever the surface falsity of pornography, it is
impossible for it to fail to reveal sexual reality at an un
conscious level, and this reality may be very unpleasant
indeed, a world away from official reality.
A male-dominated society produces a pornography of
universal female aquiescence. Or, most delicious titillation,
of compensatory but spurious female dominance. Miss
Stern with her rods and whips, Our Lady of Pain in her
leather visor and her boots with sharp, castratory heels, is a
true fantasy, a distorted version of the old saying 'The hand
that rocks the cradle rules the world.' This whip hand rocks
the cradle i n which her customer dreams but i t does nothing
else. Miss Stern's dominance exists only in the bedroom.
She may utilise apparatus that invokes heaven, hell and
purgatory for her client, she may utterly ravage his body,
martyrise him, shit on him, piss on him, but her cruelty is
only the manifestation of the victim or patient's guilt before
the fact of his own sexuality, of which he is ashamed. She is
not cruel for her own sake, or for her own gratification. She
is most truly subservient when most apparently dominant;
Miss Stem and her pretended victim have established a
mutually degrading pact between them and she in her weird
garb is mutilated more savagely by the erotic violence she
perpetrates than he by the pain he undergoes. since his pain
is in the nature of a holiday from his life, and her cruelty an
economic fact of her real life. so much hard work. You can
I describe their complicity in a pornographic novel but to
relate it to her mortgage, her maid's salary and her laundry
bills is to use the propaganda technique of pornography to
express a view of the world, which deviates from the notion
that all this takes place in a kindergarten of soiled in
nocence. A kindergarten? Only small children, in our
�ociety, do not need to work.
The pornographer who consciously utilises the prop
aganda. the 'grabbing' effect of pornography to express
a view of the world that transcends this kind of innocence
will very soon find himself in deep political water for he will
begin to find himself describing the real conditions of the
world in terms of sexual encounters, or even find that the
real nature of these encounters illuminates the world itself;
the world turns into a gigantic brothel, the area of our lives
where we believed we possessed most freedom is seen as the
most ritually circumscribed.
Nothing exercises such power over the imagination as the
nature of sexual relationships, and the pornographer has it
in his power to become a terrorist of the imagination, a
sexual guerilla whose purpose is to overturn our most basic
notions of these relations, to reinstitute sexuality as a
primary mode of being rather than a specialised area of
vacation from being and to show that the everyday
meetings in the marriage bed are parodies of their own
pretensions, that the freest unions may contain the seeds of
the worst exploitation. Sade became a terrorist of the
imagination in this way, turning the unacknowledged truths
of the encounters of sexuality into a cruel festival at which
women are the prime sacrificial victims when they are not
the ritual murderesses themselves, the ewe lamb and Miss
Stern together, alike only in that they always remain under
the constant surveillance of the other half of mankind.
The pornographer as terrorist may not think of himself as
a friend of women; that may be the last thing on his mind.
But he will always be our unconscious ally because he
begins , to approach some kind of emblematic truth,
whereas the lackey pornographer, like the devious fellows
who write love stories for women's magazines, that softest
of all forms of pornography, can only do harm. But soon,
however permissive censorship may be, he will invade the
area in which censorship operates most defensibly, that of
erotic violence.
This area of taboo remains theoretically inviolate even
though violence, for its own sake, between men, escapes
censorship altogether. The machine-gun of the gangster can
rake as many innocent victims as the writer or film-maker
pleases, the policeman can blast as many wrongdoers to
extinction as serves to demonstrate the superiority of his
institutions. Novels and movies about warfare use violent
death, woundings and mutilations as a form of decoration,
butch embroidery upon a male surface. Violence, the con
vulsive form of the active, male principle, is a matter for
men, whose sex gives them the right to inflict pain as a sign
of mastery and the masters have the right to wound one
another because that only makes us fear them more, that
they can give and receive pain like the lords of creation. But
to show, in art, erotic violence committed by men upon women
cuts too near the bone, and will be condemned out of hand.
Perhaps it reveals too clearly that violence has always
been the method by which institutions demonstrate their
superiority. It can become too vicious a reminder of the
mutilations our society inflicts upon women and the guilt
that exacerbates this savagery. It suggests, furthermore,
that male political dominance might be less a matter of
moral superiority than of crude brute force and this would
remove a degree of glamour from the dominance itself.
, There is more to it than that, though. The whippings, the
beatings, the gougings, the stabbings of erotic violence
reawaken the memory of the social fiction of the female
wound, the bleeding scar left by her castration, which is a
psychic fiction as deeply at the heart of Western culture as
the myth of Oedipus, to which it is related in the complex
dialectic of imagination and reality that produces culture.
Female castration is an imaginary fact that pervades the
whole of men's attitude towards women and our attitude to
ourselves, that transforms women from human beings into
wounded creatures who were born to bleed.
It is a great shame we can forbid these bleedings in art but
not in life, for the beatings, the rapes and the woulldings
take place in a privacy beyond the reach of official cen
sorship. It is also in private that the unacknowledged
psychological mutilations performed in the name of love
take place.
Sade is the connoisseur of these mutilations. He is an
extreme writer and he describes a society and a system of
social relations in extremis, those of the last years of the
ancien regime in France. The stories of Justine and Juliette
are set at a time immediately preceding the French
Revolution. The Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom is set
in the seventeenth century. Its heroes have financed their
murderous holiday by vast profits made from the Thirty
Years ,War. Philosophy in the Boudoir takes place sometime
between 1 789 and 1793; outside the room in which the
action of this dramatic interlude takes place, they are selling
revolutionary pamphlets on the steps of the Palace of
Equality but the actors in the boudoir are aristocrats,
members of a privileged class. In all this fiction, Sade is
working primarily in the mode of pornography; he utilised
this mode to make a particularly wounding satire on
mankind, and the historical time in which the novels are set
is essential to the satire.
But Sade is unusual amongst both satirists and por
nographers, not only because he goes further than most
' satirists and pornographers, but because he is capable of
believing, even if only intermittently, that it is possible to
radically transform society and, with it, human nature, so
that the Old Adam, exemplified in God, the King and the
Law, the trifold masculine symbolism of authority, will take
his final departure from amongst us. Only then will freedom
be possible; until then, the freedom of one class, or sex, or
individual necessitates the unfreedom of others.
But his work as a pornographer is more descriptive and
diagnostic than proscriptive and prophetic. He creates, not
an artificial paradise of gratified sexuality but a model of
hell, in which the gratification of sexuality involves the
infliction and the tolerance of extreme pain. He describes
sexual relations in the context of an unfree society as the
expression of pure tyranny, usually by men upon women,
sometimes by men upon men, sometimes by women upon
men and other women; the one constant to all Sade's
monstrous orgies is that the whip hand is always the hand
with the real political power and the victim is a person who
has little or no power at all, or has had it stripped from him.
In this schema, male means tyrannous and female means
martyrised, no matter what the official genders of the male
and female beings are.
He is uncommon amongst pornographers in that he
rarely, if ever, makes sexual activity seem immediately
attractive as such. Sade has a curious ability to render every
aspect of sexuality suspect, so that we see how the chaste
kiss of the sentimental lover differs only in degree from the
vampirish love-bite that draws blood, we understand that a
disinterested caress is only quantitatively different from a
disinterested flogging. For Sade, all tenderness is false, a
deceit, a trap; all pleasure contains within itself the seeds of
atrocities; all beds are minefields. So the virtuous Justine is
conde�ed to spend a life in which there is not one single
moment of enjoyment; only in this way can she retain h�r
virtue. Whereas the wicked Juliette, her sister and an
tithesis, dehumanises herself completely in the pursuit of
pleasure.
The simple perversions, available in any brothel,
documented in the first book of The Hundred and Twenty
Days at Sodom, will insatiably elaborate, will never suffice
in themselves, will culminate in the �omplex and deathly
rites of the last book, which concludes in a perfectly
material hell. The final passion recounted by the sexual
lexicographer, Madame' Desgranges, is called the Hell
game; its inventor, assisted by torturers disguised as
demons, himself pretends to be the devil.
In the perpetual solitude of their continually refined
perversions, in an absolute egotism, Sade's libertines
regulate and maintain a society external to them, where the
institutions of which they are the embodiment are also
perversions.
These hbertines are great aristocrats, landowners,
bankers, judges, archbishops, popes and certain women who
have become very rich through prostitution, speculation,
murder and usury. They have the tragic style and the in
fernal loquacity of �he damned; and they have no inner life,
no introspection. Their actions sum them up completely.
They are in exile from the world in their abominable
privilege, at the same time as they control the world.
Sade 's heroines, those who become libertines, accept
damnation, by which I mean this exile from human life, as a
necessary fact of life. This is the nature of the libertine. They
model themselves upon libertine men, though libertinage is
a condition that all the sexes may aspire to. So Sade creates
a museum of woman-monsters. He cuts up the bodies of
women and reassembles them in the shapes of his own
delirium. He renews all the ancient wounds, every one, and
makes them bleed again as if they will never stop bleeding.
From time to time, he leaves off satire long enough to
posit a world in which nobody need bleed. But only a violent
transformation of this world and a fresh start in an ab
solutely egalitarian society would make this possible.
Nevertheless, such a transformation might be possible; at
this point, Sade becomes a Utopian. His Utopianism, how
ever, takes the form of Kafka 's: 'There is hope - but not
for us.' The title of the pamphlet describing the Sadeian
Utopia inserted in Philosophy in the Boudoir is: Yet
Another Effort, Frenchmen, If You Would Become
Republicans. It is possible, but im,probable, that effort will
be made; perhaps those who make it will have hope.
Sade describes the condition of women in the genre of the
pornography of sexual violence but believed it would only be
through the medium of sexual violence that women might
heal themselves of their socially inflicted scars, in a praxis
of destruction and sacrilege. He cites the flesh as existential
verification in itself, in a rewriting of the Cartesian cogito: 'I
fuck therefore I am'. From this axiom, he constructs a
diabolical lyricism of fuckery, since the acting-out of a total
sexuality in a repressive society turns all eroticism into
violence, makes of sexuality itself a permanent negation.
Fucking, says Sade, is the basis of all human relationships
but the activity parodies all human relations because of the
nature of the society that creates and maintains those
relationships.
He enlarges the relation between activity and passivity in
the sexual act to include tyranny and the acceptance of
physical and political oppression. The great men in his
novels, the statesmen, the princes, the popes, are the
cruellest by far and their sexual voracity is a kind of pure
destructiveness; they would like to fuck the world and
fucking, for them, is the enforcement of annihilation. Their
embraces strangle, their orgasms appear to detonate their
partners. But his great women, Juliette, Clairwil, the
Princess Borghese, Catherine the Great of Russia,
Charlotte of Naples, are even more cruel still since, once
they have tasted power, once they know how to use their
sexuality as an instrument of aggression, they use it to
extract vengeance for the humiliations they were forced to
endure as the passive objects of the sexual energy of others.
A free woman in an unfree society will be a monster.
Her freedom will be a condition of personal privilege that
deprives those on which she exercises it of her own free
dom. The most extreme kind of this deprivation is murder.
These women murder.
The sexual behaviour of these women, like that of their
men, is a mirror of their inhumanity, a magnified relation of
the ambivalence of the word 'to fuck', in its twinned
meanings of sexual intercourse and despoliation: 'a fuck-up',
'to fuck something up', 'he's fucked'.
Women do not normally fuck in the active sense. They are
fucked in the passive tense and hence automatically fucked
up, done over, undone. Whatever else he says or does not
say, Sade declares himself unequivocally for the right of
women to fuck - as if the period in which women fuck
agressively, tyrannously and cruelly will be a necessary
stage in the development of a general human consciousness
of the nature of fucking; that if it is not egalitarian, it is
unjust. Sade does not suggest this process as such; but he
urges women to fuck as actively as they are able, so that
powered by their enormous and hitherto untapped sexual
energy they will then be able to fuck their way into history
and, in doing so, change it.
One of Sade's singularities is that he offers an absolutely
sexualised view of the world, a sexualisation that permeates
everything, much as his atheism does and, since he is not a
religious man but a political man, he treats the facts of
female sexuality not as a moral dilemma but as a political
reality.
In fact, he treats all sexuality as a political reality and
that is inevitable, because his own sexuality brought him
directly against the law. He spent the greater part of his
adult life in confinement because his own sexual tastes
overrode his socialisation; his perversion has entered the
dictionary under his own name.
Although he documented his sexual fantasies with an
unequalled diligence, and these fantasies delight in the
grisliest tortures (even if, in the context of his fictions, he
creates an inverted ethical superstructure to legitimise
these cruelties) his own sexual practice in life remains
relatively obscure. From the evidence of the two court cases
in which he was involved, the affair of Rose Keller in 1768
and the charges made against him by a group of Marseilles
prostitutes in 1772, he seems to have enjoyed both giving
and receiving whippings; voyeurisin; anal intercourse, both
active and passive; and the presence of an audience at these
activities. These are not particularly unusual sexual
preferences, though they are more common as fantasies, and
are always very expensive if purchased. When they take
place in private, the law usually ignores them even when
they are against the law, just as it turns a blind eye to wife
beating and recreational bondage. Sade, however, seems to
have been incapable of keeping his vices private, as if he was
aware of their exemplary nature and, perhaps, since the
notion of sin, of transgression, was essential to his idea of
pleasure, which is always intellectual, never sensual, he may
have needed to invoke the punishment of which he con
sciously denied the validity before he could feel the act itself
had been accomplished.
The Rose Keller affair in particular has a curious quality
of theatr.e, of the acting-out of a parable of sex and money.
This woman, the thirty-six-year-old widow of a pastry cook,
was begging in Paris on Easter Sunday, a day of special
significance to the anti-clerical Sade; a day that cried out to
be desecrated. According to the deposition she later gave
the police, a gentleman, well-dressed, even handsome, ap
proached her in a public square and suggested she might
Polemical ,Preface 29
like to earn herself a crown. When she concurred, he took her
to a room in a private house; whipped her; gave her food and
offered her money, both of which she refused. Then he
locked her in the room but she soon escaped through the
window and went to tell her tale. Sade admitted freely that
he had indeed hired her and whipped her but he said that
Rose Keller had known perfectly well he did not intend her
to sweep his house, as she claimed, and they had agreed
beforehand she would go off with him for a session of
debauchery. The matter was settled out of court. Rose
Keller was persuaded to withdraw her charge on a payment
of an enormous indemnity of two thousand four hundred
francs and expenses of seven louis d'or for dressings and
ointments for her wounds.
The affair enchants me. It has the completeness and the
lucidity of a script by Brecht. A woman of the third estate, a
beggar, the poorest of the poor, turns the very vices of the
rich into weapons to wound them with. In the fictions he is
going to write, Sade will make La Dubois, the brigand chief,
say that the callousness of the rich justifies the crimes of
the poor; Rose Keller, who expected, perhaps, to have sex
with the Marquis but for whom the whip came as a
gratuitous, unexpected and unwelcome surprise, turns her
hand to blackmail and who can blame her? An ironic
triumph for the beggar woman; the victim turned victor.
'
Sade himself, at this point, is by no means the plain
Citizen Sade he became after the French Revolution. He is
Donatien-Alphonse-Francois, Marquis de Sade, Seigneur of
Saumane and of La Coste, with oth€T lands in Bresse,
Bugey, Valromey and Gex - he owns most of Provence, with
sizeable chunks of other parts of France and, if the rents from
his tenants are not always forthcoming, he remains good for
credit in spite of his extravagances for, besides, he has a rich
wife. His title of nobility dates from the twelfth century; he
is related to the royal family; there is nothing in his life that
does not convince him the world owes him a living and that
he can do as he pleases, except the protests of a beggar
woman who obj ected to being whipped even though he gave
her bread and beef and offered her money. Sade is not yet
Sade; he is the Marquis. He is the very type of aristocrat
who provoked the vengeance of the revolutionaries.
Four years later, he took a box of aniseed balls flavoured
with cantharides with him to a brothel in Marseilles and fed
the girls with them, to make them fart, which he enjoyed.
There was a good deal of whipping and his valet, who ac
companied him, buggered him but the girls, cannily, refused
to be buggered because they knew they could get into
trouble for it. Later that day, the girls who had eaten the
sweets began to vomit. One girl, Marguerite Coste, thought
she had been poisoned and went to the magistrate.
The public prosecutor issued warrants for the arrest of the
Marquis and his valet, Latour, but they had fled from the
Sade ancestral mansion, La Coste, some miles from
Avignon. They were tried in absentia and found guilty of
'poisoning and sodomy ', although the girls were all quite
well by now. In absentia, both men were burned in effigy at
Aix-en-Provence. Sodomy was at that time a capital crime
in France.
If a brothel is a fine place in which to learn misogyny, it is
inevitable that Sade, the frequenter of brothels, treated his
wife, the unfortunate Renee Pelagie de Montreuil,
abominably, teasing her, ignoring her, impregnating her,
forcing her to pimp for him and to take part in his orgies,
persuading her to pay off the outraged fathers whose
daughters he had seduced, scandalously running off with
her own sister and, when his adventures ended in prison,
further tormenting her with ingenious jealousies. But their
married life began badly; without their own consent. Renee
Pelagie was a rich bourgeois and Sade an aristoc.rat with a
perennial problem of funding his extravagances. Their two
families arranged the match as a business contract, Renee
Pelagie 's expectations in exchange for Sade's title, although
it seems both knew quite well that Sade had already
engaged himself to another woman at the time of the
betrothal. Nevertheless, they were married and Renee
PtHagie did not leave him until 1 790, after twenty-seven
years of a marriage the rigours of which must have been
eased by Sade' s lengthy imprisonment.
The same year that Renee Pelagie finally abandoned him,
Sade met a young actress, Constance Quesnet, whose
husband, a draper, had recently deserted her and her young
son. To complicate the question of his misogyny, Sade
remained devoted to this young woman from their meeting
until his death some twenty years later, although they were
very poor and often separated by force of circumstance and
the need to earn a living. He nicknamed this young woman
'Sensitivity ' and dedicated Justine to her, perhaps an
ambivalent gesture. Yet it is not so much sexual ab
normality and ambivalence towards women that are the
keys to Sade's bleak imaginary universe; it is the com
bination of sexual obsession - for he was undoubtedly ob
sessed with sex to a most unusual degree - and im
prisonment.
He first went to prison in 1772, at the age of thirty two,
for five months. He had fled the Marseilles affair to
Chambery, in Savoy, then under the control of the King of
Sardinia. As if to extract the final ounce of scandal and
retribution from the notorious business, he had chosen to
elope with his sister-in-law, Anne de Launay - thus, ac�
cording to the Catholic church, committing incest. Her
outraged mother, his mothe! -in-Iaw, personally requested
the King of Sardinia for his arrest and he was sent to the
Fortress of Miolans, to escape shortly afterwards. This
period of freedom lasted for five years. In June 1 778, he
returned to Aix-en-Provence for a retrial of the Marseilles
poisoning charges. Since the poisoned women had long ago
recovered and were now all alive and well, the charge of
poisoning was dropped; the accusation of sodomy was
withdrawn by the girls. The charge was altered to one of
'debauchery and excessive licentiousness ', for which Sade
received a public admonition; was fined; and orderl'ld to keep
away from Marseilles for three years. In fact, he spent all
those years and many more hi prison, under a lettre de
cachet obtained by Madame de Montreil which meant he
could be kept in preventive detention, without trial, for an
indefinite time. In Sade's case, this was thirteen years.
Except for a charge of moderatism brought against him
under the Terror because of his opposition to the death
penalty, he was never again publicly charged with any
further offence. Rather than his misdeeds, it seems it was
the ferocity of his imagination that led to his confinement.
His was a peculiarly modern fate, to be imprisoned without
trial for crimes that existed primarily in the mind. It is not
surprising that Justine, with its dominant images of the
trial and the castle, recalls Kafka, nor that it arrives to us
out of the confinement of its creator at the beginning of the
modern period of which it is one of the seminal, if forbidden,
books. Sadism, suggests Michel Foucault, is not a sexual
perversion but a cultural fact; the consciousness of the
'limitless presumption of the appetite'. Sade 's work, with its
compulsive attraction for the delinquent imagination of the
romantics, has been instrumental in shaping aspects of the
modern sensibility; its paranoia, its despair, its sexual
terrors, its omnivorous egocentricity, its tolerance of
massacre, holocaust, annihilation.
It was prison, the experience of oppression, that trans
formed the rake into the philosopher, the man of the Age of
Reason into the prophet of the age of dissolution, of our own
time, the time of the assassins. Deprived of the fact of flesh,
he concentrated his notable sexual energy on a curious task
of sublimation, a project that involved simultaneously
creating and destroying that which he could no longer
possess, the flesh, the world, love, in a desolate charnel
house of the imagination. It is as well to remember that,
when given the opportunity of carrying out this proj ect in
practice during the Reign of Terror, he rejected it, at the
price of further confinement.
Although Sade 's sexual practices would hardly be
punished so severely today (and it was punishment that
inflamed his sexual imagination to the grossest extent) his
sexual imagination would always be of a nature to violate
any law that governed any society that retained the notions
of crime and punishment. This would be especially true of
those societies that most rigorously practice punitive
justice, that habitually utilise legislative murder, that is,
capital punishment, flogging, mutilation and torture as
methods of punishment and intimidation towards their
members. For these legal crimes to be described by an
honest pervert, or a moral pornographer, as 'pleasure' is to
let the cat out of the bag; if Sade is to be castigated for
tastes he exercised only in the privacy of his mind or with a
few well-paid auxiliaries, then the hanging judge, the bir
ching magistrate, the military torturer with his hoods and
his electrodes, the flogging schoolmaster, the brutal
husband must also be acknowledged as perverts to whom, in
our own criminal folly, we have given a licence to practice
upon the general public. Since Sade had no such licence, and,
indeed, deplored the fact that licences were granted, his
imagination took sexual violence to an extreme that may, in
a human being, only be accompanied by an extreme �f
misanthropy, self-disgust and despair.
His solitude is the perpetual companion and daily horror
of the prisoner, whose final place of confinement is the self.
'When I have inspired universal disgust and horror, then I
will have conquered solitude', said Baudelaire, who read
Sade again and again. Sade projects this diabolic solitude as
an absolute egoism; that is the result of thirteen years
solitary meditation on the world. The desires of his
imaginary libertines may no longer be satisfied by flesh;
flesh becomes an elaborate metaphor for sexual abuse.
World, flesh and the devil fuse; when an atheist casts a cool
eye on the world, he must always find Satan a more likely
hypothesis as ruling principle than a Saviour. Criminality
may present itself as a kind of saintly self-mastery, an
absolute rejection of hypocrisy. Sade directly influenced
Baudelaire; he is also the spiritual ancestor of Genet. Swift
saw mankind rolling in a welter of shit, as Sade does, but
Sade's satire upon man is far blacker and more infernal than
Swift's - for Sade, mankind doesn't roll in shit because
mankind is disgusting, but because mankind has over
weening aspirations to the superhuman. Of his own con
temporaries, he has most in common with the painter Goya;
of our contemporaries, the polymorphous perversity and the
intense isolation of his characters recall William Burroughs.
If Sade is the last, bleak, disillusioned voice of the
Enlightenment, he is the avatar of the nihilism of the late
twentieth century. His overt misogyny is a single strand in
a total revulsion against a mankind of whom, unlike Swift,
he cannot delude himself he is not a member.
During the thirteen years in prison, he compiled that
immense taxonomy of all the inhumane functions of the
sexuality of what the sexual radical, Norman O. Brown,
calls 'the immortal child within us ', to which Sade gave the
title The Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom. He rolled up
the manuscript and hid it in a hole in the wall of his cell in
the Bastille , where he was now lodged, shortly before July 2
1 789. On this day, he was observed shouting through his
window that the prisoners in the Bastille were having their
throats cut and he should be released; he judged, accurately,
that one at least of the cities of the plain was shortly about
to suffer a mortal shock. Sade was immediately transferred
from the Bastille to the Asylum of Charenton, a hospital for
madmen and epileptics, a place to which he would return, to
prevent him from further inciting the crowd to storm the
prison. They stormed it of their own accord on July 14, the
day on which modern history begins.
He was released from Charenton nine months later, as
poor as he had once been rich, and signed away his titles to
become Citizen Sade. He took up a modest bureaucratic role
in the revolutionary government of Paris. Briefly, during
the Terror, he acted as a judge and went to prison again for
lenience but they soon let him out. It was Napoleon who
sent him to prison for the last time, after they found the
manuscript copy of Justine in Sade 's own hand at his
publishers. Sade had said he would gladly be a martyr for
atheism, if any were needed; to be a martyr for pornography
may have struck him as a less glorious fate. Anyway, he
always strenuously denied he had written Justine and,
indeed, all the works by which he has acquired such lasting
if scabrous fame.
Sade was transferred speedily from his last prison to the
Asylum of Charenton, again, in 1803. His condition was
diagnosed · as 'sexual dementia', a diagnosis as
therapeutically dubious then as now. Nobody considered
him mad in everyday terms; nevertheless, he must be put
away for the protection of society and there he stayed, in
relative comfort, surrounded by books, accompanied by
Madame Quesnet, his mistress, posing as his daughter,
until he died in 1814. The biographical facts of Sade's life
are fully recounted in Gilbert Lely 's monumental
biography; 1 don't propose to deal with them any more fully .
It was a curious life and its intellectual terms of reference
may be found among the books included in the inventory of
his effects at Charenton; they include the complete works of
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Princess of Cleves, Don
Quixote and the 1785 edition of Voltaire in eighty-nine
volumes. It is of this world of reason that Sade produces a
,
critique in the guise of a pornographic vision; his heroine,
the terrible Juliette, can say, as a hero of Voltaire might: ' I
have n o light t o guide m e but m y reason. ' Yet rationality
without humanisJD. founders on itself. On the title page of
Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Lados put a quotation from
Rousseau's La Nouvelle Heloise: 'I have seen the manners of
my time and 1 have published these letters. ' Sade might have
said that, of the novel La Nouvelle Justine, whose title
teasingly echoes that of Rousseau's.. His fiction blends the
picaresque narrative of the late sixteenth and early seven
teenth century with the fictions of moral critique of his own
youth, and adds to them the sharp outlines of the nightmare.
Sade. An unusual man: aristocrat; atheist; sodomite;
novelist; old lag; dramatist; flagellant; glutton; master, as
Andre Breton was the first to point out in his Anthologie de
L 'Humeur Noir; of black humour. This man who was
capable of inventing the most atrocious massacres felt sick
when he smelt the blood from the guillotine. This curious
and self-contradictory person placed pornography at the
service of the French Revolution in the shape of the lengthy,
picaresque double novel: The Adventures of Justine and of
Juliette, Her Sister, and the three different versions of
Justine. The manuscript of The Hundred ,and Twenty Days
at Sodom was lost, to Sade 's great regret, and not
discovered again until the twentieth century. Philosophy in
the Boudoir was written in 1795. The rest of his por
nographic writing has been lost or destroyed. His
voluminous other writings, plays, moral tales, treatises,
political pamphlets, have been largely ignored by com
mentators; it is on the above books that Sade's reputation
as a pornographer rests.
He was unusual in his period for claiming rights of free
sexuality for women, and in installing women as beings of
power in his imaginary worlds. This sets him apart from all
other pornographers at all times and most other writers of
hi� period.
In the looking-glass of Sade 's misanthropy, women may
see themselves as they have been and it is an uncomfortable
sight. He offers an extraordinary variety of male fantasies
about women and, because of the equivocal nature of his
own sexual response, a number of startling insights. His
misanthropy bred a hatred of the mothering function that
led him to demystify the most sanctified aspects of women
and if he invented women ,who suffered, he also invented
women who caused suffering. The hole the pornographer
Sade leaves in his text is just sufficient for a flaying; for a
castration. It is a hole large enough for women to see
themselves as if the fringed hole of graffiti were a spyhole
into territory that had been forbidden them.
This book, which takes as its starting point of cultural
exploration the wealth of philosophically pornographic
material about women that Sade provides, is an exercise of
the lateral imagination. Sade remains a monstrous and
daunting cultural edifice; yet I would like to think that he
put pornography in the service of women, or, perhaps,
allowed it to be invaded by an ideology not inimical to
women. And give the old monster his due; let us introduce
him with an exhilarating burst of rhetoric:
Charming sex; you will be free: just as men do, you shall enj oy
all the pleasures that Nature makes yoUr duty, do not withold
yourselves from o�e. Must the more divine half of mankind be
kept in chains by the others? Ah. break those bonds: nature
wills it.
two
TH E D E S E C R A T ION OF T H E T E M P L E :
T H E L IF E OF J U S T IN E
All the idealisations of the female from the earliest days

of courtly love have been in fact devices to deprive her
of freedom and self-determination.
Love and Death in the American Novel,

Leslie Fiedler
Dans le sacrifice, la victime etait choisie de telle maniere

que sa perfection achevat de render sensible la brutalite
de la mort.
L 'Erotisme, Georges Bataille
. . . it's so different a life from what all girls expect.
Letter quoted from a woman seeking

birth control in Motherhood in Bondage,
Margaret Sanger
I A N G EL - F A C E ON T H E R U N
Justine i s a good woman in a man's world. She i s a good

woman according to the rules for women laid down by men
and her reward is rape, humiliation and incessant beatings.
Her life is that of a woman martyrised by the circumstances
of her life as a woman.
The Desecration of the Temple 39
The Justine of Justine, or ' The Misfortunes of Virtue,

edition of 1791, is a beautiful and penniless orphan, the
living image of a fairy-tale princess in disguise but a Cin
derella for whom the ashes with which she is covered have
become part of the skin. She rejects the approaches of a
fairy godmother because the woman is a criminal; she falls
in love, not with a handsome prince, but with a murderous
homosexual who sets his dogs upon her and frames her for a
murder he has himself committed. So she is the heroine of a
black, inverted fairy-tale and its subj ect is the misfortunes
of unfreedom; Justine embarks on a dolorou:s pilgrimage in
which each proferred sanctuary turns out to be a new prison
and all the human relations offered her are a form of ser
vitude.
The recurring images of the novel are the road, the place
of flight and hence of momentary safety; the forest, the
place of rape; and the fortress, the place of confinement and
pain. She is always free only in the act of escape for the road
down which she perpetually flees is, in spite of its perils,
always a safer place than the refuges she spies with such
relief, that offer her only pain, humiliation and a gross
genital acting-out of the hatred of men for the women whose
manners they have invented, and related to this, of the pure
and impersonal hatred of the strong for the weak.
Always the obj ect of punishment, she has committed only
one crime and that was an involuntary one; she was born a
woman, and, for that, she is ceaselessly punished. The in
nocent girl pays a high price for the original if imaginary
crime of Eve, just as Saint Paul said she should, and her
protracted and exemplary Calvary makes her a female
Christ whom a stern and patriarchal god has by no means
forsaken but takes an especial delight in tormenting. Our
revulsion at this spectacle is not unrelated to the un
comfortable truths it contains.
But there is no mysterious virtue in Justine's suffering.
The martyrdom of this Christ-figure is absolutely useless;
she is a gratuitous victim. And if there is no virtue in her
suffering, then there is none, it turns out, in her virtue itself;
it does nobody any good, least of all herself.
Justine is first introduced to the reader almost at the end
of her unfortunate career, swathed to the eyes in a black
cloak, bound securely hand and foot, a parcel of bereft
humanity on its way to the gallows. This pathetic bundle is
handed down unceremoniously from the roof of a carriage
by a detachment of policemen at a coach stop and she
narrates her life from its beginnings to a pair of sympathetic
listeners, the first sympathy she has encountered for years.
Left penniless when her parents died of grief on becoming
bankrupt, Justine's first lesson in life is that of the in
dignities of poverty. Those to whom her parents had been
charitable drive her from their doors; the landlady of the
garret in which she lives berates her for refusing to sell
herself to a rich gentleman - does Justine think men are
such fools as to give something for nothing to little girls like
herself? A woman on her own mus� learn to give men
pleasure for that is the only way she can earn a living; but
Justine cannot bring herself to put an exchange value on her
body, only on her labour, and so obtains a post as maid of all
work in the house of the usurer, du Harpin, where she must
not dust the furniture for fear of wearing it out. This is her
first experience of wage-labour and terminates when she
refuses to rob a neighbour on du Harpin's instructions. He
has her arrested on a false charge and, because she is poor,
friendless and a woman, she cannot obtain a hearing and is
condemned to death.
In prison, awaiting execution, she meets a woman who
offers herself as a surrogate mother and instructress in the
ways of the world, the brigand chieftainess, La Dubois, who
has also been condemned to death. When La Dubois' con
federates set fire to the prison, she and Justine escape
together. La Dubois assures Justine that the practice of
virtue will have her on the dung heap in no time. Like
Bakunin, La Dubois suggests that the callousness of the
rich justifies the crimes of the poor and asks Justine to join
the robber band, but Justine, though almost persuaded by

La Dubois ' arguments, decides she will never fall from
virtue. The robbers offer Justine a life that is not a form of
slavery although, or because, it is that of the outlaw. The
law itself has already shown Justine it will give her no
protection but she cannot persuade herself to commit a
transgression against the law. To live outsic;ie the law is to
live in exile from the communities of humanity. She cannot
do that because she is not inhuman, even though the law is
not just. Her poverty, her weakness, her femaleness and her
goodness put her on the wrong side of the law already but
her dilemma is this; she has done nothing wrong.
Coeur-de-Fer, Heart-of-Iron, La Dubois' senior henchman,
suggests that her virtue does not necessarily depend on the
greater or lesser diameter of her vagina; at this stage,
Justine is still a virgin. This is today a suggestion less
radical than it was in the eighteenth century. But Justine
refuses to sleep with him and takes the first opportunity
that presents itself to flee the robber camp with a captive
the band has just taken, Saint-Florent. For this desertion,
La Dubois will later hound her like a fury, like a mother
whose child has betrayed hec - 8.lld La Dubois did indeed
offer Justine a kind of mothering.
As soon as they reach the forest, Saint-Florent rapes
Justine, robs her and leaves her alone and half-naked.
Waking from a faint, she sees a valet buggering the Count
de Bressac and overhears them plotting the death of de
Bressac 's rich aunt. They capture Justine, torture her and
take her home, where de Bressac's aunt employs her as a
chambermaid, out of charity. De Bressac threatens to
murder Justine if she reveals his plot; she falls in love with
him, in spite of his aversion to women. At last, he asks her
to poison his aunt for him and at first she refuses, then
pretends to agree, meanwhile informing his aunt.
Discovering Justine's betrayal, de Bressac poisons his aunt
himself, sets his dogs upon Justine and leaves her with the
information that she is still wanted by the police for the
robbery from du Harpin and also for causing the fire that
released her from prison in the first place. He adds to her
impressive if entirely fictitious criminal record the murder
of his aunt, of which he has accused her.
Justine now takes refuge with an atheist surgeon, Rodin,
and Rodin's daughter, Rosalie, whom her father had
seduced when she was eleven years old. Rodin un
successfully attempts to seduce Justine, who consents to
remain in the house as Rosalie's companion, with the secret
plan of accomplishing Rosalie's conversion to Christianity.
She succeeds in doing this shortly before Rodin locks his
daughter up in the cellar as a preparation for her murder; he
proposes to perform a scientific dissection upon her. Justine
unlocks the cellar door but she and Rosalie are discovered
before they can escape. Rodin is incensed Justine should try
to abduct a daughter from her father 's care and has her
branded on the shoulder. This branding defines Justine as a
common criminal. She wears her punishment on her skin,
although she has not committed a single crime. Then he
leaves her weeping in the forest.
She travels on until she sees the spire of the monastery of
St Mary-in-the-Wood among the trees and decides to spend
a few days there, tasting the solaces of religion.
The monastery of St Mary-in-the-Wood is the novel's
largest set-piece, a microcosm in which a small group of
privileged men operate a system of government by terror
upon a seraglio of kidnapped women. As in all the Sadeian
places of confinement, intimidation alone prevails and the
only reward of virtue is to escape punishment, while virtue, I
as in the nursery, consists solely in observing an arbitrary
set of rules. The monastery is utterly isolated; attached to
the church is a secret pleasure pavilion, lavishly funded by
the Benedictine order, whose notables have the right of
residence here.
Brought here by force, their girls are released from the
pavilion only by death. It is as if the place of terror and of
privilege is a model of the world; we don 't ask to come here
and may leave it only once. Our entrance and our exit is
alike violent ,and involuntary; choice has nothing to do with
it. But our residence within this confinement is not upon
equal terms. '
The task of the girls is to minister to the pleasures of their
masters, the monks. Complete submissiveness is their only
lot. When a new girl is brought into the community, one of
the residents is selected at random for 'retirement', that is,
murder. The girls, all beautiful, all well-born, wear uniforms
according to age groups; their lives are governed by a rigid
system of regulations which exist primarily to provide the
monks innumerable opportunities for punishment.
Disordered hair, twenty strokes- of the whip; getting up late
in the morning, thirty strokes of the whip; pregnancy, a
hundred strokes of the whip. The girls have no personal
property. There is no privacy, except in the lavatory. For us,
there is no hope at all. The monks rule their little world with
the whim of oligarchs, of fate or of god. It is oddly like a
British public school. It is like all hierarchical institutions.
With a pretty wit, the Benedictines have named their
retreat after the Holy Virgin, and sited it deep in the heart
of the forest, the place of rape. In this pleasure pavilion, the
pleasure of a small minority of men devolves upon the pain
of the maj ority, their serving women. Here, professional
celibates extort unpaid sexual labour from sixteen well
trained women; these women are reduced entirely to their
sexual function. Apart from that, they are nothing. There is
a suggestion, made, rather touchingly, by the monk
Clement, that these young and lovely women would never
dream of performing such st:!rvices for the ugly old men if
they were not forced to do so. (Sade can never understand
why women should wish 'to engage in sexual activity with
ugly old men; he finds it perverse. They must do it from fear
or for profit, he reasons. What pleasure can there be in it for
them. It puzzles him very much.)
The sexual function of the women in the monastery is a
thorough negation of their existence as human beings.
Justine is told she is as good as dead as soon as she enters
the monastery. But Justine has a phenomenal resilience;
shortly after her friend, Omphale, has been 'retired ', Justine
escapes by sawing through the bars on her dressing-room
window and cutting through the thick hedge that surrounds
the monastery. She prays to be forgiven the sins she has
unwillingly committed at the hands of the monks and sets
out on the road to Dij on.
She is immediately captured by the servants of the Count
de Gernande and taken to his lonely chateau, to serve as his
wife 's maid. If the monastery was an oligarchy, then de
Gernande 's house is an absolute dictatorship. De Gernande
metaphorically bleeds his tenants white; he is literally
bleeding his wife to death, to satisfy his fetish for blood. To
conceal this crime, he has told his wife 's mother that the
woman has gone mad and must not be visited. Gernande 's
life is all of a piece and self-consistent. Like a good vampire,
it is the physical energy of the woman he extracts ; he is a
monstrously fat man, he has grown fat on the substance of
his wives, for this is not the first woman he has killed in
such a way.
Justine offers to take a letter to the Countess's mother
and escapes from the house only to find herself in a walled
garden. The count discovers her. She throws herself on his
mercy and asks him to punish her. She fails to conceal the
Countess 's letter and he reads it. He imprisons Justine in a
dungeon but, excited by the news his wife is now dying, he
forgets to lock the door and Justine flees.
She takes the road to Grenoble, where she re-encounters
Saint-Florent, who originally deflowered her. He offers her
the post of his procuress, which she refuses, and continues
south. A beggar asks for alms, as a ruse; Justine is once
again robbed but, finding a man who has been robbed and
also severely beaten, she cares for him, consoling herself
with the reflection that his condition is worse than hers.
When he recovers, he offers her a post as his sister 's maid
- charity disguised as servitude, again - and Justine goes
off to the mountains with Roland the counterfeiter.
Roland exploits women primarily as labour but, like
Justine's other masters, he enj oys the simple fact of mastery
over her most of all. At his castle, with the secret torture
chamber in its cellarage, she is lashed to a wheel with four
other naked women; draws water; breaks stones; is beaten and
forced to take part in Roland's cruel game of 'cut-the cord'.
The game of 'cut-the-cord' involves the hanging of a girl.
The rope is cut, at the last moment, after Roland has en
j oyed the spectacle of her terror, but, when Justine's friend,
Suzanne, plays 'cut-the-cord', Roland does not cut the rope.
Because Justine is so virtuous, Roland trusts her and in
vites her to cut the rope when he himself plays the game; he
likes to play games with death himself, as well 'as watching
them. She is tempted to let him hang but virtue asserts
itself and she cuts the rope. He rewards her by suspending
her in a pit filled with decomposing corpses. He departs for
Italy, leaving the care of the castle in the hands of a kinder
governor. In his absence, the castle is stormed by the police
and those within it arrested. The kind caretaker will pay for
the crimes of his master.
A magistrate interests himself in Justine 's case and
obtains her release. The rest are hung. In the inn where she
lodges, she meets again the brigand chieftainness, La
Dubois, who has become very rich by the practice of crime.
La Dubois asks Justine to rob Dubreuil, a young man who
has fallen in love with Justine. She prevents the robbery and
accepts Dubreuil 's offer of marriage, only to find that La
Dubois has already poisoned him. He dies. La Dubois has
already incriminated Justine for his death and left the town.
A friend of Dubreuil's suggests Justine should run away
too, and secures her a place travelling to the provinces with
a Madame Bertrand and her child. Before they can set off,
La Dubois, intent on vengeance, kidnaps Justine and delivers
her to a local libertine but La Dubois and this cruel gentle
man drink too much and fall asleep so Justine once again
escapes.
She sets off with Madame Bertrand and the child but La
Dubois, an avenging angel, sets fire to the hotel in which
they spend the night and the child dies. La Dubois seizes
Justine and is whisking her off for punishment when the
police stop them and arrest Justine for an immense list of
offences culminating in the burning of the hotel and the
murder of the baby. La Dubois gladly gives Justine up to
"
the law, which is as arbitrary and despotic as any of her
other masters.
In prison, she begs aid from several of her former tor
mentors and all refuse, although Saint-Florent takes her out
of the prison for an orgy, in which the j udge also par
ticipates. Justine 's reluctance ensures she will be found
guilty at her trial.
She is on her way to her execution when she recounts this
sad life to the rich lady and gentleman at the coach stop.
The weepmg and astonished lady now reveals herself as
Justine 's long-lost sister, Juliette, who, when their parents
died, did not beg for charity at all but immediately ap
prenticed herself to a brothel and has done very well for
herself. Her lover, a Councillor to the State, obtains
Justine's release. She is taken to their sumptuous house and
cared for while her name is cleared in the courts. A surgeon
removes the brand from her shoulder; none of her
tribulations has left her with a permanent stain. All goes
well for Justine at last but she cannot believe the good times
will last forever and, one stormy summer 's evening, she is
struck through the heart by a thunderbolt and so dies.
Juliette and her lover are overwhelmed with grief and
remorse. Juliette enters a convent and devotes the rest of
her life to good works. This devotional conclusion is
amended in the sequel to this novel.
Justine 's pilgrimage consists of the road; the forest; and
the place of confinement. Nowhere is she safe from abuse.
Upon her lovely and innocent head fall an endless stream of
the ghastliest misfortunes and her virtue, the passive virtue
of a good woman, ensures she can never escape them
I
because the essence of her virtue is doing what she is told.
Yet she is also trusting, endlessly trusting, ruled by
ingenuousness, candour and guilelessness, a heroine out of
Jean Jacques Rousseau; she possesses all the limpid in
nocence he admired in children and savages yet when she
offers this innocence to others as shyly as if she were of
fering a bunch of flowers, it is trampled in the mud. She is a
selfless heroine of Rousseau in the egocentric and cruel
world of Hobbes.
It is a matter for discussion as to how far Justine's
behaviour is innately that of a woman or how far she has
adopted the stance of th� cringe as a means of self-defence.
She is not only a woman in a man's world; she is also a
receptacle of feeling, a repository of the type of sensibility
we call 'feminine '.
Her very first adventure is an emotional model for all the
others. Justine is nothing if not self-conscious in her in
nocence and knows how to make a touching picture out of
her misfortunes. She goes to seek help from the family
priest, pale with mourning, tear-stained, in a little white
dress, with that unshelled vulnerability of all literary or
phans of whom she herself is both the apogee and the
prototype. She presents herself emblematically in the
passive mood, as an object of pity and as a suppliant. The
priest tries to kiss her. She reprimands him; · she is driven
with blows and abuse from his door.
The question of her virtue is itself an interesting one. As
the brigand, Coeur-de-Fer, says to her: why does such an
intelligent girl so persistently locate virtue in the region of
her genitals?
For Justine's conception of virtue is a specifically
feminine one in that sexual abstinence plays a large part in
it. In common speech, a 'bad boy' may be a thief, or a
drunkard, or a liar, and not necessarily just a womaniser.
But a 'bad girl' always contains the meaning of a sexually
active girl and Justine knows she is good because she does
not fuck. When, against her will, she is fucked, she knows
she remains good because she does not feel pleasure. She
implores La Dubois ' brigands to spare her honour, that is,
to refrain from deflowering her; a woman 's honour, in the
eighteenth century, is always a matter of her sexual
reputation. Obeying the letter if not the spirit of her
request, they strip her, sexually abuse her and ej aculate
upon her body. 'They respected my honour, if not my
modesty, ' she congratulates herself. Her virginity has a
metaphysical importance to her. Her unruptured hymen is a
visible sign of her purity, even if her breasts and belly have
been deluged in spunk.
Later, her virginity gone, she will tell herself that she has
nothing to reproach herself with but a rape and, since that
was involuntary, it was not a sin. She is less scrupulous than
her literary progenitor, Richardson 's Clarissa Harlowe, the
first great suffering virgin in the history of literature, who,
though she had been drugged into unconsciousness while
the act took place, still believed herself in complicity with a
rape of which she had known nothing. Justine is less
scrupulous because her virtue is a female ruse that denies
her own sexuality; nevertheless, though she may deplore the
sexuality of incontinent men who think of rape the moment
they see her, as all men do with Justine, she is sufficiently
pragmatic to have deduced, from the fact that rape has
patently not changed her, that Coeur-de-Fer was right and
virtue does not depend exclusively on the state of her
hymen. She concludes her virtue depends on her own
reluctance.
Her sexual abstinence, her denial of her own sexuality, is
what makes her important to herself. Her passionately held
conviction that her morality is intimately connected with
her genitalia makes it become so. Her honour does indeed
reside in her vagina because she honestly believes it does so.
She has seized on the only area she is certain of as a means
of nourishing her own self-respect, even if it involves the
cruellest repressions and a good deal of physical distress.
Repression is Justine 's whole being - repression of sex, of
anger and of her own violence; the repressions demanded of

Christian virtue, in fact. She cannot conceive of any
pleasure at all in the responses of her own body to sexual
activity, and so automatically precludes the possibility of
accidentally experiencing pleasure.
Justine is the broken heart, the stabbed dove, the violated
sepulchre, the persecuted maiden whose virginity is per
petually refreshed by rape. She will never feel one moment 's
gratification in any of her numerous, diverse and in
voluntary erotic encounters; she mimics sexual pleasure to
ingratiate herself with the chi�f wardress of the girls at the
monastery of St Mary-in-the-Wood but in reality assures us
she felt nothing, as if, now she is no longer a virgin, her
chastity can still exist in the form of frigidity. She seems
almost a monster of the fear of sexuality. Since she herself
denies the violence of her own desires, all her sexual en
counters become for her a form of violence because she is not
free to judge them. The fluids of her orgasm are the tears
that are an implicit invitation to further rapes. For she does
not fear rape at all; it is over in a moment and implies no
relation with the aggressor. The violent but brief mastery of
rape leaves her sense of self inviolate. A rape may be per
formed in the singular and denies the notion of consent. It is
not rape but seduction she fears, and the loss of self in
participating in her own seduction, for one must be willing
or deluded, or, at least, willing to be deluded, in order to be
seduced.
When she is offered seduction by the outlaws, she in
stinctively rej ects it. It is not only that she senses the snare
in this first seduction, that it will lead to her prostitution.
But she cannot envisage a benign sexuality and, though her
strength lies in her refusal to do so, nevertheless, the
limitations of her sexuality are the limitations of her life.
She sees herself only as the object of lust. She does not act,
she is. She is the obj ect of a thousand different passions,
some of them very strange, but she is the subject of not a
single one. She can indulge in her infatuation for the
homosexual de Bressac because she knows in advance he
will be indifferent to her. Later, she accepts Dubreuil's
proposal of marriage solely because he has made it to her; it
is not the exercise of a choice and, besides, her own sexual
response does not enter into the contractual obligations of
marriage.
But she has done nothing at all to deserve the pain in
flicted UPOH her except to juxtapose the expectations of a
well brought-up virgin, daughter of a rich banker, against
the harsh cynicism of poverty. The rich can afford to be
virtuous, the poor must shift as best they can. Justine's
femininity is a mode of behaviour open only to those who
can afford it and the price she has to pay for resolutely,
indeed heroically maintaining her role of bourgeois virgin
against all odds is a solitary confinement in the prison of her
own femininity, a solitude alleviated only by the frequent
visits of her torturers.
If her suffering itself becomes a kind of mastery, it is a
masochistic mastery over herself. Like Patient Grizelda, as
if Justine had been the good wife of an ungrateful world, her
patience at last exhausts the ingenuity of her torturers,
although it is a negative triumph, for though the world will
not allow her to earn an honest living - in Sade 's version of
the world, there is no such thing as an honest living - it
permits her to earn her death. In a final act of servitude, she
is closing the windows for her sister to keep out the storm
when the thunderbolt breaks through the glass and trans
fixes her.
Her life is dominated by chance, the chance enounters on
the road, the chance escapes from prison, the chance
thunderbolt. By chance, she passes from the cruel hands of
one master to another and her innocence is so perfect that it
precludes any advance knowledge of the strength and
malice of her adversaries. Justine's life was doomed to
disappointment before it began, like that of a woman who
"
wishes for nothing better than a happy marriage. She pins
her hopes always on those contingent to her, on the
hypothetical benefactor who will protect her; but she meets
only brigands, procuresses, woman-haters and rapists and,
from these adventures, she learns not self-preservation but
self-pity.
She is not in control of her life; her poverty and her
femininity conspire to rob her of autonomy. She is always
the dupe of an experience that she never experiences as
experience; her innocence invalidates experience and turns
it into events, things that happen to her but do not change
her. This is the common experience of most women's lives ,
conducted always i n the invisible presence o f others who
extract the meaning of her experience for themselves and
thereby diminish all meaning, so that a seduction, or a birth,
or a marriage, the central events in the lives of most women,
the stages of a life, are marginal occurrences in the life of the
seducer, the father or the husband.
And Justine's inability to be changed by experience is
symbolised by her sterility. Her failure to conceive during
ten years of enforced sexual activity is an aspect of her
perennial virginity, but it is both a negative 'and a positive
quality at the same time. Rape is unable to modify her in
transigent singularity in any way. She is a free woman, in
spite of herself.
But she has had her freedom thrust upon her, she has not
seized it for herself. Her freedom is as involuntary as her
punishment. Her freedom is her punishment, in the terms of
the idealisation of femininity she represents. She is a caged
and cherished bird all at once set free in the dangerous
forest and it is a wonder she comes to no worse harm.
Justine 's organ of perception is the heart that forbids her
to engage in certain activities she feels to be immoral and
her autobiography illustrates the moral limitations of a life
conducted solely according to the virtuous promptings of
the heart. This heart is an organ of sentiment, not of
analysis, and it never prompts her to sacrifice herself for the
principles by which she claims to live.
In the service of the vampiric Count de Gernande, she is
overcome with pity for the wife he tortures, Nevertheless,
when the Count orders her to undress the unfortunate
woman and bring her to him, Justine says: 'In spite of the
loathing I sensed for all these horrors . . . I had no choice
but to submit with the most utmost resignation. ' She has no
choice because, if she does not do so, she herself will be
punished and she cannot imagine how she might purchase
Madame de Gernande a brief respite from pain at the price
of undergoing a little pain herself.
Her heart is immoderate and if it does not allow her to put
an exchange value on her flesh, neither does it allow her to
put an exchange value on her suffering. It is a thing-in-itself,
perceived as part of her condition. So Justine resolutely
eschews the purchasing power of. self-sacrifice; there has
been a choice. Justine could have said 'no' to the Count de
Gernande and refused to be his accomplice. But she does not
do so. It does not occur to her to do so. She has no sense of
identification with other people in pain.
The heart 's egoism sees itself suffering when it sees
another suffering and so it learns sympathy, because it can
put itself in another's place; then the heart comes a little
way out of its egoism and tentatively encounters the world.
But, before the prospect of its own suffering, the heart melts
completely and retreats into egoism, again, to protect itself.
In Gernande's house, Justine 's sympathy only succeeds
in worsening Madame de Gernande's plight, and her own.
She runs away with a letter for Madame de Gernande's
mother, whom the women hope will come and rescue them
when she receives it. Gernande spies her early in the mor
ning, as she escapes through the garden, just as God caught
Adam in the garden on the morning of the primal trans
gression against authority. But Gernande thinks the girl is
a ghost. Like all Sade 's libertines, Gernande is a great
coward; he is terrified, alone and helpless, and he would be
entirely at Justine 's mercy had she not qua�ered, even
before he recognised her, '0, master, punish me.' She
demands punishment even before she has been accused. She
does not even take advantage of Gernande 's confusion to
destroy the incriminating letters she carries.
As soon as she asks for punishment, Gernande is
reassured. Now he knows who he is; she has told him so, she
has told him he is her master. And she has told him what to
do to her, to punish her. But he is still not quite sure why he
should do it. He suspects Justine must be taking a plea for
help to the outside world; he demands the evidence. 'I want
to say I do not have it; but Gernande spies the fatal letter
protruding above the kerchief at my breast, seizes it, reads
it. ' She makes no attempt to prevent him doing so. She
adopts the humility of the cripple, she is always con
ciliatory. Her own punishment will be death; though, as she
always does, she escapes it. But the punishment of the
equally innocent woman she tried to help is an inescapable
death. Justine's sympathy is always fatal to its obj ect.
Through its own unreason, the heart finds itself in com
plicity with the morality of cruelty it abhors.
In the castle of the counterfeiter, Roland, Justine is
presented with several opportunities of murdering him.
Indeed, on one occasion, she could kill him merely by
strenuously exercising passivity. He wants her to play his
favourite game of 'cut·the-cord'. He proposes to partially
hang himself, in order to procure himself a particularly
violent orgasm, and it is Justine who must cut the rope at
the critical moment, at the point of emission, before death
supervenes. He promises her he will set her free if she plays
her part well but even Justine does not quite believe that. So
Roland puts his life in the hands of a woman he has
grievously abused and who has witnessed several of his own
murders. Once again, she tells us she had no choice but to
act out the part he assigned to her; he is her master and
masters exist only in order to be obeyed. She does not even
entertain the possibility of murdering him and that is the
final limitation of her virtue; the unreason of the heart, the
false logic of feeling, forbid her to exert mastery for even one
moment and Sade achieves an immoral victory over the
reader, who is bound to urge the spotless Justine, just this
once, to soil her hands with crime.
Virtue has produced in Justine the same kind of apathy,
of insensibility, that criminality has produced in Sade's
libertines, who also never concern themselves with the
nature of good and evil, who know intuitively what is wrong
just as Justine knows intuitively what is right. She is in
capable of anger or defiance because of her moral in
difference; she feels no anger at the sufferings of her cell
mates. She is as much a bourgeois individualist as Roland
when she tells us how, during the first game of 'cut-the
cord', she feels an immense sense of happiness and peace
when she realises that her companion, Suzanne, is to die and
not Justine herself. Her virtue is egocentric, like the vice of
the libertines. And it is entirely its own reward.
Indeed, Roland has chosen Justine as a playmate
precisely because of the impeccable honesty that will not be
seduced for even one treacherous moment by the idea of
ridding the world, of such a villain as he. He knows how to
pick his accomplices. He relies on her native goodness when
he puts her in charge of his life; she tells us she takes it into
her hands only in order to restore it to him again. Singular
generosity, singular magnanimity. If she wavered for a
moment when she thought of the dead Suzanne, scarred
with the marks of Roland 's whips, or of the chain-gang of
women who work in the castle, and then did not kill him, her
refusal might be glorious; virtue humiliates vice. But
Justine does not first judge him and then refuse to pass the
death penalty. She exercises the female prerogative of
mercy only because she is incapable of judgement and, in
that sense, beyond good and evil, just as he is himself. She
does not murder Roland only because he asks her not to. 'He
is my master and I must obey him. '
Justine's virtue is not the continuous exercise of a moral
faculty. It is a sentimental response to a world in which she
always hopes her good behaviour will procure her some
reward, some respite from the bleak and intransigent reality
which surrounds her and to which she cannot accommodate
herself. The virtuous, the interesting Justine, with her
incompetence, her gullibility, her whining, her frigidity, her
reluctance to take control of her own life, is a perfect
woman. She always does what she is told. She is at the
mercy of any master, because that is the nature of her own
definition of goodness.
Her Christian virtues expose the praxis of the world. Her
charity is always rewarded by theft; her piety leads her
directly to the horrors of St Mary-in-theWood; when she
converts the daughter of the surgeon, Rodin, to religion, she
ensures the girl will die. Justine 's virtue, in action" is the
liberal lie in action, a good heart and an inadequate
methodology .
In a world where women are commodities, a woman who
refuses to sell herself will have the thing she refuses to sell
taken away from her by force, The piety, the gentleness, the
honesty, the sensitivity, all the qualities she has �earned to
admire in herself, are invitations to violence; all her life, she
has been groomed for the slaughterhouse. And though she is
virtuous, she does not know how to do good.
It is easy for a child to be good; a child's goodness is a
negative quality. He is good if he does not do anything bad.
A grown-up, however, cannot get away with this docile
passivity. He must act out his virtue amongst an audience of
others that includes himself. Doing good implies a social
context of action, a whole system of social relations and
Justine has been involuntarily deprived of this system. She
does not even know it exists. She is a child who knows how
to be good to please daddy; but the existence of daddy, her
god, the abstract virtue to which she constantly refers,
prevents her from acting for herself.
Nevertheless, her foolish and ignorant heart is never
corrupted. The masters seek, always, not the submission of
her body; that is easy for her to'give, she always submits her
flesh without any fuss - but they do not really want that.
They want the submission of her heart and that she will
never give. Good behaviour is always well chastised but
never converted into its own opposite. The victim is always
morally superior to the master; that is the victim 's am
bivalent triumph. That is why there have been so few
notoriously wicked women in comparison to the number of
notoriously wicked men; our victim status ensures that we
rarely have the opportunity. Virtue is thrust upon us. If
that is nothing, in itself, to be proud of, at least it is nothing
of which to be ashamed.
So evil, the desire for dominance, gains a Pyrrhic victory
over Justine, in the destruction but never the surrender of
the object on which it vents its rage. 'The fool who persists
in his folly becomes wise, ' says Blake. In its fatal single
mindedness, Justine 's negative capability for virtue
becomes an involuntary affirmation of the humanism that
the world in which she lives denies, even if not an af
firmation of her own positive humanity, for that exists by
accident.
Flight is Justine's salvation. She is woman as an escape
artist, for whom only the self-defining life of the traveller, all
of whose homes are aspects of a perpetual homelessness,
offers freedom from the definitions of servitude that are all
her female virtue is offered. And she must die an emotional,
if not a physical virgin, like her literary granddaughters,
Beth in Littl� Women, Eva in Uncle Tom 's Cabin, the little
girls who died in the angelic state of pre-pubescence and go
straight to heaven, to daddy, because they are too good to
live. This good little girl's martyrisation by the cir
cumstances of adult life as a woman makes her the an
cestress of a generation of women in popular fiction who
find themselves in the same predicament, such as the heart
struck, tearful heroines of Jean Rhys, Edna O'Brien and
Joan Didion who remain grumblingly acquiescent in a fate
over which they belive they have no control. By some ac
cident of literature, the unfortunate heroine of Judith
Rossner 's best-selling piece of didactic soft-core
pornography, Looking For Mr Goodbar, even has the same
name, Teresa, that Justine uses in disguise. There is
presumably no direct literary influence from the eighteenth
century philosophical pornographer to these contemporary
women. novelists; but, in the character of Justine, Sade
contrived to isolate the dilemma of an emergent type of
woman. Justine, daughter of a banker, becomes the
prototype of two centuries of women who find the world was
not, as they had been promised, made for them and who do
not have, because they have not been given, the existential
tools to remake the world for themselves. These self
consciously blameless ones suffer and suffer until it
becomes second nature; Justine marks the start of a kind of
self-regarding female masochism, a woman with no place in
the world, no status, the core of whose resistance has been
eaten away by self-pity.
Justine's place in the aetiology of the female condition in
the twentieth cent1:lry is assured; she is the personification
of the pornography of that condition.
She is obscene to the extent to which she is beautiful. Her
beauty, her submissiveness and the false expectations that
these qualities will do her some good are what make her
obscene.
II T H E B L O N D E AS C L O W N
The real value of a sexually attractive woman in a world

which regards good looks as a commodity depends on the
degree to which she puts her looks to work for her. The
lovely Justine, the sacred woman, denies her value in this
world by refusing to sell herself on any terms and even
refusing to accept the notion of the morality of contract.
But her body is by far the most valuable thing she has to
sell. She will never make a living out of the sale of her labour
power, alone.
However, in a world organised by contractual obligations,
the whore represents the only possible type of honest
woman. If the world in its present state is indeed a brothel -
and the moral difference between selling one 's sexual labour
and one 's manual labour is, in these terms, though never in
Justine 's �rms, an academic one - then every attempt the
individual makes to escape the conditions of sale will only
bring a girl back to the crib, again, in some form or another.
At least the girl who sells herself with her eyes open is not a
hypocrite and, in a world with a cash-sale ideology, that is a
positive, even a heroic virtue.
The whore has made of herself her own capital in
vestment. Her product - her sexual activity, her fictitious
response - is worth precisely what the customer is willing to
pay for it, no more and no less, but that is only what is true
of all products. But the whore is depised by the hypocritical
world because she has made a realistic assessment of her
assets and does not have to rely on fraud to make a living.
In an area of human relations where fraud is regular practice
between the sexes, her honesty is regarded with a mocking
wonder. She sells herself; but she is a fair tradesman and her
explicit acceptance of contractual obligation implicit in all
sexual relations mocks the fraud of the !honest' woman who
will give nothing at all in return for goods and money except
the intangible and hence unassessable perfume of her
presence. The honest whore is assured of her own immediate
value, not only in her own valuation but in the valuation of
her customers. So she can afford to ignore the opinion of the
rest of the world but she will not be respected for her in·
tegrity although, if she is successful enough, and her
business prospers, she may 'ruin' men, like any other
successful entrepreneur.
Justine's profane sister, Juliette, has 'ruined' a number of
rich men by the time she meets and succours her wretched
sister, even in the relatively decorous pages of the Justine of
1791. At this period, ruin ' ', applied to a man, means
financial ruin, whereas, applied to a woman, it means only
that a woman has engaged in sexual activity, suggesting an
actual parallel between a bank balance and a body. A ruined
woman is one who has lost her capital assets, a virgin who
has been deflowered and hence has nothing tangible to put
on the market. Not a woman's face but her unruptured
hymen is her fortune; however, if she regards her sexual
activity as her capital, she may, once ruined, utilise her
vagina to ruin others, as though, in fact, the opening of it
allowed her access to a capital sum which had been frozen by
virginity. No longer a virgin, she may put her capital to
work for her.
A businessman in the same position as a successful whore
would be applauded for his acumen and admired for his
ruthlessness. The woman is censured for her immoral
rapacity, although it is the same thing.
But the woman who makes no bones about selling herself
will soon adopt the ideology of the small shopkeeper and
identify her interests with the status quo. She will be a great
upholder of marriage; doesn't the greater part of her trade
come from married men? By accepting the contractual
nature of sexual relations, even if on her own terI�-;'s, she
imprisons herself within them just as securely as a wife
does, though she may retain a greater degree of individual
independence. If marriage is legalised prostitution, then
prostitution is itself a form of group marriage.
However, the whore may recoup some of the moral status
she lost when she sold herself if she concludes her career by
'throwing herself away'. A woman who throws herself away
is one who forms arbitrary sexual relations without any
thought for their consequences. She will be regarded, not so
much as pitiable, though she may condescendingly be
pitied; rather, as feckless. The tart with a heart of gold, a
mercantile image, is a tart who fecklessly gives away a
substance that is as good as money. If physical generosity
in a woman is reprehensible when used as a means of
financial gain, it is clearly incomprehensible if it is spon
taneous. 'Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear '; a
beautiful woman as such is so much bric-a-brac, and all her
use value, that is, her sexual value, is denied her.
In the celluloid brothel of the cinema, where the mer
chandise may be eyed endlessly but never purchased, the
tension between the beauty of women, which is admirable,
and the denial of the sexuality which is the source of that
beauty but is also immoral, reaches a perfect impasse. That
is why Saint Justine became the patroness of the screen
heroine.
The first attempt to get out of this predicament, that of
the moral irreconcilability of physical attractiveness and
sexuality, was the invention of the pre-sexual waif as
heroine, a role Mary Pickford played until the brink of
middle age. Sometimes this waif, as in Griffiths ' Broken
Blossoms, is as innocently erotic and as hideously mar
tyrised as Justine herself, and, as a sexual icon, the abused
waif allowed the customer to have his cake and glut himself
upon it, too. She could be as enticing in her vulnerability
and ringlet ted prettiness as she was able but the audience
knew all the time that the lovely child before them was, in
fact, a mature woman whom the fiction of her childishness
made taboo. The taboo against acknowledging her sexuality
created the convention that the child could not arouse
desire; if she did so, it was denied. A sentimental trans
formation turned the denial of lust into a kitsch admiration
of the 'cute '.
The taboo on the sexuality of the pre-pubescent child, who
" is tacitly assumed to "be sexually inactive, also extends to
the defusing of the potential menace of the sexuality of the
middle-aged woman, whose sexual life may be assumed to
be at an end. Mae West's sexuality, the most overt in the
history of the cinema, could only be tolerated on the screen
because she did not arrive in Hollywood until she had
reached the age associated with menopause. This allowed
her some of the anarchic freedom of the female im
personator, pantomime dame, who is licensed to make
sexual innuendos because his masculinity renders them a
form of male aggression upon the women he personates.
Mae West 's j oke upon her audience was, however, a
superior kind of double bluff. She was in reality a sexually
free woman, economically independent, who wrote her own
starring vehicles in her early days in the theatre and sub
sequently exercised an iron hand on her own Hollywood
career. The words she spoke in her movies were the words
she had written herself; the dramatised version of herself
she presented to the world was based on the one she both
invented and lived for herself. Age did not wither her but
only increased her self-confidence until she could actually
pretend to be a female impersonator, aided, not
desexualised, by the maturity which frees women of the
fecundity which is the most troubling aspect of their
sexuality. If Mae West has a Sadeian avatar, it is neither
Justine nor Juliette but the sterile, phallic mother who will
succour not Justine but Juliette and teach Eugenie de
Mistival the philosophy of the boudoir. Mae West's wit is
castratory, if tender; and the p�rt of her mind which is not
scheming for libidinal gratification is adding up her bank
accounts.
She selected theatrical and cinematic roles of women
whose work entailed sexual self-display yet her ability to act
out these roles on the screen was due solely to her middle
age, even if she was permitted to do so because she did not
look middle-aged. She was forty when she made her first
film in Hollywood, Night after Night, in 1932. The middle
aged woman, whose literary prototype is the nurse in
Romeo and Juliet, may say what she pleases, wink at and
nudge whomever she desires but we know it is all a j oke upon
her, for she is licenced to be free because she is so old and
ugly that nobody will have her. Mae West relied on this
freedom, even if she turned it on its head; universally
desired, absolutely her own woman, she could pick and
choose among her adorers with the cynical facility of the
rake, inverting the myth of female masochism even in the
titles of her movies - She Done Him Wrong, 1933. She made
of her own predatoriness a j oke that concealed its power,
whilst simultaneously exploiting it. Yet she represents a
sardonic disregard of convention rather than a heroic
overthrow of taboo.
The European love-goddesses, Garbo and Dietrich, . were
another story. They brought their foreignness to Hollywood
with them; to the country where girls learned the techniques
of self-effacement from books called Little Women and
Good Wives, they arrived fully fledged from Europe, the
domain of adultery, where the. fulfilled sexuality of women
was culturally admitted and its socially disruptive quality
acknowledged, even if it was always given a tragic
resonance in the mythology of doomed adultery implicit in
Flaubert's Madame Bovary, Tolstoy 's Anna Karenina. If a
tragic resonance to illicit fuckery is as silly as a straight
forward denial that it exists, then at least it gives illicit
fuckery a silly kind of dignity, and the adulteress can re
tain a little self-respect. Besides, the adulteress, if she plays
her cards right, may evolve into the adventuress, whose
status in life, if not in art, has always been that of a free
woman.
Garbo and Dietrich both retained the air of the European
adventuress. However discreetly they behaved in life - and
both were models of discretion - it was obvious that their
screen personalities had a stock-in-trade that consisted of
more than an unruptured hymen. Besides, both often ap
peared in drag, which is always reassuring to men, since a
woman who pretends to be a man has also cancelled out her
reproductive system, like the post-menopausal woman, and
may also freely function as a safety valve for homo-erotic
fantasy.
The public sexual ideology of Hollywood finally for
mulated itself, in the nineteen forties, as a version of
Justine's own. Female virtue was equated with frigidity and
a woman's morality with her sexual practice. (These
equations neatly deny women any access to questions of
public morality. )
But, of course, it proved quite impossible to keep
sexuality off the screen. It consistently reasserted itself,
even when female virtue was equated with asexuality,
because a pretty face and a provocative body remained the
first pre-requisites of success for a woman in the movies. The
movies celebrated allure in itself but either denied the at
tractions inherent in availability or treated availability
itself as a poor j oke.
The cultural product of this tension was the Good Bad
Girl, the blonde, buxom and unfortunate sorority of Saint
Justine, whose most notable martyr is Marilyn Monroe.
See how alike they look ! Marilyn Monroe, the living image
of Justine; both have huge, appealing, eloquent eyes, the
open windows of the soul; their dazzling fair skins are of
such a delicate texture that they look as if they will bruise at
a touch, carrying the exciting stigmata of sexual violence
for a long time, and that fs why gentlemen prefer blondes.
Marilyn/Justine has a childlike candour and trust and there
is a faint touch of melanchol y about her that has been
produced by this trust, which is always absolute and always
betrayed. This quality of trust is what the Sadeian liber
tines find most fascinating of all . Connoisseurs of the poetry
of masochism that they are, they immediately recognise
those girls who will look most beautiful when they are
crying. Saint Fond, who employs Justine's wicked, brunette
sister, Juliette, as his procuress, questions her anxiously
about one of her finds: 'Does she weep? I love to see women
weep; with me, they always do, all of them. '
The essence of the physicality of the most famous blonde
in the world is a wholesome eroticism blurred a little round
the edges by the fact that she herself is not quite sure what
eroticism is. This gives her her tentative luminosity and
makes her, somehow, always more like her own image in the
mirror thari she is like herself. To this, she owes her poetic
ambiguity and her appearance of fragility. Marilyn Monroe's
representative capacity for exquisite martyrdom is so
extreme that Norman Mailer 's life of her is composed en
tirely in mythic, rather than factual terms. His biography,
Marilyn, is a contemporary version of the martYrdom of
Justine and, like a hagiography or dirty book, the text has
to be helped along with pictures before you can make sense
of it. You have to see her to know how she will look in ex
tremis, which is, in your secret heart, the way you want to
see her - men; and women, too, who need to convince
themselves that the beauty they deny themselves will
always cause suffering to its unfortunate possessors. Mailer
endows his saint with all the tawdry rhetoric he can muster
up about the pathos inherent in prime, blonde flesh. And she
has all the dreadful innocence of lack of self-knowledge, too;
she is almost a holy fool. Mailer approvingly quotes Diana
Trilling:
None but Marilyn Monroe could suggest such a purity of sexual

delight. The boldness with which she could parade herself and
yet never be gross, her sexual flamboyance and bravado which
yet breathed an air of mystery and reticence, her voice which
carried such ripe overtones of erotic excitement and yet was the
voice of a tiny child - these complications were integral to her
gift. And they described a young woman trapped in some
never·never land of unawareness.
This is an apt anthem for Justine, always the unwitting

prey, who could have said, just as Monroe said to Groucho
Marx in Monkey Business: 'Men keep following me all the
time ', without the least notion why they did so. If she had
had the self-confidence to be gross - because what is wrong
with being gross? - the story would have been quite dif
ferent.
Marilyn's lonely death by barbiturates, nude, in bed, a
death adored and longed for by all necrophiles, is the con
temporary death-by-Iightning of the sweet, dumb blonde,
the blue-eyed lamb with the golden fleece led to slaughter on
the altar of the world. You can even see real scar-tissue
(from a gall-bladder operation; the female interior bearing
the marks of the intimate, cruel excavation of the scalpel) in
the nude pictures Bert Stern took of her the summer before
her death. Since a child, she had been steeped in the doc
trines of Christian Science: 'Divine love has always met and
always will meet every human need', the pious Justine 's
own, unspoken maxim in a novel which is the pilgrimage of
the soul in search of god written by an atheist.
Monroe was not born but became a blonde; blondeness is a
state of ambivalent grace, to which anyone who wants it
badly enough may aspire. According to Fred Lawrence
Guiles ' biography of her, Norma Jean, Monroe 's agent told
her, in 1946: ' I have a call for a light blonde, honey or
platinum. ' In this world, women may be ordered like steaks,
well-done, medium rare, bloody. The identity of the blonde
was the most commercially viabie one available; cash
betrayed her to sanctity and if she voluntarily took up
blondehood, she always voluntarily took upon herself the
entire apparatus of the orphan. Fatherless already through
illegitimacy, she, heart-struck by the poignancy of her
situation, invented for herself a true orphan's biography of
hardship, a childhood spent in orphanages where she
scrubbed floors, was beaten, accused of theft, bedded down
in windowless cupboards and, inevitably, raped.
These misfortunes add the irresistible dew of suffering to
her ripeness. 'I see your suffering, ' says the hero of Arthur
Miller's play, After the Fall, to a woman with a scandalous
resemblance to Monroe. A visible capacity for suffering
provokes further suffering. She is a past master at inspiring
rage and at deflecting it from herself on to her entire sex; is
she not a sex symbol, and hence the symbolic per
sonification of her entire sex? After Some Like It Hot was
finished, the director, Billy Wilder, told an interviewer that
it had been many weeks before he 'could look at my wife
without wanting to hit her because she is a woman '. Mailer
lovingly inserts this gossip-column nugget into the myth of
'Marilyn'.
The blonde 's physical fragility is, of course, only ap
parent. She must have a robust constitution to survive the
blows life deals her. Her fragility is almost the conscious
disguise of masochism and masochism necessitates an
infinite resilience. Nevertheless, the victim proclaims her
vulnerability in every gesture, every word, every act;
defining herself in the third person, the saint laments her lot
in Some Like It Hot: 'Sugar always gets the fluffy end of
the lollipop. ' Her misfortunes are no fault of her own, she is
quite certain of that; so it is not the demonstration of her
innocence itself that makes her innocence real to us. In
nocence is a transparent quality, difficult to see in full
daylight. Her innocence is made real to us by the
desecration of it; the white page is thrown into relief by the
spattered mud.
This fatherless and bruisable child was never clever, was
dumb; dumb like a fox is dumb, said one of Monroe 's lovers.
This dumbness is not stupidity but a naivety so perfect it is
functionally no different from stupidity; it is only becau�e
she is innocent of her own strength that she thinks she will
hurt easily., Because she is innocent of her exchange value,
she thinks she is valueless.
Monroe, in her major movies, from Gentlemen Prefer
,
Blondesto The Misfits, is a Good Bad Girl. The theory of
the sentimental image of the Good Bad Girl is that she has
all the appearance of a tart and an air of continuous
availability but, when the chips are down, she would never
stoop to sell herself. Less reprehensibly, indeed, almost
commendably - and for a moment we are allowed to admire
her misguided generosity - she gives it away for free. But
her affairs always end badly, her generosity is always
abused, she does not realise her flesh is sacred because it is
as good as money. In short, she is the most risible and
pathetic figure, the unsuccessful prostitute, living proof
that crime does not pay and the wages of sin will be too
small to pay the rent. Her poor show as a prostitute, as a
business woman, is proof in itself that her heart is made of
gold.
It is part of Saint Justine 's baleful bequest that blonde
Good Bad Girls always come to bad ends; brunettes and
even redheads, Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Shirley
Maclaine, have acquired the toughness of Juliette and put
their bodies to work actively for them. Indeed, Howard
Hawkes' Gentlemen Prefer Blondes juxtaposes the deathly
fragility of Monroe and the earthiness of Jane Russell
almost like a benign version of Sade 's diptych.
The mythic role of the Good Bad Girl is, however, directly
at variance with the real facts of her life, as all mythic roles
are apt to be. She pretends to be an unsuccessful prostitute
but, in fact, she is a very successful prostitute indeed and,
what is more, one who does not have to deliver the goods.
She sells, not the reality of flesh, but its image and so she
makes her living, a successful but imaginary prostitute.
Yet, since she is not in control of her own marketing, her
hypothetical allure and not her actual body is the com
modity. She sells a perpetually unfulfilled promise of which
the unfulfillment is a consolation rather than a regret. The
reality of her could never live up to her publicity. So she
retains her theoretical virginity, even if she is raped by a
thousand eyes twice nightly.
The Good Bad Girl is celebrated for her allure but this
allure is never allowed to overwhelm the spectator. Besides,
she has not got enough self-confidence to overwhelm men.
She has to rely on a childlike charm, she has more in com
mon with Mary Pickford than with Mae West; she must
make up to the paedophile in men, in order to reassure both
men and herself that her own sexuality will not reveal to
them their own inadequacy. And, like Justine, she cannot
judge; her innocence is prelapsarian, she does not know the
difference between good and evil, only that between nice and
nasty.
Her innocence, furthermore, forbids her to solicit. Her
innocence is her own excuse for her own object status; she
cannot solicit because she does not know how to desire. She
is always the prey, never the hunter, and 'The most innocent
are tormented the most,' says the Sadeian libertine in The
Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom. But she does not
understand that.
Above all, she discovers she must not take her own allure
seriously. She must laugh it off. The beautiful creature must

become a comedienne. She will adopt the pathetic devices of
the sexless clown as a means of protection from her pur
suers. That a lovely woman is always, in essence, a comic
figure, even in tragic art in the modern period, is curiously
exemplified in Frank Wedekind's 'Lulu ' plays, Earth Spirit
and Pandora 's Box. Throughout the action of both plays a
conspicuous part of the decor is the portrait of the beautiful
and sexually free Lulu dressed. as Pierrot, the moonstruck
clown of Commedia del Arte. This is surely a modern
phenomenon, this downgrading of the physical value of the
imperiously attractive woman; Shakespeare would scarcely
have allowed the action of Antony and Cleopatra to be
dominated by a portrait of his heroine dressed in the cap and
bells of the court fool. But this one must make fun of herself
because she can never admit she knows why she is pretty.
Lulu herself certainly guesses why she is pretty; and Jack
the Ripper must stab her to show her how her prettiness is
itself the source of sin. In an attempt to avoid this un
pleasant denouement, the pretty girl must voluntarily
remove her boobs and buttocks from the armoury of the
seductress. She must pretend she cannot understand how
they got there, in the first place.
Soon they lose even the significance of the conventional
attributes of the female; they become the signs of a
denaturised being, as if there was an inherent freakishness
about breasts and buttocks at the best of times, as if half
the human race were not equipped with them. As if they
were as surprising and unusual physical appurtenances to
find on a woman as fins or wings.
The world breathes a sigh of relief; voluntary castration!
She has desexed herself by acknowledging how comic her
sexuality is; she is prepared to allow her tits and bum to
turn into cues for raucous laughter, like a clown's red nose
and baggy pants. They become no more than signs that
provoke mirth. Groucho twitches his eyebrows and gnaws
his moustache when Monroe can't think why she is being
followed; he knows the joke is on her. Her ignorance of the
erotic disturbance she creates is the product of her comic
innocence and so she is denied even the possession of her
self, j ust as that innocence shows how easy she will be to
deceive. And she will not answer back; isn't she dumb, after
all? She has tom herself off Lulu's crucifix of the tragic
heroine to set herself up in the invisible pillory of the stand
up comic.
The milk bottle joke in Frank Tashlin's 'fifties movie. The
Girl Can 't Help It, illustrates perfectly this comic
degradation. Jayne Mansfield clutches the milk bottles to
her mammaries, a crude reminder as to the primary function
of these glands - no. they are not orbs of delight; by no
means that magic place where Freud, the romantic, thought
that love and hunger met . . . they are farcical globes of fat
and their function is more hygienically superseded by any
dairy.
The Beautiful Blonde Clowns, Jean Harlow, Judy
Holliday, Jayne Mansfield, a sisterhood of unfortunate J's,
as if the name Justine lingered on as a race memory in the ·
casting offices, all die young. All are Justine in her final
degradation. Now she must endlessly apologise for the
insulting lavishness of her physical equipment, which is a
ceaseless embarrassment to her. But the laughter she in
vokes as a protection against the knowledge of her own
sexuality is itself a form of the desecration she attempted to
protect herself against by laughing at herself first of all.
She hopes to disarm, to endear by her ignorance of her
own seductiveness, as Justine did when she went to see the
priest in her little white dress and was - 'the men keep
following me' - kissed for her trouble. But Sade had a tragic
sense of life and did not find anything to laugh at in
Justine's humiliation. The Beautiful Clown must endure
laughter although she is comic only because she is ignorant
of her power to compel, to attract, to receive voluntarily
that submission from others which others force on her.
She has fostered her own innocence, her own stupidity, as
an insulation from the pain of her endless humiliations;
therefore, exiled from her own allure, she does not know how
much her allure deviates from the norm and, by doing so,
suggests the inadequacy of the whole theory of the norm.
She will not be loved, as she hopes t9 be, because she is so
beautiful, such a perturbation, a challenge that continues to
exist after it has been met; she will only be resented.
She intends the exhibition of her vulnerability will avert
hostility and elicit cherishing. She thinks that if she says:
'See how much you have hurt me ! ' she will halt the
punishment, but the punishment continues. It sharpens,
since its object was the infliction of that pain her helpless
protest has just confirmed.
She is not in control of the laughter and contempt she
arouses. They are in control of her, modifying her opinion of
herself, indignifying her.
In herself, thi� lovely ghost, this zombie, or woman who
has never been completely born as a woman, only as a
debased cultural idea of a woman, is appreciated only for
her decorative value. Final condition of the imaginary
prostitute: men would rather have slept with her than sleep
with her. She is most arousing as a memory or as a
masturbatory fantasy. If she perceives herself as something
else, the contradictions of her situation will destroy her.
This is the Monroe syndrome.
She has never perceived her appearance as a quality of
herself but as something extraneous to her. She is afraid
men only want her because she is beautiful so she is denied
any use at all of her appearance, which exists for her only as
a reflection in the eyes of spectators at a humiliation, lit the
spectacle of her distress, which gives the witnesses so much
pleasure. She might be vain; she cannot be proud. And,
because she is beautiful, she arouses concupiscence.
Therefore she knows in her heart she must be bad. If she is
bad, then it is right she should be punished. She is always
ready for more suffering. She is always ready for more
suffering because she is always ready to please. 'That's how
I like women ! ' exclaims Saint Fond in Juliette, when a girl
he is torturing bursts into tears.
Justine is the model for the nineteenth and early twen
tieth-century denial of femininity as praxis, the denial of
femininity as a positive mode of dealing with the world.
Worst of all, a cultural conspiracy has deluded Justine and
her sisters into a belief that their dear being is in itself
sufficient contribution to the world; so they present the
enigmatic image of irresistibility and powerlessness, forever
trapped in impotence.
I I I T H E T O A D ON T H E R O S E
Noirceuil, lover of Justine 's sister, describes the perfect

object of the lust of the libertine, who acknowledges no law
except that of his senses' pleasure:
Beauty, virtue, innocence, candour, misfortune - the object of

our lust finds no protection in any of these qualities. On the
contrary. Beauty arouses us further; virtue, innocence, candour
enhance the object; misfortune puts it into our power, renders
it amenable to us; so, all those qualities tend only to excite us
s'till further and we should look on them all as simply fuel for
our passions, These qualities also afford us the opportunity of
violating another prohibition; I mean offer us the kind of
pleasure we get from sacrilege, or the profanation of objects
that expect our worship, That beautiful girl is an object of
reverence only for fools; when I make her the target of my
keenest and coarsest appetites, I experience the double
pleasure of sacrificing to my appetites both a beautiful object
and one before which the crowd bows down.
Sade 's sexual metaphor is always ambiguous. Lin

guistically, he mystifies the sexual attributes of the
female body; it is described in sacred terms, even in terms of
sacred architecture, as though it were a holy place. The
female orifice is a shrine, a place of worship. The surgeon,
Roland, apostrophises the cunt: 'temple of my long-loved
pleasures'. This ironic sacralisation of the female body is
used throughout Sade; even in its mortification, when it is
spattered with blood and ordure, the altar retains its per
fidious magic. Incense is burned at this altar; ejaculation is
regularly 'the burning of incense', at the altars Nature
intends for such homage. Orgasm itself is often described as
the rendering of homage. This homage is itself equivocal,
administered with such violence the recipient may regard it
as sacrilege, the culmination of an act of pure hostility.
Now and then, Sade kitschifies the prick itself, calling it
'the first agent of love's pleasure ', but, more often, it is a
mechanical device, an engine or an instrument of warfare, a
weapon. And, frequently, it is a snake. 'The snake emits its
venom'; 'the serpent is about to discharge its venom. ' When
Justine sees Jerome, the licentious monk, insert his prick
into the mouth of a young girl prisoner in the monastery of
St Mary-in-the-Wood, she thinks of: 'the filthy reptile
withering the rose '. Sexual approach is as much a defilement
as a tribute, yet the very act of defilement reinforces the
holiness of the temple. In a secular world, the notion of the
impure is meaningless. Only a true believer can see the pure
glamour of the blasphemy. In Sade 's lengthiest piece of
Yet Another Effort, French
proscriptive Utopian writing:
men, If You Would Become Republicans, the female
sexual organs are referred to as 'common fountains'. It is
impossible for such things to be defiled. But the egalitarian
utopia of the republic is, as yet, unachieved; we must still
deal with notions of dirt and transgression.
So it is necessary for the young girl, the virgin, the rose,
the rosa mundi or Blessed Virgin, to be of exceptional
beauty. Her beauty in itself excites abuse because it has
helped to make her an object of reverence. Her expectation
of reverence ensures her passivity and her weakness and
also her horrid surprise when the state of grace in which she
believes she exists is abruptly revoked.
Justine begins her miserable career with the idea she
never quite rids herself of, that her beauty and virtue are in
themselves qualities which demand respect. Beauty, youth
and innocence in women give them an artificial ascendancy
over a world that allots them love and admiration to
precisely the extent a beautiful, young and innocent woman
is deprived of the ability to act in the world. She is com
pensated for her defencelessness by a convention of respect
which is largely false. Herself mystified by herself, nar
cissistically enamoured of the idea of herself as Blessed
Virgin, she has no notion at all of who she is except in
fantasy. To the extent that she has been made holy and
thinks of herself as such, so she is capable of being
desecrated. Purity is always in danger.
The girls imprisoned for the pleasure of the monks in the
monastery of St Mary-in-the-Wood are all from well-to-do,
'distinguished ' families. 'There is not one who cannot claim
the highest rank, not one who is not treated with the greatest
disrespect. ' The libertines in The Hundred and Twenty Days
at Sodom belong to a supper club when they are at home in
Paris. There they hold four parties a week, one of which is
especially reserved for the abuse and humiliation of girls of
the upper classes. In addition they hold a regular weekly
supper attended by four young women of the aristocracy
who have been kidnapped from their parents' homes and are
now prostituted. These girls are particularly vilely treated.
. When the libertines plan their holiday at the Chateau of
Silling, they stipulate that the procuresses should find them
victims from the most eminent families; for these services,
the agents are paid thirty thousand francs a victim.
It is upon the women of the upper classes, whose beauty
and' chastity is a function of class and whom universal
admiration has always acquitted of the need to be human,
that the licentious wrath of the libertines falls most heavily.
These girls are chastised because they expect to be admired
and are raped because they have put too high a value on
their own sexuality. Their sexual abstinence is a form,
almost, of conspicuous consumption; it is an ostentatious
luxury that is not available to women from a class that can
achieve financial independence only through the practice of
so.me fo.rm o.f pro.stitutio.n. They o.vervalue their chastity in
the way that certain modem wo.men o.vervalue their
o.rgasmic po.tential; bo.th o.vervaluatio.ns are aspects o.f
elitism.
Ho.wever, the submissiveness the yo.ung ladies learned at
their expensive bo.arding schools stands the libertines in
go.o.d stead. The girls will no.t fight back. They do. no.t kno.w
that it is po.ssible fo.r them to do. SQ. The frigidity they had
been taught to. equate with virtue prevents them fro.m
achieving a sexual auto.no.my that wo.uld transfo.rm their
passive humiliatio.ns into. a fo.rm o.f actio.n. No.t o.nly can they
never feel pleasure in the embraces o.f their vio.lato.rs no.r
even admit it might be po.ssible to. do. so., but, po.o.r girls,
they will always feel ho.rro.r, revulsio.n and fear because they
.
believe indifference to. lust is as immo.ral as lust itself.
The princess o.f the fairy tale is reduced to. the co.nditio.n o.f
the who.re in the gutter; the fury o.f the libertines wo.rks this
reversal. But, since the princess still retains her co.n
scio.usness o.f herself as princess rather than acquiring the
self-po.ssessio.n o.f a who.re, she has been truly degraded.
The libertines sho.w her that the qualities that made her
precio.us can easily be stripped fro.m her. They thrust her
face-do.wn o.n the bed and turn their attentio.ns to. her ars�,
that part o.f herself reverence has always particularly denied
existed. They fo.rce her to. publicly perfo.rm excreto.ry ac
tivity she has always co.nducted furtively, in private, as if it
were an activity that in itself degraded her, an activity to.o.
human, to.o. co.mmo.n to. be publicly ackno.wledged by such a
rare creature as herself. (Swift exclaimed in ho.rro.r: 'Celia
shits ! ' How can it be po.ssible such a precio.us being, all
angel and no. ape, sho.uld ever do. such a thing? God must be
very cruel, to. shatter o.ur illusio.ns SQ.)
Her final humiliatio.n is to. realise that her value has never
resided in herself but in the values o.f the o.pen market; no.w
the princess has a price tag thrust upo.n her. Like a co.mmo.n
criminal, she has a price o.n her head. As if she were a cake,
she is bo.ught and so.ld.
Hitherto, like a porcelain figure, she had presented a
glazed surface to the world. Her surfaces seemed too
smooth, too impermeable to be fissured by any kind of
feeling. But now, under the lash, splashed with excrement,
deluged in spunk, she exhibits unmistakable evidence of
common .humanity. She screams, she pleads, she weeps.
Pain, in triumph, has found a foothold on a carapace that
had seemed too smooth to hold it. When she suffers, she
exists. She will embrace her newly discovered masochism
with all her heart because she has found a sense of being
through suffering.
IV M O R A L OF J U S T I N E
Belmore, the immolator of small boys, suggests to his good

friend, Juliette, Justine 's sister, in the sequel to Justine that
the origin of the unnatural reverence for women which finds
its expression in the forms of romantic love derives from the
professions of witchcraft and prophecy that women exer
cised in the antique past. To a man freed from ignorant super
stition, says Belmore, women are no more than sexual recep
tacles, pieces of plumbing. All mystification stripped from
her, Celia does not only shit; she becomes herself a commode.
Wives and mothers are sanctified by usage and con
vention; on them falls the greatest wrath. In the monastery
of St Mary-in-the-Wood, pregnancy means a death sentence.
Juliette tortures pregnant women during her holiday in
Florence. The worst tortures of the Castle of Silling in The
Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom are reserved for the
pregnant Constance. Madame de Mistival, wife and mother,
the object of the fury of her daughter in Philosophy in the
Boudoir, is utterly desanctified. Her motherliness is
stripped from her in a ferocious rite of exorcism; her own
daughter rapes her. In Sade 's brothels, husbands prostitute
wives; husbands force their wives to witness the
prostitution of daughters.
The mother herself is taken from her shrine, the holy
family, and turned over to the world, the public brothel,
communalised, secularised, restored to a state of natural or
original impurity from which her wifehood and mothering
was a falling away. Clairwil, Juliette 's accomplice, says:
'Libertinage in women used once to be venerated the world
over; it had worshippers everywhere, even temples. ' Not
fucking but continence is the offence against nature. But
the mother in her holiness does not understand that. She
will accept punishment because it enhances her status in her
own eyes but she will never tolerate the notion of pleasure,
since pleasure robs procreation of its aspect of duty.
The ironic worshippers approach the temple and raze it to
the ground. The libertines turn the Blessed Virgin over on
her belly and sodomise her, transforming the hole nature
intended for simple evacuation into an aperture for complex
pleasure. Holy Mother says sex is sanctified only in the
service of reproduction; nonsense ! cry the libertines. The
inversion of regular practice transforms the significance of
the practice. A simple inversion then becomes a complex
transformation. 'Love has pitched his palace in the place of
excrement, ' said Crazy Jane to the Bishop. The backside, the
anus, the areas of the body the consecration of Beauty
denies become desirable.
Once desired, they, too, become beautiful.
The libertines in The One Hundred and Twenty Days at
Sodom take four hideous and aged crones with them on their
holiday at the castle. The sexual enthusiasm they exhibit for
the wrinkled and ulcerated old monsters is an ironic reversal
of the veneration of physical beauty; human ugliness at its
most extreme is as extraordinary a phenomenon as beauty
and a phenomenon of the same kind, one of excess. So why
may it not, too, be appetising? And, like the beautiful girls
and boys, the monstrous old women are tortured and killed;
they must pay the high price of their own desirability as
soon as they are desired.
To be the object of desire is to be defined in the passive
case.
To exist in the passive case is to die in the passive case
- that is, to be killed.
This is the moral of the fairy tale about the perfect
woman.
Paradoxically, Justine 's only triumph is her refusal to
treat herself as a thing, although everybody she meets does.
Since this awareness of herself is not shared by anybody
else, it remains a victory in a void. She is the bourgeois
individualist in its tragic aspect; her sister, Juliette, offers
its heroic side. Both are women whose identities have been
defined exclusively by men.
three
S E XU A L IT Y A S T E R R O R IS M :
T H E L IF E OF J U L IE T T E
Time i s a man, space i s a woman, and her masculine

portion is death.
Vision of the LastJudgement, William Blake
I M AK I N G IT
The life of Juliette exists in a dialectical relationship to that

of her sister. The vision of the inevitable prosperity of vice,
as shown in her triumphant career, and the vision of the
inevitable misfortunes of virtue that Justine 's life offers do
not cancel one another out; rather, they mutually reflect and
complement one another, like a pair of mirrors. Each story
has the same moral, offered at many levels, which may be
summed up as: the comfort of one class depends on the
misery of another class. There is no room in Sade 's im
peccable logic for the well-upholstered wishful thinking that
would like the poor to have more money if that did not mean
we ourselves had less. To be a woman is to be automatically
at a disadvantage in a man's world, just like being poor, but
to be a woman is a more easily remedied condition. If she
abandons the praxis of femininity, then it is easy enough to
Sexuality as Terrorism 79
enter the class of the rich. the men, provided one enters it on
the terms of that class.
The life of Juliette proposes a method of profane mastery
of the instruments of power. She is a woman who acts ac
cording to the precepts and also the practice of a man's
world and so she does not suffer. Instead, she causes suf
fering.
'It was no accident that the Marquis de Sade chose
heroines and not heroes, ' said Guillaume Apollinaire.
'Justine is woman as she has been until now, enslaved,
miserable and less than human; her opposite. Juliette,
represents the woman whose advent he anticipated, a figure
of whom minds have as yet no conception, who is rising out
of mankind, who will have wings and who will renew the
world. ' Seventy years ago, Apollinaire could equate Juliette
with the New Woman; it is not so easy to do so today,
although Juliette remains a model for women, in some ways.
She is rationality personified and leaves no single cell of her
brain unused. She will never obey the fallacious promptings
of her heart. Her mind functions like a computer pro
grammed to produce two results for herself - financial
profit and libidinal gratificat�on. By the use of her reason,
an intellectual apparatus women themselves are still in
clined to undervalue, she rids herself of some of the more
crippling aspects of femininity; but she is a New Woman in
the mode of irony.
She is, just as her sister is, a description of a type of
female behaviour rather than a model of female behaviour
and her triumph is just as ambivalent as is Justine's
disaster. Justine is the thesis, Juliette the antithesis; both
are without hope and neither pays any heed to a future in
which might lie the possibility of a synthesis of their modes
of being, neither submissive nor aggressive, capable of both
thought and feeling.
If Justine is a pawn because she is a woman, Juliette
transforms herself from pawn to queen in a single move and
henceforward goes wherever she pleases on the chess board.
Nevertheless, there remains the question of the presence of
the king, who remains the lord of the game.
Like The Misfortunes of Virtue, The Prosperities of Vice is
also a black fairy tale; but it is Justine-through-the-Iooking
glass, an inversion of an inversion, so that it has a happy
ending in which true lovers are united and good fortune
smiles on everyone. The immense, picaresque narrative
relates with precision every detail of Juliette's career.
Juliette performs all the crimes of which Justine is falsely
accused, and is never punished for them; instead she is
rewarded because she does not submit to the law at all . She
does not need to submit to the law; she is in complicity with
the law and it is adjusted, if not made, for her benefit. She
sleeps with the makers of the laws and caters to their pic
turesque sexual needs; she knows " their weak spots, and
indulges them, and so she has their Mafia-like protection.
Further, the pain inflicted on Justine is transformed into
Juliette's pleasure, by the force of Juliette 's will and desire
for self-mastery and heightened extremes of experience.
Juliette has learned to take pleasure from pain and herself
demands that delicious excitation of the nerves; and nothing
will scar the thick skin of this well-fleshed brunette, who
knows how to do her own soliciting and is never the sexual
prey, except for the sake of a ruse or a game.
Juliette 's life is like the reign of Tamburlaine the Great,
an arithmetical progression of atrocities. If we admire the
campaigns of a great general, is it hypocrisy to refuse to
admire Juliette's? If her life is also, as is Justine's life, a
pilgrimage towards death - for even Juliette must die - in a
world governed by god, the king and the law, the trifold
masculine symbolism of authority, then Juliette knows
better than her sister how useless it is to rebel against fate.
She is so much in control of herself she may not even do this
unconsciously.
The story of Juliette begins , not where the version of
Justine of 1791 ends, with a repentant Juliette entering a
convent, but at the beginning of Juliette 's own
autobiography after a rather more extravagant version of
the life of Justine herself. We return to Juliette's boudoir
and Justine herself is there to listen to Juliette's story. The
novel will end with another, profane, version of the death of
Justine.
Juliette 's story-telling function is itself part, of her
whoreishness. She is a perfect whore, like the whores in The
Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom. In that book, four
libertines take four of the most brilliant and distinguished
prostitutes in Paris off for a holiday to the remote and
isolated Castle of Silling, besides a numerous complement of
wives, servants and victims. These four women survive the
ensuing holocaust; they will all return home safe and sound,
not only because they are consummately wicked, but
because, like Scheherazade, they know how to utilise the
power of the word, of narrative, to save their lives. The
continuity of their narratives protects them from the
discontinuity of death. These women, like Juliette, tell the
stories of their lives. Their sexual anecdotes determine the
form of the orgies in the castle and so they can ensure they
themselves will not be sacrificed during any of them.
Juliette, the personfication of the whore as story-teller,
often breaks off her narrative for sexual encounters with her
listeners, who are all old friends and occasionally appear as
actual actors in it. She leaves a pornographic hole in the text
on purpose for them.
For Justine, an unwilling listener, her sister's auto
biography and her own involuntary participation in the
rituals accompanying it, are another form of martyrdom,
the martyrdom of unwilling exposure to pornography.
Juliette 's education begins in the convent where she and
her sister spent their childhoods. If Justine learned piety
and submission there, Juliette learned pleasure and reason.
The abbess, Delbene, has been sent t9 the convent against
her will, to spare her parents the expense of a dowry, and
she spends her ample leisure inculcating in those young girls
in her charge in whom she spies a natural propensity for vice
the elements of sexual expertise, the relativity of ethics,
militant feminism and doctrinaire atheism. The notion of a
natural propensity for vice is essential to Sadeian
psychology; vice is innate, as is virtue, if social conditions
are unalterable. This straitjacket psychology relates his
fiction directly to the black and white ethical world of fairy
tale and fable; it is in conflict with his frequently expounded
general theory of moral relativity, that good and evil are not
the same thing at all times and in all places. So his
characters represent moral absolutes in a world where no
moral absolutes exist. This is the maj or contradiction
inherent in his fiction, which he never resolves.
Like all Sade 's rational women, Delbene prefers her own
sex. Juliette is an eager pupil; she gains information, not
only from Delbene, but from a friend who runs away to work
in a brothel. Juliette makes friends easily, unlike her sister;
solitude is not her quality, even when she is alone, and she is
as incapable of introspection as she is incapable of
melancholy. Not only has she no inner life; she would deny
the existence of such a thing.
For Juliette, the convent is a school of love. Her initiation
is completed by a murder, for the convent is also a Sadeian
place of privilege where everything is permissible. The
Abbess Delbene adopts a mothering relatio� to Juliette. She
is the first and welcomed fairy godmother in Juliette 's
history, the type of the mature libertine woman who has
sharpened her reason and her sex into a weapon. She is an
aristocratic and cultured version of the brigand, La Dubois,
whose protection Justine refused in the early days of her
career. Unlike La Dubois, Delbene has had the means and
the opportunity to cultivate her intellect; she reads Spinoza
and lectures Juliette on the nature of justice and on the
sexual autonomy of women. She has a cold heart, and she
murders for pleasure.
The voice of reason, always subversive, must issue from a
monster; Sade must censor Delbene, as he creates her. She is
rational, therefore wicked.
In Delbene's arms, Juliette nourishes her own special
qualities of transgression and sacrilege. From Delbene, she
learns a stoicism that serves her well when Delbene turns
her out of the convent the moment Juliette 's father loses all
his money. Delbene is not interested in poor girls. Juliette
parts company with the grief-stricken Justine when she sees
Justine will not accompany her to the brothel where her
friend preceded her. But Juliette herself is eager to learn a
trade with which to support herself.
This brothel is an earthly paradise where all the pleasures
of the flesh are available, but nothing is free. It is a Sadeian
place of privilege; like all brothels in Sade, it is an evil Eden
that might, at any moment, turn into hell. It operates with
the wholehearted support and approval of the police. In an
absolute privacy purchased for cash, all sexual tastes are
permissible but it is as if a cordon sanitaire surrounds these
places. The Sadeian paradise is a model of the world, in its
cash-sale structure; and also it is a place of exile from the
world, a place of imaginary liberty where the ritual per
versions of the libertines contain no element of a taboo
freely broken but come to dominate their lives, like the rigid
rituals of the Catholic church. Privilege has a negative
aspect. It is like the freedom of the outlaw, which only exists
in relation to the law itself. Privilege is in itself a denial of
common experiences. The brothel presents a closed system,
encapsulated from the reality it both mimics and denies.
Women rule in the brothel, as in the nursery, which it
somewhat resembles; but the economic power lies in the
hands of the customers, who can always take their cash
elsewhere, or even refuse to pay. So the whores resort to
theft.
Theft represents the morality of the outlaw. Duval, the
master thief, lectures the girls: 'If you trace the right of
property back to its source, you always arrive at usur
pation . ' Theft, therefore, is a moral imperative; it is a means
of redistributing property. Theft, deceit and cunning are the
revenges of the weak upon the strong, of the poor upon the
rich. One of Juliette 's colleagues encourages her to steal for
the sake of the principle of human equality; where equality
has not been established by chance or fate, it is up to the
poor to ensure it by their ingenuity.
The brothel is also a place of lies, of false appearances.
Juliette's virginity is sold successively to fifty buyers and,
for each customer, she must act out a part - that she is
starving and forced to sell herself; that it was her mother
who sold her to the brothel. And so on, a series of flattering
charades designed to persuade the customers they are not
dealing with simple business-women, that the weeping
creatures who reluctantly bend themselves to their superior
will are, in fact, so many innocent Justines.
Juliette concludes her apprenticeship of flesh by selling
her anus to an archbishop. She has already a well-developed
taste for anal intercourse; she is proud of her superb arse
and the outrageous, unnatural uses to which she puts it. Not
only is it a crime, according to the morality of her century, it
is also an excellent contraceptive measure, and motherhood,
as yet, has no part in her plans.
Now, the last of her virginities gone, she is fully equipped
to enter upon a wider stage than that of her first brothel,
Madame Duvergier's establishment.
She meets a man of power, the statesman, Noirceuil, who
teaches her how Nature made the weak to be the slaves of
the' strong. She learns her lesson at once; to escape slavery,
she must embrace tyranny. All living creatures are born and
die in isolatio�, says Noirceuil; in the cultivation and
practice of egoism and self-interest alone may be found true
happiness. Juliette is immediately drawn to this credo of
bourgeois individualism.
When Noirceuil tells Juliette that he murdered her father,
she declares that she loves him and is soon installed in his
house as his mistress, with special instructions to torment
his wife, whom he designates as a 'mere pleasure machine'.
Noirceuil has also instructed her in the rare pleasures of
avarice. She returns to Duvergier's brothel, to earn more
money in her spare time, for the richer she becomes, the
more money she must have.
Duvergier, the madame, is another fairy godmother,
although she is not a diabolic one. The most wicked act that
she performs is an attempt to foist a syphilitic upon Juliette
and she apologises when Juliette angrily rejects him, and
goes off to find a substitute harlot, because the syphilitic
pays well so she cannot turn him away. If Juliette did in
deed accept Duvergier 's proffered mother, she might have
led the quiet and unexemplary life of a fairly honest whore,
in time the mistress of her own establishment. But Juliette
has ambitions far beyond this.
The brothel is a place of appearances and lies; it is also a
place where paradoxical truths are put into the mouths of
those we expect to lie, so you may accept them or not, as you
please. If the whores and the thieves have advanced a
Jibertarian -communist theory of the ownership of property,
then Duvergier offers a rational distinction between love and
fancy. Love, she says, need not cohabit with fidelity; she
shows Juliette a room filled with respectably married
women all waiting for illicit lovers. Yet not one of these
women does not adore nor is not adored by the man with
whom she lives. And there is nothing odd about that opines
Duvergier cosily ! Love is a moral and intellectual passion
based on respect and comradeship; the fancies of the flesh
are of a different order of experience, not to be despised
because they give us so much pleasure but in no way
trespassing on the integrity of the heart 's affections.
Juliette rewards Duvergier for her good advice and
cherishing by, later, poisoning her.
Juliette is well-paid by Noirceuil. She steals. She sells
herself on the side. She prospers, until she falls foul of a
certain Duke whom she has robbed and he has her thrown in
prison. Noirceuil rescues her on condition she incriminates
an innocent girl for the crime; the unfortunate are the
playthings of the rich.
By this act of false witness, Juliette puts herself firmly in
the camp of the masters. Like her sister, she feels no natural
bond between herself and other women; why should she?
Her circumstances arE:: not those of most women. She has no
sense of women as a class; it is difficult to ascertain whether
Sade does so himself. Sade regularly subsumes women to
the general class of the weak and therefore the exploited,
and so he sees femininity as a mode of experience that
transcends gender. Feminine impotence is a quality of the
poor, regardless of sex. Juliette is an exception; by the force
of her will, she will become a Nietzschian superwoman,
which is to say, a woman who has transcended her gender
but not the contradictions inherent in it.
After this brush with justice, Juliette is ready to be in
troduced to the representatives of the law. Noirceuil invites
her to a dinner party to meet Saint Fond, one of whose
activities is the distribution of warrants for arbitrary arrest.
Another guest is D 'Albert, chief justice of the Parlement de
-Paris, who promises Juliette a life-long immunity from
punishment under the law. Saint Fond makes Juliette lick
his arse, after dinner: ' Kneel and face it; consider the honour
I do you in permitting you to do my arse the homage an
entire nation, no, the whole world aspires to give it! '
Sade occasionally, if confusingly, sometimes says exactly
what he means. The interminable arse-licking his characters
engage in is nothing more than metaphor made concrete.
Coprophagy is one of the rarest sexual variations but it
plays a large part in Sade's lexicon of sexual activity_
Juliette soon accustoms herself to eating the shit of the
great. In The Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom, the four
libertines who rule the castle always take a victim or two
with them to the privy, to clean their arses for them. This is
the way to court the favour of the great, £0 gently cleanse
their maculated assholes with a cunning tongue. If you do it
long enough, it becomes second nature; you hardly notice
the taste. Not the pursuit of erotic pleasure but enlightened
self-interest has overcome the barrier of disgust.
For the libertines themselves, it is a different matter.
They, too, gladly eat shit but they control its production.
An elaborate bureaucracy is established to govern the
production and distribution of faecal matter in The Hun
dred and Twenty Days at Sodom. The victims are placed on
special diets, to ensure the quality and flavour of the turds.
Saint Fond will put Juliette on a similar diet, for the same
reason, and instruct her how to take care of her health to
safeguard his own. The libertines become veritable con
noisseurs of the turd, comparing vintages and bouquets
with the mincing pedantry of the wine snob.
But the excremental activity of the victims who produce
these comestibles is governed by rigid sanctions. In the
Castle of Silling, the victims may shit only at certain times
of the day and then only with permission of the masters,
who may refuse at whim. The involuntary production of shit
is severely punished.
The nature of production-consumption relation of shit in
Sade is illuminated by a psychoanalytic interpretation. The
faeces are the child's first gift. He can give them or withhold
them at whim; utilising his excremental production, he can
cause his mother delight or distress since, by producing
them, he expresses active compliance with his environment
and, by retaining them, disaffection. With his shit, he ex
presses obedience or disobedience. Before he can speak, his
excretions are the child's means of expression - shit and
tears; in this, he is just like the victims in the castle. He is,
however, more in control of his shit than he is of his
weepings. Excretion is his first concrete production and,
through it, the child gains his first experience of labour
relations. He may reserve the right to go on excremental
strike or to engage in a form of faecal offensive. The ex
cremental faculty is a manipulative device and to be baulked
of the free control of it is to be deprived of the first, most
elementary, expression of autonomy. The victims of the
libertines may not shit when and as they please; they are
under the severest restraints in this particular. But the
masters are perfectly free to roll at will in their own ordure,
to . be as clean or as filthy as they please, to exercise total
excremental liberty. This is a sign of their mastery, to
return, as adults, freely, to a condition of infantilism.
The libertines acknowledge the turd as gift. 'Let me eat
her gift, ' says a coprophagic customer of the prostitute
narrator, Duclos, in The Hundred and Twenty Days at
Sodom. But these gifts are always extorted. The gifts are
brutally ravished from the owners, produced on order ac
cording to contract in the brothel and by Juliette, or in fear
of force in the castle. The libertines usurp the primary
physical freedom of the body. They monopolise the
elementary productions of the bodies of others and ar
bitrarily regulate involuntary physical functions.
The coprophagic passions of the libertines reflect their
exhaustive greed. The anal Juliette has an appropriately
anal passion for capital accumulation. There is more to
coprophagy than a particularly exotic perversion that
requires an extraordinary degree of mastery of disgust to be
able to indulge in it; the coprophage's taste asserts the
function of flesh as a pure means of production in itself. His
economic sense, alert even in the grip of passion, insists that
even the waste products of the flesh must not be wasted. All
must be consumed.
The coprophiliac Saint Fond, who demands that even his
own waste products should be treated with reverence,
employs Juliette as his procuress and his poisoner at a
fabulous salary. Her first task in this position is to poison
Noirceuil's wife; her next, to poison Saint Fond's father. Her
relation with Noirceuil contains a great deal of the affection
characteristic of Sadeian comrade& in crime; that with Saint
Fond is based more on self-interest tinged with fear. But
now she makes her first truly significant relationship; she
becomes the friend of the beautiful and terrible Madame de
Clairwil, who prides herself upon never having shed a tear.
Her relation with Clairwil is, at first, not quite one of
equals although Juliette never adopts a subservient role to
her. Juliette is more beautiful than she; she does not
frighten men so much and this gives her a tactical ad
vantage over her friend but there is no element of rivalry
between them, for Clairwil is a great aristocrat, born to
power of her own. She does not need men to validate her
power, as Juliette does. But she is less resilient than Juliette
because she is less flexible. Juliette, child of a banker and
hence a daughter of the bourgeoisie, is the representative of
a rising class, the class that will dominate the coming
century, and Clairwil 's aristocratic ascendancy is on the
wane. The ease with which Juliette robs princes and, later,
with which she disposes of the Princess Borghese when she
gets tired of her, also suggests the aristocracy no longer
have the power that the politicians, Noirceuil and Saint
Fond wield.
Nevertheless, she and Clairwil have enough in common to
feel themselves sisters. Later, they will pose as sisters. Both
belong to the same maenad and violent sisterhood of female
libertines and so form a terrible alliance, like avenging
angels who are always in complicity with the seat of power;
they remain angels of the lord. Having acceded, as women,
to 'the world of men, their mastery of that world reveals its
monomaniac inhumanity to the full, just as Justine's in
competence trapped in the circumstances of her life as a
woman, also did. Their liberation from the limitations of
femininity is a personal one, for themselves only. They
gratify themselves fully but it is a liberation without
enlightenment and so becomes an instrument for the op
pression of others, both women and men. One of Sade 's
cruellest lessons is that tyranny is implicit in all privilege.
My freedom makes you more unfree, if it does not
acknowledge your freedom, also.
Clairwil's monstrous lusts encompass murder and she
hates men far more than Juliette does. It is men she loves to
murder: 'I adore avenging my sex for the horrors men
subject us to when the monsters have the upper hand.' Her
beauty is the cruel beauty of the Medusa; she overwhelms
and dominates whereas Juliette, more cunning, is content to
seduce. Clairwil's rationality is allied with wit and her
atheism has a kind of wild glory about it. Her castratory
rage is intellectually qualified; she has always felt herself
debased by the mere sight of men. Only men arouse her to
serious cruelties. She is an 'enragee', like some of the furious
women of the French Revolution, but her rage extends only
to her own nymphomaniac passions, that reduce the men
upon whom she inflicts her vengeance to disembodied phalli.
She has no other use for them. She is dedicated to sexual
warfare and will, as the sequel to an orgy in a Carmelite
monastery during which she and Juliette have exhausted
every single one of the inmates, shear off the handsome
prick of a young friar, embalm it and use it for a dildo.
Clairwil's enthusiasm for the depersonalised prick, the
sublime penis, is boundless. After she dies, she claims, a
dissection will find a penis growing in her brain; her desire is
so great that she has incorporated the desired object in
herself, but, unassimilated, it still retains its own form. This
is one of the contradictions of Sade 's female libertines, that
they ingest but do not integrate within themselves the signs
of maleness.
Juliette is now obscenely rich and lives with obscene
opulence. During a famine, she finds herself unable to give
charity to the starving because of the expenses she has
incurred in a project for building mirrored boudoirs in her
park, in the purchase of statues for her garden, in improving
her lawns. It gives her great pleasure to deny charity; if it
gives her so much pleasure not to do good, she reasons,
must it not give her still greater pleasure to do evil? As soon
as the decision is made, she moves firmly from the passive
to the active, to gratuitous crime, and Clairwil puts her up
for membership of a unique club, the Sodality of the Friends
of Crime.
The Sodality is an institution of the highest privilege. It is
a model of a society entirely devoted to libidinous
gratification, like the Castle of Silling in The Hundred and
Twenty Days at Sodom and the monastery of St Mary-in-
the-Wood and so it is like a nursery as it might be if the
children themselves had the sole running of it, and it is also
like a concentration camp from the point of view of the
guards. It is itself a secularised monastery; indeed, it is a
post-humanist, ironic version of Rabelais ' Abbey of
Theleme, which had as its orJy rule the exhortation: 'Do
what thou wilt. ' This is certainly the motto of the Sodality.
But Rabelais believed no rules were required 'because men
that are free, well-born, well-bred and conversant in honest
companies, have naturally an instinct and spurre that
prompteth them unto vertuous actions, and withdraws
them from vice. ' No such considerations apply here. Like all
Utopias, its literary and political origin is the Republic
of Plato, which the Sodality curiously resembles in
its inflexibility and elitism; a parodic Good Society,
supported by wealth, power and immunity from the
law.
The luxuriously appointed premises of the Sodality are
fitted up with seraglios, printshops and torture chambers; it
runs its own kitchens and its own cab-ranks, self-feeding
and self-transporting. It is a society in miniature in which
nobody engages in productive labour nor wears any clothes
except the ritual uniform of nakedness which is a mark of
the members ' elite status. Even their skins have become
signs of rank. Here, the price of pleasure is death but not the
death of any of the initiates. The Sodality is divided into
three classes: the libertines; their victims; and their ser
vants, the cooks, harem keepers, torturers and nurses who
are immune from harm because they are useful. Their
serviceability precludes their victimisation. Unlike Plato,
however, Sade allows a token handful of artists to enter this
sacrosanct domain, at a cheap rate. This is like a little
prefiguration of Marcuse's theory of repressive sublimation;
if artists are allowed a taste of some of the wild j oys of
privilege, they will throw their lots in with the masters
immediately. If art is indeed, as Sade defined it, 'the per
petual immoral subversion of the existing order ', the artist
is emasculated the moment he enters, with the com
plimentary ticket he has accepted with such humiliating
eagerness and gratitude, the brothels of the ruling class.
This might also apply to Juliette he�self.
The Sodality is dedicated to atheism and its members
acknowledge none of the familial and marital bonds that
they have outside its doors. All dissolve on entering the
Sodality 's premises. Its privilege extends to all areas of
sexual taboo. Expulsion is guaranteed for good works. The
president and all the officers are elected by secret ballot; in a
community of equals, the libertines observe egalitarian
relations with one another. Any woman or any man may be
elected president, even if the rules for women members of
the Sodality state categorically that women 'are created for
the pleasure of man'. The egalitarianism of the Sodality
extends only to the members of the class of masters,
however. The Sodality, with its rules, its system, its free
ballots, its torture chambers, its acknowledgement of the
diabolism of privacy, its mutual regard among its members,
is the most systematic and depraved of Sade's inverted
Edens. Even the Castle of Silling allows more humanity to
its victims.
Juliette is now visited by her father, who, it turns out,
never died at all, although her mother did; he was ruined
and forced into hiding. He reappears with all the unex
pectedness of picaresque fiction, a good and virtuous man
moved to tears to meet his daughter again. She easily
seduces him, is impregnated by him, murders him and
subsequently aborts his child; so she rids herself of the
spectre of his paternal authority over her by a systematic
series of ritual transgressions. She absorbs his essence and
then excretes it. Justine weeps to hear all this. Juliette's
patricidal embrace and the infanticide which is the com
pletion of the banishment of the father from her life seems
the completion of some form of apprenticeship; she is now
ready to enter the ranks of the sexual instructresses and
Noirceuil entrusts her with the education of his new wife,
Saint Fond 's daughter. But the girl does not show herself an
apt pupil. She will not join Juliette and Clairwil in the
camaraderie of libertine superwomen. Instead, she will be
sexually martyrised for her husband 's pleasure, just as all
his other wives have been.
Now Juliette is rea-dy to meet the poisoner, Durand, who
has used the formal methods of reason to become a witch.
Durand's primal powers are precisely those of enlighten
ment and reason, put at the service of nihilism. She quotes
Archimedes; 'give me a lever big enough and I will move the
world ', but, for herself, it is a herb that might poison the
world she wants. She is a bio<;hemist and her area of study is
natural poison. Her profession is the sale of death.
Durand has mastered this world so well that she can
foretell the future and she forecasts the death of Clairwil.
She is the greatest, most monstrous, most potent of all
Sade 's cruel godmothers. Her habits are those of the wicked
stepmother of fairy tale, the ogre queens who devour babies,
and her sexual ambivalence is hermaphroditic. Though she
is well past the age of child-bearing, she is extraordinarily
beautiful and she is prepared to adopt Juliette as her
daughter. The crimes and libertinage of Durand will become
the protection and the pleasures of her beloved. But not yet;
having introduced herself to the two women, she vanishes,
with the suddenness of magic.
Saint Fond now takes Juliette into his complete con
fidence, and outlines a scheme for the devastation of France
which will result in immense profits for himself. He will raze
the schools and poorhouses to the ground; send the country
to war, the most profitable of all speculations ; and produce a
famine by his monopoly of the supply of corn. He suggests
that Juliette assist him. When she hears his proposals, she
shudders and, for this involuntary show of horror, she is
doomed. Saint Fond sees her shudder and decides to kill her.
Her friend, Noirceuil, warns her; she runs away at once,
abandoning her mansions, her safes filled with money, her
bank accounts. Her flights, her peregrinations are as in-
voluntary as her sister's but her life does not have the form
of a pilgrimage, more of a battle campaign, and now she
beats a strategic retreat. However much money she leaves
behind, ever forethoughtful, she always manages to conceal
a little around her person, that person which is in itself her
capital.
She opens a gambling house at Angers and prospers.
Soon, she marries the virtuous Count de Lorsanges,
cuckolds him, bears him a daughter, poisons him, inherits
all and, rich once again, abandons her child to travel to
Italy, posing as a rich courtesan. Now she aspires to the
highest style. Her friends and clients are kings and princes,
all persons of unspeakable wickedness. Her whoreishness is
her preservation since she acts as a kind of Figaro of vice,
the servant who maintains the instruments of control whilst
adopting the attitudes of submission. Control, method,
system are Juliette's qualities.
Yet Juliette has a passion for volcanoes, which seem to
her the image of the strength and indifference of nature.
Whilst gazing into the crater of a volcano, she and her
companions - for, unlike Justine, she is never without a
faithful entourage - are captured by the cannibal giant,
Minski, who lives in a castle in the middle of a lake, a place
of privilege with a strong symbolic resemblance to the great
original of all places of privilege, the womb. Minski 's castle
is furnished with girls - chairs, tables, sideboards all formed
of the living flesh of captive women. He has reduced women
to their final use function, 'thingified ' them into sofas,
tables and candelabras. His wealth is a guarantee he will live
on in this fashion undisturbed. Juliette drugs him and
escapes with her friends and his treasure, assuring the
castle full of victims they have released from their dungeons
that Minski is dead. The victims rejoice; when he wakes up
from his drugged sleep, he will kill them all. How Juliette
and her maids laugh to think of this denouement.
Now she travels to Florence, opens a brothel, grows in
finitely rich, robs her customers as if theft were a form of
sexuality or sexuality of theft, commits many murders and
moves on to Rome, the holy city.
Rome is significant for Juliette for two reasons. First, she
makes another bosom friend, the wicked and beautiful
Princess Olympe de Borghese. If Clairwil, the man-hater
who has absorbed the phallus, the sign of maleness, into her
own brain, is savagery and lucidity, then the velvet, in
dolent Borghese is a pure voluptuary; her crimes are part of
her vicious sensuality and are not the fruit of a steely
process of self-discipline. She is a princess and wickedness is
as natural to her as breathing. She is a glutton for pleasure,
ll.ke a huge, cruel cat and cruel as a cat is sleepily cruel, by
nature. She lives for sensual excess and pain is a judicious
sharpening of her senses. Her tastes tend towards the
rococo, the decorative; her orgies require the presence of
menageries of animals and the deformed, dwarves,
geriatrics, hermaphrodites.
She loves to keep captives and would like to enslave entire
nations but, also, she would like to be a public whore, the
butt, the plaything, the victim of libertines, desiring at the
same time to enslave and be herself enslaved. A certain
hysteria characterises her. Like the Italy in which she lives,
she is so ripe that she is rotten.
Juliette's second acquaintance in Rome is the Pope
himself. This Pope, like many of his predecessors, is a
profligate atheist. His coprophilia is a statement of his
apostasy: 'I worship shit. ' Juliette participates in an orgy at
the altar of St Peter 's, a venue of, simultaneously, privilege
and sacrilege. There are further murderous orgies in the
Sistine Chapel; these are the most fitting shrines for crime,
opines Sade. After robbing the Pope of a vast sum of money,
Juliette sets out for fresh infamies in Naples. Once more,
she is captured on the way; again, her capture is a fortunate
one. Th� brigand chief, Brisatesta, takes her to his moated
castle at the peak of a mountain but his wife, the sister with
whom he lives, gives a cry of j oy when she sees Juliette;
there will be no tortures for this captive, for Brisatesta 's
incestuous wife is none other than Clairwil. The two women
fall into one another 's arms. By a happy accident, the next
wayfarer brought captive to the castle proves to be
Juliette 's new friend, Borghese, and she, too, is reprieved
and feasted.
Brisatesta now tells his life story. This is interesting
because of its account of a comprehensive Sadeian
education. He and Clairwil were grounded thoroughly in
libertinage at the hands of their father and his mistress,
their governess. Their mother took part in the anatomy
lessons only under duress; at one point, Brisatesta bit off
her nipple and, finally, at his father 's request, murdered her.
Next, inspired by greed for his inheritance, he murdered his
father and set out on his travels - Europe, the Netherlands,
Sweden and at last Russia, growing richer and more wicked
with every crime along the way. In Russia, he met Catherine
the Great, a Sadeian malefic despot, the Messalina of all the
Russias, and became her lover but, when he bungled the
poisoning of the Tsarevitch, she sent Brisatesta to Siberia.
He escaped to Turkey and an eventual reunion with his
beloved sister; she has abandoned Paris for him and they
now devote themselves to domesticity, brigandage and
orgiastic recreations in their mountain fastness. A marriage
of true minds, they are a model Sadeian couple.
But Clairwil's love for Juliette overcomes that for her
brother. The three women decide to travel on together,
posing as sisters, and arrive in Naples, where they engage in
atrocious infamies with the king and queen, utilising, as
Juliette does more and more frequently, ingenious
mechanical contrivances that arithmetically multiply the
.
humiliation and the suffering of her victims. Her passions
now require an increasingly technological gratification.
Flesh itself is no longer enough.
The girls soon grow bored with Borghese and toss her into
the crater of Vesuvius; then they leave Naples, taking with
them half the contents of King Ferdinand 's treasury, after
framing his queen for the theft. But Clairwil's time is
running out. It is not that Juliette is growing bored with her
too; their affinity is too strong to be eroded by boredom. But
the date that the crystal-gazing fortune teller, Durand,
forecast for her death is approaching and they meet Durand
again, in Ancona, famous for its shrine. Consumed by
passion for Juliette, Durand tricks her into poisoning
Clairwil and Juliette admits that she, too, is in love with
Durand. The two women form a pact of trust, affection and
obligation that, henceforward, neither will break.
The form of marriage contract they make between them is
an interesting one. Both are murderesses by temperament;
they will not even promise that they will not kill one
another, however, for such a denial would, in itself, imply a
lack of trust. Durand, for all her infinite knowledge and
power, is a suppliant for Juliette; she is the more in love and
she asks Juliette for only one thing - that she, Durand, will
always be the mistress of Juliette's heart and, as to her
body, she may do with it what she pleases. Juliette, struck
by this combination of rationality and sentiment, swears
this will be so. They also make complicated arrangements
about their shared finances and their travelling plans. Their
first adventure together is a spree with a group of sailors to
whom they also sell a great quantity of poisons; in the hands
of these two women, Eros is not at war with death but in
complicity with it. Their second joint venture is a profitable
robbery. Then they set out for Venice, where they open a
combined brothel and poison dispensary, with Durand
posing as Juliette's mother.
In Venice, Durand experiences her unique but potentially
fatal moment of weakness. Representatives of the Serene
Republic ask her to spread a plague throughout the city
and, stunned by the enormity of the crime, she refuses. As
soon as the words are out of her mouth, she knows she is
lost. She warns Juliette to run away, and herself vanishes,
with that magic speed and conclusiveness characteristic of
her. Juliette assumes Durand has been murdered. Once
again, Juliette leaves great wealth behind her but, since
Saint Fond is now dead, she is able to return to France,
where she is welcomed by Noirceuil and establishes herself
once again in Paris. All the money she abandoned there is
restored to her. Her travels are at an end; home life can
begin again. She sends for her infant daughter from Angers;
it is time that the child 's education began, she has reached
the age of seven. They all leave for the country, to educate
her in the privacy of Noirceuil's country house.
Noirceuil announces that he wishes to indulge in a curious
fancy.
I should like to get married, not once, but twice on the same
day. At ten 0 clock in the morning, I wish to dress as a woman
and marry a man; at noon, wearing male dress, I wish to marry
a female role homosexual dressed as my bride . . . I wish,
furthermore, to have a woman do the same as I do, and what
other woman but you, Juliette, could take part in this game?
You, dressed as a woman, must marry a woman dressed as a
man at the same ceremony where I, dressed as a woman,
become the wife of a man. Next, dressed as a man, you will
marry another woman wearing female attire at the same time
that I go to the altar to be united in holy wedlock with a
catamite disguised as a girl.
Her own daughter will marry Juliette when Juliette is

dressed as a man; Noirceuil will marry a son and then a
daughter of his own. The ceremonies are carried out. They
are followed by the slaughter of all the children; these sterile
marriages produce, not births, but infanticide.
This charade of sexual anarchy, this gross parody of
marriage, this demonstration of the relative mutability of
gender, with its culmination in child-murder carried out in a
maenad frenzy, is Juliette's annihilation of her residual
'femaleness'; it is, psychologically and emotionally, the
climax of her career. Although the narrative continues for a
few pages more after this extraordinary episode, she herself
has reached her apogee and become the type of criminal
female libertine who has cauterised the wounds of her own
castration and become a source of pure power. Justine 's life
was a pilgrimage; Juliette's is a battle campaign with, as its
final victory, the conquest of all disgust, horror, super
stition, prejudice - and finally, humanity.
When she hurls her daughter into the fire, as she does, she
is, at last, absolutely free from any lingering traces of the
human responses that can only be learned through the
society of others who are not accomplices, who are not
aspects of the self that confirm the omnipotence of the self.
She has indeed attained the lonely freedom of the libertine,
which is the freedom of the outlaw, a tautological condition
that exists only for itself and is without any meaning in the
general context of human life. Sade's irony suggests that
only those who make the laws may inherit this freedom; the
moral of Juliette's life suggests the paradox of the hangman
- in a country where the hangman rules, only the hangman
escapes punishment for his crimes.
Juliette lives in a country where the hangman rules. The
hangman is god, the king and the law itself; the hangman is
the representative of a patriarchal order which is unjust not
because such an order specifically oppresses women but
because it is oppressive in itself, since it confines power to a
single dominant class. Juliette survives and prospers in this
country because she has identified all her interests with
those of the hangman.
For Noirceuil and not she has been the instigator of this
extraordinary game of dressing up and gender trans
formation, and he is careful to omit certain elaborations
that would truly suggest an anarchy of the sexes - that, for
example, Juliette, as a man, should marry he himself, as a
woman; not for one moment, even in fantasy, could he allow
Juliette to act out that kind of class dominance over him
self. For all her aggression, in spite of her dominance over
others, Juliette remains a contingent being in relation to
N oirceuil, her protector. She depends on his approval; she
does as he bids, and her final act of defeminisation is
prompted and approved by him.
But now she and Noirceuil proceed to dizzying crimes;
they poison a well, and spread devastation throughout the
province. They are comrades. They exult in their power of
distributing death. As a result of throwing in her lot with
the hangman, Juliette has become the hangman herself.
Her autobiography in her own words concludes here. Now
the narrative reverts to the third person, in order to report
the second version of the death of Justine in an objective
style. Justine is to die, again, in an atrocious fashion.
A storm rages outside. The company turns its attention to
Juliette 's weeping sister; she is thrust out into the tempest
and at once a thunderbolt enters her mouth and bursts out
through her vagina. She is dead. Juliette and her com
panions laugh to see how the thunderbolt has ravaged her
and commit derisory necrophilies upon her corpse. After a
few aphorisms on the negative rewards of virtue, they leave
her in the rain and return to the house. Nature has killed
Justine in a parody of the act of giving birth.
A coach now arrives at the mansion and from it descends,
wonder . of wonders, Durand, alive and well and, besides,
bringing with her all the revenues that Juliette had aban
doned in Venice. She escaped death by acceding to the
request of the Republic and infecting the city with plague;
she stifled her reluctance and asked for Juliette 's funds as a
bonus payment. The two women embrace; to the j oys of
wealth they add those of friendship and of passionate
attachment.
Now good news rains in from all sides. A courtier arrives
from Versailles; Noirceuil has been made Prime Minister
and shares his good fortune with his friends, distributing
money and offices with a lordly hand. All ends in a splendid
banquet and orgy. They return to Paris, to rule the country.
Juliette will continue her glittering career; until, at about
the time of her climacteric, she will die, suddenly, like a
meteor that is suddenly extinguished.
II D E ATH O F T H E G O D D E S S
Justine i s the holy virgin; Juliette i s the profane whore. I f

Juliette has notably fewer spiritual great-granddaughters
than her sister in the imaginary brothel where ideas of
women are sold, then perhaps it serves to show how much in
love with the idea of the blameless suffering of women we all
are, men and women both. Juliette never pretends to be
blameless. On the contrary, she glories in her crimes,
especially in their gratuitousness, and eschews guilt as if it
were her victims who should be guilty at their stupidity in
falling into her clutches. Since she specialises in realpolitik,
it is not surprising that she is more like a real woman than
Justine could ever be, and bequeathed only a now outmoded
model - that of the vamp - to the image industry. Her ap
pearances as Miss Stern, or Dolores, Lady of Pain, are role
playing; Miss Stern existed before Juliette and, as a
sexually specialised fantasy, is never either more or less
with us.
And, shorn of her menacing apparatus of flagellatory
machines, poisons and cunt-cracking dildos that suggest
men are supererogatory, Juliette stands for the good old
virtues of self-reliance and self-help; 'looking after Number
One', as we say in Britain. She is an advertisement of the
advantages of free enterprise and her successes in business -
her gambling houses, brothels and dispensaries thrive, her
investments always yield fruitful returns - are so many
examples of the benefits of a free market economy. And not
only does she illustrate the advantages of self-help but also
of mutual aid. Self-reliant as she is, where would Juliette be
without the friends who advise her investments, protect her
from the law and warn her when the time comes, as it must
come sooner or later in the life of every entrepreneur, to cut
her losses and flee to the anonymous securities of her Swiss
bank account?
Her satiric function, then, is obvious. The prosperity of
crime depends on the fiscal morality of a market-place red in
tooth and claw. Juliette is equally criminal in all her
dealings, financial as well as sexual. She exploits everyone;
no one escapes. The methods of her exploitation are the
conventional ones. If Justine 's image gave birth to several
generations of mythically suffering blondes, Juliette's
image ties behind the less numinous prospect of a board
room full of glamorous and sexy lady executives.
Juliette is of the world, worldly. The main chance is her
modus vivendi. Her sexual affairs are engaged in either for
profit or for fun; she is contemptuous, embarrassed by
professions of love. When I think of Juliette, when I try to
imagine what she might look like in a restaurant or a night
club in late twentieth-century London or New York, when i
put her behind a red leather desk high up in one of the
corporate palaces of multinational corporations, tetchily
telephoning her stockbroker or, most strikingly, inter
viewing a secretary, male or female, eyeing the applicant
with the canny eye of a farmer in the beast market, I see no
more resonant image than that of the Cosmopolitan girl -
hard, bright, dazzling, meretricious. She plays to win, this
one; she knows the score. Her femininity is part of the
armoury of self-interest.
Juliette's image has less poetic resonance than that of her
sister because its heiresses have inherited a modicum of the
power available in the world now. She is the token woman in
person. N oirceuil told her how it must be so: ' . . . intellect,
talents, wealth and influence raise some of the weak from
the class into which Nature placed them; as soon as these
exceptions enter the class of the strong, they acquire all the
rights of the strong. Now tyranny, oppression, impunity
from the law and the liberal exercise of every crime are fully
permitted to them. '
However, Juliette is also something more than this. "The
suffering sisterhood of imitation Justines all lack the most
singular quality of their progenitor, one it is easy to lose
sight of among the misfortunes. Fate rains on Justine.
For Justine is extraordinarily single-minded. This single-
mindedness makes her a rebel against that Fate that
mistreats her; she is in revolt, even, against human nature
itself, or, rather, against a view of human nature as
irredeemably corrupt. Justine would say, as all good
revolutionaries have said: 'Even if it is so, then it should not
be so ', and, though she is too pusillanimous to do anything
about it, she never deviates from her frail and lonely stand,
from the idea that men and women need not riecessarily be
wicked. And to think of Juliette perfectly at home in the
twentieth century, telephoning call-girls for her company's
clients, is to purposely overlook the same single-mindedness
that gives the girls their curious family resemblance.
Juliette is single-mindedly destructive. Her careerist
efficiency is a mask for her true subversiveness: her en
thusiasm for systems, organisation and self-control conceals
her intuition for entropy, for the reinstitution of a primal
chaos, her passion for volcanoes. The sisters exist in a
complex dialectic with one another; the experience of one
makes plain the experience of the other. The innocent
Justine is punished by a law she believes is just; the crime
soiled Juliette is rewarded because she undermines the
notion of justice on which the law is allegedly based.
If Juliette is ruthless with her creditors, her clients and
those who foolishly seek charity from her, she is also
ruthless with herself. She desecrates everything, including
herself. She overcomes all barriers of fear, shame and guilt
in the business of her life, of her career of self-enhancement.
She is the embodiment of that merciless excess, that
overreaching will to absolute power that carries within it
the seeds of its own destruction because in this world,
unhappily, there are no absolutes. Justine is a pilgrimage of
the soul in search of God written by an atheist; Juliette is a
version of Faust written by a man who believed that, if man
exists, we do not need to invent the devil.
Juliette, Delbene, Clairwil, Borghese, Charlotte of Naples
and the unhistoric Catherine the Great who appears in
Brisatesta's narrative are exceptional women, so ex-
1 04 The Sadeian Woman
ceptional it is easy to mistake them for female im
personators. Mary Wollstonecraft remarked that she had
been 'led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who
have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit
prescribed to their sex were male spirits, confined by
mistake in female frames. ' The virility of these demonic
whores - they use the word, 'whore', as a term of endearment
for one another almost as often as they affectionately call
one another 'buggeress' - suggests male appetites; but,
since the avidity of the male appetite is a social fiction, their
very insatiability is a mark of their feminity. Clairwil, the
man-hater, can exhaust the combined pricks of all the
inhabitants of the monastery of the Carmelites, since this
insatiability has in itself a castratory function. Male
sexuality exhausts itself in its exertion; Clairwil unmans
men by fucking them and then retires to the inexhaustible
arms of her female lovers.
For these women, the living prick and the manufactured
dildo are interchangeable. Both are simply sources of
pleasure; the body itself, to which the prick is or has been
attached, is no more than a machine for the production of
sensation. The world of Juliette is a mechanistic one, even if
she and her friends are machine-minders rather than
machines themselves, although they define their own
pleasure in mechanical terms, so much friction, so many
concussions of the nerves. They are the recipients of a
technological approach to biology which ensures that
Juliette herself is living proof that biology is not destiny,
since biology may be so easily emended.
Yet Juliette is more technically a woinan than her sister
because she bears a child. Justine 's inability to conceive is
evidence of her invulnerable virginity and she never gives a
thought to her reproductive function. Juliette, on the
contrary, is fertile. The contraceptive techniques of her
time, the sponges inserted in the vagina, the suppositories,
the evasion of vaginal penetration, are incorporated into her
hygiene. If she should prove unlucky, there is the midwife
with her long needle and concoctions of juniper. She aborts
an inconvenient foetus; but is prepared to bring to term the
child who will ensure her inheritance from the Count de
Lorsanges, although she abandons and eventually murders
this daughter. Neglect and infanticide are the formal im
perfections of Juliette's mothering. They render her
mothering invalid.
Her acknowledgement of her fecundity and her refusal to
conceive transforms both the form and the content of the
act of love itself, just as her refusal to ' act as a mother
changes the nature of the fact that she has given birth. Anal
intercourse was, at that time, a capital crime in France
because it robbed sexuality of its reproductive aspect;
therefore Juliette 's enthusiasm for buggery is a subversive
use of her own reproductive organs. She is happy to ignore
them in the pursuit of pleasure, and, to the pleasure of the
flesh, she adds the moral pleasure of a sin against God. Each
time she offers her backside to a new lover, she commits an
irreligious sacrilege.
Sacrilege is essential to these Sadeian women. The Abbess
Delbene loves to get herself fucked upon a coffin in a crypt.
In the chapel of the Carmelites, Juliette and Clairwil shit
upon crucifixes after the wafer and the wine have been
inserted in their fundaments, a comprehensive and
ingenious blasphemy. In Rome, Braschi, the Pope, buggers
Juliette with a consecrated wafer which has been placed on ·
the tip of his prick. Juliette accomplishes a long-cherished
ambition in the Vatican; she has desecrated the holiest
sanctum of the Roman church and had an instrumental part
in buggering the Host Himself, with all the verb 's con
notations of contempt, violence and anger. She is a little
blasphemous guerilla of demystification in the Chapel.
She uses sex as an instrument of terror; death is more
frequently the result of it than birth. She lobs her sex at men
and women as if it were a hand grenade; it will always blow
up in their faces. She is a token woman in high places; she is
engaged in destroying those high places all the time that she
is enjoying the pastimes they offer. She engages in mur
derous orgies with the Pope and then robs him. She will turn
on her friend, Borghese, and toss her into the crater of a
volcano. When something better offers itself, she views the
death of her beloved Clairwil without regret. And, all the
time, she is never in less than full control of her physical self
and she has chosen infertility as a way of life because she
has chosen sexuality as terrorism as a way of life.
Juliette's infertility is not modified by the fact of giving
birth because, under her veneer of acquiescence with the
law, she subverts that patriarchal and hereditary institution
by denying it her use value, that is, her womb, and the
nourishment provided by her breasts.
There is a world of difference between a helplessly barren
woman and a purposely infertile one. A woman who remains
childless in spite of her own wishes may feel herself bereft
and uncompleted, a sub-standard product of the assembly
line of nature, who is only a passenger in the world because
she has been denied a fertility she feels is part and parcel of
her own nature. Rack her brains as she might, she cannot
think of any other use for a women except as a breeder; if
she cannot breed, what is she to do? She may think fertility
is her birthright, the sign of a theoretical womanhood that
gives her a hypothetical pre-eminence over men who may
seed the human race but cannot, in themselves, nourish it.
This theory of maternal superiority is one of the most
damaging of all consolatory fictions and women themselves
cannot leave it alone, although it springs from the timeless,
placeless, fantasy land of archetypes where all the em
bodiments of biological supremacy live. It puts those
women who wholeheartedly subscribe to it in voluntary
exile from the historic world, this world, in its historic time
that is counted out minute by minute, in which no event or
circumstance of life exists for itself but is deternuned by an
interlocking web of circumstances, where actions achieve
effects and my fertility is governed by my diet, the age at
which I reached puberty, my bodily juices, my decisions -
not by any benevolent magics.
Because she is the channel of life, woman as mythic
mother lives at one remove from life. A woman who defines
herself through her fertility has no other option. So a woman
who feels she has been deprived of motherhood is trebly
deprived - of children; of the value of herself as mother; and
of her own self, as autonomous being.
But a woman who has chosen infertility does not feel this
deprivation. All the same, she is not a surrogate man. By no
means. All of her, her breasts, her cunt, her innards, are
perfectly female - perhaps more perfectly so, from the point
of view of aesthetics, than those of a woman who has borne
children. But the significance of these things is completely
altered.
We are living in a period where this alteration of
significance is under debate in a variety of ways. Techniques
of contraception and surgically safe abortion have given
women the choice to be sexually active yet intentionally
infertile for more of their lives than was possible at any time
in history until now. This phenomenon is most apparent in
those industrialised countries where the social position of
women has been a subject of dissension since the late
eighteenth century and the beginning of the industrial
revolution; indeed, the introduction of contraception is part
of the change in the position of women over the last two
centuries. But all this speculation does not seem to have
lessened the shock of the psychic impact of the division
between the female body and the fact of child-bearing. It
ought to seem self-evident that this body need not
necessarily bear children but the trace-effects of several
millenia during which this fact was not self-evident at all,
since it was continually obscured by enforced pregnancies,
have clothed the female body almost inpenetrably with a
kind of mystification, of kitschification, that removes it
almost from the real or physiological fact.
Consider the womb, the 'inner productive space ', as Erik
Erikson calls it, the extensible realm sited in the penetrable
flesh, most potent matrix of all mysteries . The great, good
place; domain of futurity in which the embryo forms itself
from the flesh and blood of its mother; the unguessable
reaches of the sea are a symbol of it, and so are caves, those
dark, sequestered places where initiation and revelation
take place. Men long for it and fear it; the womb, that
comfortably elastic organ, is a fleshly link between past and
future, the physical location of an everlasting present tense
that can usefully serve as a symbol of eternity, a concept
that has always presented some difficulties in visualisation.
The hypothetical dream-time of the foetus seems to be the
best that we can do.
For men, to fuck is to have some arcane commerce with
this place of ultimate privilege, where, during his lengthy
but unremembered stay, he was nourished, protected, lulled
to sleep by the beating of his mother 's heart and not ex
pected to do a stroke of work, a repose, of course, not unlike
that of a corpse, except that a foetus's future lies before it.
And the curious resemblance between the womb and the
grave lies at the roots of all human ambivalence towards
both the womb and its bearer; we mediate our experience
through imagination and dream but sometimes the dream
gets in the way of the experience, and obscures it completely
- the womb is the First and Last Place, earth, the greatest
mother of them all, from whom we come, to whom we go.
(Unless we more hygienically decide to resolve ourselves to
fire - imagery, however, from a different religious structure
than that of Western European culture and difficult to
reconcile with it. It will be a long time before the idea of the
crematorium transcends its pedestrian function, that of
burning corpses, and becomes as numinous as the
graveyard.
The womb is the earth and also the grave of being; it is the
warm, moist, dark, inward, secret, forbidden, fleshly core of
the unknowable labyrinth of our experience. Curiously, it is
the same for both men and women, because the foetus is
either male or female, though sometimes both; but only men
are supposed to feel a holy dread before its hairy portals.
Only men are privileged to return, even if only partially and
intermittently, to this place of fleshly extinction; and that is
why they have a better grasp of eternity and abstract
concepts than we do.
They want it for themselves, of course. But not, of course,
a real one, with all the mess and inconvenience that goes
with it. The womb is an imaginative locale and has an
imaginative location far away from my belly, beyond my
'
flesh, beyond my house, beyond this city, this society,
this economic structure - it lies in an area of psychic
metaphysiology suggesting such an anterior primacy of the
womb that our poor dissecting tools of reason blunt on its
magnitude before they can even start on the j ob. This inner
space must have been there before any of the outer places; in
the beginning was the womb and its periodic and haphazard
bleedings are so many signs that it has a life of its own,
unknowable to us. This is the most sacred of all places.
Women are sacred because they possess it. That, as Justine
would have known if she had thought about it, is why they
are treated so badly for nothing can defile the sacred.
Sade 's invention of Juliette is an emphatic denial of this
entrancing rhetoric. For rhetoric it is, compounded out of
several millenia of guesses and fantasies about the nature of
the world. The truth of the womb is, that it is an organ like
any other organ, more useful than the appendix, less useful
than the colon but not much use to you at all if you do not
wish to utilise its sole function, that of bearing children. At
the best of times, it is apt to malfunction and cause
sickness, pain and inconvenience. The assertion of this
elementary fact through the means of a fictional woman
involves an entire process of demystification and denial, in
which far more than the demystification, the secularisation
of women is involved.
To deny the bankrupt enchantments of the womb is to
pare a good deal of the fraudulent magic from the idea of
women, to reveal us as we are, simple creatures of flesh and
blood whose expectations deviate from biological necessity
sufficiently to force us to abandon, perhaps regretfully,
perhaps with relief, the deluded priestesshood of a holy
reproductive function. This demystification extends to the
biological iconography of women.
The breasts remain, but must be encountered, now, as
breasts, not as the balcony of the goddess from whence she
magisterially addresses her devotees in a metalanguage of
self-adulation. They are no longer the general rendezvous of
love and hunger, inspiring a Pavlovian response of need, but
the specific breasts of a specific woman. One must not
generalise about any breasts any more. To generalise is to
lose the woman to whom they belong. They may remind
both men and women of their own mother 's breasts but
these were also the lac�atory glands of a specific woman and
in her specificness alone resides their significance. Inside
the belly, the womb, the ovaries and the Fallopian tubes
remain; however, the ovaries and the Fallopian tubes have
never, for some reason, been enriched with such a queasy
burden of overvaluation as the womb, although child
bearing would be impossible without them. All this ap
paratus remains; but a voluntary sterility, freely chosen,
makes them of as little and as great significance as any
other part of the human body without which it is possible to
survive.
The goddess is dead.
And, with the imaginary construct of the goddess, dies
the notion of eternity, whose place on this earth was her
womb. If the goddess is dead, there is nowhere for eternity
to hide. The last resort of homecoming is denied us. We are
confronted with mortality, as if for the first time.
There is no way out of time. We must learn to live in this
world, to take it with sufficient seriousness, because it is the
only world that we will ever know.
I think this is why so many people find the idea of the
emancipation of women frightening. It represents the final
secularisation of mankind. The old j oke of the early sixties -
the astronaut, returning from heaven, describes God: 'This
may come as a bit of a shock, but she 's black - was a last
queasy attempt to put something transcendental, at least
up there, even if the Supreme Being was doubly devalued,
by virtue of Her sex and Her race. With the death of the
goddess go the last shreds of the supernatural. With
apologies to Appollinaire, I do not think I want Juliette to
renew my world; but, her work of destruction complete, she
will, with her own death, have removed a repressive and
authoritarian superstructure that has prevented a good deal
of the work of renewal. For Juliette, secularised as she is, is
in the service of the goddess, too, even if of the goddess in
her demonic aspect, the goddess as antithesis.
III THE PHALLIC M O T H E R
Durand i s i n her late forties. She has arrived a t post

menopausal sterility and exists purely as a being of flesh
and reason. She cannot reproduce, even if she wanted to.
This is also the condition of the four brilliant whores who
survive the holocaust at the Castle of Silling in The Hun
dred and Twenty Days at Sodom, women whose intellectual
rapacity and sexual omnivorousness is the equal of that of
Juliette and her friends. All these women are well past the
age of child-bearing and child-bearing has never been a
major factor in their lives. For preference, the whores,
Madame Champville, Madame Martaine, Madame Duclos
and Madame Desgranges , utilise the anus , the unisexual
orifice; that of Madame Desgranges, in particular, has
become extremely capacious through use. Sin and contra
ception aside, anal intercourse has an egalitarian lure for
Sade. If sexual relations are implicitly political in Sade, the
sexual act, among equals, is one of mutual if sequential
dominance. Now the woman, now the man, penetrates and is
penetrated in turn; gender itself can become inter
changeable, as in the sexual charade that concludes
Juliette 's career. The homosexual de Bressac told Justine
how much he enj oyed becoming a woman for the purposes of
sex; Dolmance, the erotic tutor in Philosophy in the
Boudoir, enjoys experiencing his anus as a vagina. The
female libertines, as Zarathustra recommended, never
forget their whips when visiting; but they never leave
behind their dildos, either.
And the four whores in The Hundred and Twenty Days at
Sodom are more virile, in many respects, than the libertines
who employ them. Durcet, the banker, with his vestigial tits
and soft buttocks, is a singularly equivocal figure. But
Madame Champville has a clitoris capable of erecting itself
three inches , the extent of Durcet 's own erection. This
flexible clitoris-cum-prick is in ironic contrast to some of the
pricks of the male sexual slaves at the Castle, which are of
such a size that they cannot penetrate a woman at all, and
are so many meaningless appendages, signs of a masculinity
so gross it exceeds its own purpose.
Erectile clitorida are a feature of Sade 's tribades; they are
reminiscent in this respect of certain African tribeswomen
whose labia minora and clitorida are artificially elongated
until they resemble male genitals. Volmar, an inhabitant of
the convent where Juliette was educated, is equipped with a
three inch-long clitoris that enables her to penetrate other
women both vaginally and anally; of voracious sexual ap
petites, she must either be a nymphomaniac or a sodomite
or else cease to fuck at all. By exercising a Sadeian right to
fuck, she automatically flies in the face of Nature whatever
she does.
Durand is the queen of all these androgynes. She is 'the
most remarkable libertine of her century '. She is handsome,
with superb breasts, an enormous clitoris and an ob
struction of the vagina which has prevented her from ever
engaging in orthodox heterosexual intercourse in all her life.
The way to her womb is blocked.
Though she cannot make babies, she can make corpses.
'She takes a box out of her pocket and sprinkles the
Sexuality as Terrorism 1 13
cemetery with the powder the box contained' relates
Juliette. 'All at once, the ground was scattered with
corpses . ' These magical performances suggest that
Durand is beginning to approach the strangeness of an anti
myth of mothering. In the place of a reproductive function,
she has acquired an absolute mastery of the physical world.
She has exchanged motherhood for domination. 'All Nature
obeys my orders, because she always submits herself to the
will of those who uncover her secrets, ' she tells Juliette. She
is a scientist; it is the discipline of the scientific method that
has brought her to this pitch.
If she could but lay her hands on the one poison plant she
knows would do the trick, she has the ability to destroy the
entire earth; she is the ecological crisis in person. She can
propagate epidemics; poison wells; slaughter cattle; destroy
villages; infect the Republic of Venice with a fatal plague.
She has invented an entire pharmacopoeia of poisons and, if
she procures a handsome profit from their sale, she is also
moved in her research by an impulse of pure misanthropy.
She would like, she confides to Juliette, to destroy
everything.
In her house, the rich immolate the poor with the aid of
baroque machinery, amongst picturesque decors similar to
those of the ballets of the period. She is a choreographer of
life and death. And, although she works her macabre
miracles with the aid of science, she has about her a
theatrical whiff of black magic. Her laboratory and her
garden of venomous plants are those of the medieval
alchemlst and the witch-herbalist. She calls up sylphs and
spirits with incantatory formulae. She practises divination,
the antique practice of woman as oracle and seer; a mother
figure is reproduced in the form of a goddess of destiny in
Jean Thenaud's sixteenth century Traite de la Cabale, yet
Durand derives much of her style from the fashionable
necromancy of the late eighteenth century. She is both a
cabalistic enigma and diabolism d la mode.
Juliette falls in love with her at first sight when she meets
her in Paris; but, the next time Juliette visits Durand 's
house, the windows are shuttered, it is deserted. No matter
how hard she tries, she cannot find out what has become of
the sorceress, who has vanished with a magic and complete
precipitation, to reappear again just as mysteriously in
Italy. Even though she has been condemned to death,
Durand will magically resurrect herself to crown Juliette's
final good fortune; her capacity for appearance and
disappearance exceeds even the generous limits of the
picaresque novel so that, for all her invocations of science,
her outlines are subtly blurred with the supernatural even if
the god she invokes for Juliette and Clairwil turns out to be
a mortal phallus.
She treats science as if it were magic. She uses her
discoveries for personal gratification and for financial
profit, just as Dr Faustus in Marlowe 's play did with the
powers for which he exchanged his soul. She has made, of
forbidden knowledge, a service industry.
However, the more one examines this ambivalent and
terrifying woman, the more unreal she becomes, the more
like a reformulation of the goddess in the terms of a dif
ferent reading of her iconography. Durand comes to
resemble a mother indeed, but not the adult sen
timentalization of the memory of the protective mother;
rather, she is the omnipotent mother of early childhood who
gave and withheld love and nourishment at whim, as it
seemed to us. The cruel mother, huge as a giantess, the
punishment giver, the one who makes you cry.
But Durand, final terror, is not only infertile but also
unapproachable; she may not be entered by the ante
chamber of the womb. She is therefore unappeasable.
I t is as if the milk from her superb breasts had been
transformed into poisons when Nature imperiously denied
access to her interior. The ambiguous affirmation of
Durand's breasts recalls .the fantasies of the small boys
described by Bruno Bettelheim, who believed that women
could suckle themselves. These boys were envious of breasts
independently of lactation, says Bettelheim; they viewed
them as sources of strength and power in themselves.
This power is perilous. Durand is like a version of the
Terrible Mother, the Hindu goddess, Kali, who stands for
both birth and death, and not only destruction but Nature's
cruel indifference to suffering. Clairwil and Juliette, like
Tantric devotees of Kali, engage in sexual rituals in a
graveyard, at Durand 's instigation. Kali herself dances
upon severed heads, j uggles with limbs, wears necklaces of
skulls and copulates with corpses. Snakes issue from her
vulva.
Durand is as destructive as Kali, a sumptuous infecundity
whose masterpieces are plagues.
In Durand, the Enlightenment returns to pure myth
ology. Reason overreaches itself and turns �to the
opposite of reason. Scientific order, ruthlessly applied,
reduces the world to chaos. Durand, the rational biochemist,
is the very mythic terror t.hat reason fears most.
But her mothering passic;m for Juliette serves to reassure
us that her ambivalence is inconsistent and, though she has
an infinite capacity for destruction, she will not use her
poisons and magics against us, whom she loves. If Durand 's
penetrable vagina, the road back to the solace of the womb,
is inaccessible, that is because it has been turned inside out,
has become the clitoris that Juliette, when she first sees it,
at once begins to suck, as though it were a teat.
Durand is a virile and non-productive mother, who
chooses her own children and seduces them, too. She is a
mother with a phallus; she can rape even nature itself. The
dead goddess resurrects herself in the form of her antithesis , _
not a s cherishing and nourishment but absence and hunger.
Or, rather, as cherishing for some and absence for others.
But Juliette has Durand's promise this mother will never
desert her. Unlike Justine, Juliette is not an orphan in the
world. She is intimately related to the origins of chaos and
so she will be protected from it, until it repossesses her.
four
T H E S C H O O L O F LOVE :
T H E E DU C A T I ON
OF A F E M A L E O E D I PUS
The aggressive impulses o f little girls leave nothing to

be desired in the way of abundance and violence.
New Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, No. Three:

'Femininity : Sigmund Freud
I MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS
Philosophy in the Boudoir i s not a picaresque epic novel.

It is a dramatic interlude, on a very much smaller scale
than the novels and very much less cluttered and
repetitious in style. Its manner is intimate and domestic,
its setting a boudoir as elegant and civilised as those in
the pictures of Watteau and Fragonard. The characters,
with the exception of a gardener, are all of Sade's own
class and the atmosphere of the piece has the elegant
depravity of Laclos ' Les Liaisons Dangereuses. If, out
side, they are selling pamphlets on the steps of the Palace
of E quality, inside, in the privileged boudoir, the ladies
and gentlemen still pleasure themselves at leisure.
At the conclusion of Philosophy in the Boudoir, a young
The School of Love 117
girl, Eugenie de Mistival, commits a gross sexual assault
upon her mother. Though it is performed with obscene
relish, this monstrous act is primarily occasioned by
vengeance, rather than lust. The girl rapes her mother
because the woman has attempted to curtail Eugenie's
sexual experience. The woman who does not wish to
permit others to engage in sexual activity for the sake of
pleasure must herself have sex inflicted on her as
retribution, as a form of punishment uniquely fitted for
her crime against pleasure.
Eugenie, however, goes much further than a simple rape.
She first rapes her and then sews up her mother 's genital
orifice with needle and thread, as though she must ef
fectively annihilate her mother's sexuality before she herself
can be free. It would seem that, in some sense, her mother 's
sexuality menaces her own. The mother wishes Eugenie to
behave as if her sexual organs were St tied and therefore
Eugenie seals up her mother, to remove the possibility of
rivalry, the only reason her mother might possibly have to
wish to repress her daughter 's sexuality.
King Oedipus ' transgressions were mother-incest and
parricide; when he found out what he had done, he blinded
himself, that is, underwent a symbolic castration. Eugenie,
unlike Oedipus, acts in the knowledge she is committing a
crime. Her crime is the culmination of her search for
knowledge. She fucks her mother out of vengeance and so
finds herself in the position of a female Oedipus but she is
not blinded, she is enlightened; then, in spite and rage, she
seals up the organs of generation that bore her and so en
sures that her mother will not fuck again with anyone.
Philosophy in the Boudoir is a detailed account of the
erotic education of a Sadeian heroine. The basis of the plot is
Eugenie 's relation to her mother and her final ambivalent
triumph over the female principle as typified in the
reproductive function. The mother has burst angrily into
the profane academy, the school of love, during her
daughter's initiation in order to rescue her daughter from
sexual experience; her punishment is rape, infection and
infibulation.
The narrative, composed in a series of seven dialogues in
dramatic form, begins when Eugimie, fifteen years old,
arrives at the boudoir of Madame de Saint-Ange, her
libertine father's mistress, eager for instruction. Innocence
is not her quality. She is already engaged in a lesbian affair
with Saint-Ange. But she is ignorant and has come to the
older woman to be instructed, with her father's knowledge,
against her mother's wishes. Saint-Ange intends to spare
nothing to 'pervert her, degrade her, demolish in her all the
false ethical notions with which they (her mother's friends)
have been able to dull her . '
The voluptuous Saint-Ange, a widow of twenty-six, has
employed as fellow tutors her brother, the Chevalier de
Mirvel. and the libertine Dolmance. Dolmance, a lover of the
Chevalier, has succumbed to Saint-Ange 's invitation only in
order to take the opportunity of sodomising her; he refuses
to approach women by any other orifice than the unnatural
one. He will preside over Saint-Ange 's little academy. The
course will encompass both theory and practice. Saint-Ange
intends her brother to depucelate Eugenie 's frontal orifice,
Dolmance to deal with her anus. These deflorations are duly
performed, to Eugenie's delight.
Saint-Ange and the cynical Dolmance share that sensual
rapacity which is the mark of the Sadeian libertine. The
Chevalier, though equally adroit sexually, yet retains a
sense of the injustice of their voluptuous privilege, and,
curiously enough, is not punished for announcing this,
although his sermon is ignored. It is he who will introduce
politics into the lessons. But the purpose of the gathering is
primarily this: to strip Eugenie of all her socialised virtues
and to restore her to the primal and vicious state of nature.
Her education has regression rather than maturation as its
goal.
She is given an anatomy lesson in which Saint-Ange's
body serves as a blackboard. She is instructed in the func-
tion of the clitoris and told that all a woman's powers of
sensation lie there. Dolmance 's prick and balls are
demonstrated to her and she is taught how to masturbate
him. The physiology of sex, however, takes up very little of
their time. The strenuous and protracted orgies, conducted
with military precision and clockwork timing, are punc
tuated by philosophical sermons on the family, on marriage,
contraception, abortion, prostitution, cruelty and love. The
virile and handsome gardener joins them for some of the
sexual activity but he is prudently ordered out of the room
while Chevalier reads aloud the political pamphlet: Yet
Another Effort, Frenchmen, if you Would Become
Republican. This pamphlet occupies between a third and a
half of the text of the entire piece. During the revolution of
1848, it was extracted from its pornographic context and
republished by the followers of the Utopian, Saint-Simon.
The opinions expressed in it are republican and atheist;
they are the blueprints for a society where the laws are 'so
mild, so few, that all men, whatever their character, can
easily keep them '. In this society, women are held in
common; but also hold men in common:
If we admit . . . that all women should submit to our desires,

surely we ought also to allow them to fully satisfy their
own . . . Charming sex, you will be free; just as men do, you
shall enjoy all the pleasures that Nature makes your duty, do
not withhold yourselves from one. Must the diviner part of
mankind be kept in chains by the other? Ah, break those bonds;
nature wills it. Have no other curb than your tastes, no other
laws than those of your own desires, no more morality than
that of Nature herself. Languish no more under those bar
barous prejudices that wither your charms and imprison the
divine impulses of your heart; you are as free as we are and the
career of the battles of Venus as open to you as to us.
Sade does not concern himself with problems of capital

investment or economic organisation in the hypothetical
republic; those are not his areas of concern. He is concerned ,
to forge a libertarian sexuality and the libertines listen with
approval. Eugenie 's education will take this lesson into
account; if it does not leave her in possession of the liberty
the pamphlet attempts to describe, then she will go out into
the world in possession of a certain qualified freedom, the
most the historical circumstances of the time can offer. This
qualified freedom may not be attained without a process
similar to an initiation. Almost as soon as she arrives in the
boudoir, she gives us a clue as to who it is who must be
sacrificed before her initiation is complete.
E UGENIE: • • • every day I see before me an abomim�ble creature I 've

wanted in her grave for years.
SAINT-ANGE: I think I can guess who that might be.
EUGENIE: Who do you suspect?
SAINT-ANGE: Your mother?
EUGENIE: Oh, let me hide my blushes in your bosom!
Eugenie's tutors apply rational science to the discussion of

this antipathy. Since rationality is also relative, the science
to which they refer is, in fact, incorrect. Saint-Ange opines
that, because 'the foetus owes its existence only to the
man 's sperm ', filial tenderness is naturally reserved entirely
for the father. This theory was general scientific currency of
the period. The animalculists, or spermists, who believed
the spermatozoa were of more significance than the ova in
the process of conception, had returned to the classical
theory of Aeschylus: t�e parent is the male, the mother only
'the nurse of the young life that is sown within her '. This
devaluation of the actual biological status of women in
dicates how far prejudice can invalidate certain scientific
theorising before it even begins. On this biological misin- ,
terpretation, Sade builds an edifice of mother-hatred.
DOLMANCE: I am not yet consoled for my father 's death; when I lost
my mother, I lit a perfect bonfire for joy . . . formed uniquely out
of the blood of our fathers, we owe nothing at all to our mothers.
All they did was to co-operate in the act which our fathers urged
them to. So, it was the father who desired our birth; the mother
only consents to it.
There is no virtue in the accidental creativity of the mother

since fecundity itself i s not a necessary part of the natural

scheme of things, says Sade. Nature does not urge
procreation but merely tolerates it; Saint-Ange urges
Eugenie to avoid conception by whatever means she can.
However, once the homunculus has been deposited within a
woman, she herself is in sole charge of it. Now she may
exercise a free choice as to what she intends to do with it.
'We are always mistress of what we carry in our womb , '
says Saint-Ange. She must not dread the idea of abortion, if
that is what she so wishes. (Attempted abortion and in
fanticide were both capital crimes in Franee at the time,
also.)
Sade is content to deny any significance to the activity of
the physical mother beyond the fact of the ripening of the
embryo in her body. Since he seeks a complete divorce
between sexuality and reproduction, he does not see any
value in physical mothering at all. Moral mothering, the
care and education of children, is a different matter and
should be left to those who have shown themselves com
petent at it; besides, if the sexual liberty he wishes to see in
the Republic is put into practice, legitimacy will cease to be
a legal fact and the nuclear family itself will wither away.
Further, one must take into account the child, whose
existence is Mother 's sole claim to distinction in the world.
The existence of the child is essential to the notion of
motherhood but the child has had even less choice in the
matter than its mother has. In this enforced and in
voluntary relationship, how can mother and child be
anything but enemies? E specially when a girl child grasps
the fact of her mother 's passive acquiescence in her con
ception, and, in Freudian terms, realises that her mother is
castrated?
Let Eugenie, then, savagely restore to her mother the
phallus ' she lacks, mocking her mother's gratuitous
fecundity with a mechanical implement that will no�
fecundate her. Eugenie will fuck her with a cunt-cracking
dildo. 'Come, dear lovely Mama, come, let me treat you like
a husband. ' Euglmie takes on the sexual aggressiveness of
her father by mimicking her father; she exhibits a naive
triumph at the speed and completeness with which she has
superseded the condition of female passivity to which she
had been trained.
As Dolmance penetrates her anally while she inflicts the
artificial penis with which he has equipped her upon her
mother, Eugenie cries: 'Here I am, at one stroke incestuous,
adultress, sodomite and all that in a girl who has only lost
her virginity today ! ' The act of profanation and sacrilege
she has performed, a fugue of sexual and familial miscon
duct, is a Sadeian rite de passage into complete sexual
being. The violence of Eugenie 's �·eaction is some indication
of the degree of repression from which she has suffered. It is
also a characteristic piece of Sadeian black humour.
Then the libertines invalidate Madame de Mistival's long
cherished and hypocritical chastity by introducing into the
gathering a syphilitic who inoculates her with the pox in
both orifices, forcing her to suffer the very punishment
specially reserved by natural justice for the pleasures she
has always denied herself. Finally, Eugenie seizes needle
and thread and sews her securely up. Then, to complete the
exemplary humiliation, we will assure her we have her
husband's, our father 's, full approval of all the infamies we
have committed and drive her from our bedroom, the abode
of unrepressed sexuality, an inverted Eden beyond the
knowledge of good and evil, a dark Beulah where con
trarities exist together, with abuse and blows.
DOLMANCE: Let this example serve to remind you that your

daughter is old enough to do what she wants; that she loves to
fuck, that she was born to fuck, and that, if you do not wish to be
fucked yourself, at lea3t you can leave her alone.
But before the mother goes, she must beg her daughter's
pardon for attempting to repress her. Eugenie's delirious
transgression has ensured her own sexual freedom at the
cost of the violent cessation of the possibility of her mother's
own sexual life. Her triumph over her mother is complete.
The relation between EugEmie and her mother is an
extreme and melodramatised, indeed, pornographised de
scription of the antipathy between mothers and daughters
which suggests that women, also, retain elements of
the early erotic relation with the mother that has been
more fully explored and documented in men. Indeed,
Philosophy in the Boudoir in many ways precedes Freud's
essay on femininity, and should be seen in the same Western
European context of competition and rivalry between
women that devalues women as they act them out in the
dramas of sexual life. But Sade is not engaged in the ex
position of fact but of fantasy, of symbolic sexual in
teraction, and his version of the conflict between mother
and daughter may be interpreted like this: the mother
wishes to repress her growing daughter 's sexuality because
she herself is growing old and social custom is removing her
from the arena of sexual life. She sees her daughter, the
living memory of herself as a young woman, as both an
immediate rival and a poignant reminder of what she herself
is losing. The daughter, on the other hand, sees the mother,
not as an ageing rival but as a mature woman and one in
permanent possession of her father, who is the most im
mediately present object on which she may focus her desire.
Not only is the mother the rival of the daughte:t but her
position as wife of the father is impregnable. Sexual
hostility is therefore the inevitable relation between mother
and daughter, as long as the mother regards sexuality as
synonymous with reproduction and hence sanctified ac
tivity in which only the Holy Mother, herself, may indulge.
Saint-Ange, as instructress, adopts another kind of
maternal role towards Eugenie, as Durand does towards
Juliette. But no natural mother in Sade is capable of this,
because she is a shrine of reproductive sexuality. She is
herself the embodiment of the repression of sexual pleasure;
how, then, can she not attempt to repress sexuality in her
daughter?
Mother is in herself a concrete denial of the idea of sexual
pleasure since her sexuality has been placed at the service of
reproductive function alone. She is the perpetually violated
passive principle; her autonomy has been sufficiently eroded
by the presence within her of the embryo she brought to
term. Her unthinking ability to reproduce, which is her
pride, is, since it is beyond choice, not a specific virtue of her
own. The daughter may achieve autonomy only through
destroying the mother, who represents her own repro
ductive function, also, who is both her own mother and the
potential mother within herself.
If the daughter is a mocking memory to the mother - 'As
I am, so you once were' - then the mother is a horrid war
ning to her daughter. 'As I am, so you will be. ' Mother seeks
to ensure the continuance of her own repression, and her
hypocritical solicitude for the younger woman 's moral, that
is, sexual welfare masks a desire to reduce her daughter to
the same state of contingent passivity she herself inhabits,
a state honoured by custom and hedged by taboo.
Vengeance. Transgression. Glory ! Eugenie de Mistival
offers her arse to her mother and invites her to kiss it. Her
seizure of her own autonomy necessitates the rupture of all
the taboos she can apprehend. She will take her mother to
wife and symbolically kill her, too; and the conflict is solely
between women. Father, though continually invoked, is
absent from this malign fiesta, just as he is absent from
every child's primary experience, the birth and the breast,
the first bed and the first tabl�. Eugenie and her com
panions, her playmates, are alone with Eugenie's first
beloved and first seducer and may wreak upon her a suitable
vengeance for her betrayal.
Baby is hermaphrodite. It is poly sexual. It is all the sexes
in one and first of all it will love the thing that feeds and
caresses it, out of necessity. During this period, father is
only a troublesome rival for the attention of the mother.
Freud suggests that the relation with the mother regularly
structures a woman 's relation with her father. Adult women
with particularly strong attachments to their fathers had
usually, he suggests, transferred a peculiarly strong first
passion for the mother to the father in all its entirety and
intensity. This primal passion has necessarily been libidinal
and will have passed through all the oral, sadistic, and
phallic phases of infantile sexuality; it will be essentially
ambivalent, now affectionate, now hostile. There will be
fantasies of making the mother pregnant and of becoming
pregnant by the mother. Mother and daughter live as each
one the other's image.
In the Freudian orchestration, now father enters the
nursery and interposes his phallic presence between his
daughter and her mother; his arrival in the psychic theatre,
bearing his irreplaceable prick before him like a wand of
office, a conductor's baton, a sword of severance, signifies
the end of the mother 's role as seducer and as beloved. 'The
turning away from the mother is accompanied by hostility;
the attachment to the mother ends in hate, ' hypothesises
Freud in his essay on femininity in the New Introductory
Lectures in Psychoanalysis. The primary passion was in
capable of the consummation of a child. The girl now turns
to the father in the expectation he will give her the object
that he possesses which she lacks, the phallus that is a
substitute child and also makes children, that weapon which
is a symbol of authority, of power, and will pierce the
opacity of the world. Freud's account of this process has
such extraordinary poetic force that, however false it might
be, it remains important as an account of what seemed, at
one point in history, a possible progression. It retains a
cultural importance analagous, though less far-reaching, to
the myth of the crime of Eve in the Old Testament.
Now Eugenie obeys the Freudian scenario as if she were
one of his patients. She seeks the aid of a man, even if Saint
Ange, her surrogate mother, has adequately endowed her
with aggression and competently seduced her, too. But
Dolmance, the ambiguous schoolmaster, the Tiresias who
loves to play the woman and scrupulously avoids cunts,
presses into Eugenie ' s hand a false limb, a dildo, and
suggests a parodic accomplishment of the first desire of all,
an act of sexual aggression that will exorcise the desire for
good and all. So Euglmie 'plays the husband' to her lovely
Mama, acts out upon the mirror image of her own flesh a
charade of domination and possession.
In the terms of a theory of sexuality that denies any
significance to reproduction, such as Sade 's, the castrate is
the human norm. If Eugenie, a typically Freudian girl,
suffers a typically Freudian penis-envy, then it is amply
compensated for by the acquisition of a mechanical device
that is just as good a phallus as a real one could ever be.
When Clairwil in Juliette masturbates with a mummified
penis, the penis becomes an object, dissociated from any
human context. It is no longer a symbol of malehood. It is
'the sceptre of Venus', 'the primary agent of love's
pleasure ', and may be wielded by whomsoever choo�es to do
so, regardless of the bearer 's gender.
Eugenie penetrates her mother. Madame de Mistival
faints. Eugenie hopes she has not died because she had
already planned her summer wardrobe; what a bore it would
be to have to abandon all her pretty frocks and put on
mourning instead ! Even her tutors are taken aback at that;
she has already surpassed her masters in the art of har
dening her heart. Then Dolma�ce whips the woman awake
with freshly gathered thorns while his companions perform
a sprightly erotic tableau and achieve orgasm in well
choreographed unison. Each actor then pronounces
judgement upon the vanquished mother. Eugenie, most
vicious since most in love, would like to drive whips tipped
with sulphur into her mother's body and set fire to them.
But Dolmance, the most cerebral, has a better idea; it is he
who introduces the syphilitic, who will inject his poison into
Madame de Mistival's vagina and anus 'with this con
sequence: that so long as this cruel disease's impressions
shall last, the whore will remember not to trouble her
daughter when Eugenie has herself fucked. '
Everyone applauds the scheme. It i s carried out im-
The School of Love 1 27
mediately, while the others vigorously whip one another.
Then Saint-Ange, the surrogate or adoptive mother,
suggests Eugenie sew her natural mother up, to prevent the
infection leaking out of her.
EUGENIE: Excellent idea ! Quickly, quickly, fetch me needle and

thread! . . . Spread your thighs, Mama, so I can stitch you to
gether - so that you 'll give me no more little brothers and sisters.
The child ceases to love Mother when the arrival of siblings

puts its nose out of j oint for good. Eugenie 's delirium is now
in a fugal flood where innumerable theme� play together;
but j ealousy and the desire for revenge are uppermost.
Mother must be punished because her passivity invites
action; humiliated, because of her pride; raped, in order
violently to restore to her the penis which she lacks; in
fected, to mock her chastity; rendered incapable of
reproduction, because she has sanctified her fecundi�y.
And all these villainies must be heaped upon her unwilling
but helplessly compliant body because it could not ac
commodate the impossible demands for absolute love that
the child, her everlastingly unrequited suitor, made upon it.
So Mama leaves the School of Love and the Chevalier, who
takes her home, is warned to keep his hands off her, since
she has the pox. She has learned that her daughter is old
enough to do as she pleases, that her attempts at sexual
restraint have proved worse than useless, have provoked
the most violent reaction, have destroyed her.
And perhaps Mama has been enlightened; but not 50 far
enlightened that Sade will let her stay to j oin in the fun.
'Mothers, ' thunders Sade in the preface of the first
edition, 'prescribe this book to your daughters ! ' In the
second edition, however, he changes his tune. He vacillates.
He warns: 'Mothers, proscribe this book to your daughters. '
But perhaps this is a printing error; by the time the second
edition was printed, Sade had been interred in the asylum at
Charenton and had no control over the proofs. Nevertheless,
the vowels slip into and out of one another. Prescribe.
Proscribe. What to do, what to do.
He acknowledges to the full the mutual antagonism
between mother and daughter. But should the mother or the
daughter be enlightened as to the nature and extent of this
antagonism? Which one of them should have the benefit
of the lesson? Or should they both?
Eugenie 's libido thrusts her towards an attack upon the
female orifice itself, which is an implicit attack upon her
own biological function. But it is an attack, a rape, not a
ravishment. She never contemplates a seduction, even
though she eroticises her mother when she fucks her. She
opens her up for pleasure with the massive dildo. 'I believe,
dear Mother, you are coming . . . Dolmance, look at her
eyes ! She comes, it's certain. ' At this point, Madame de
Mistival decides to lose consciousness and so censor her
own situation. In other words, Sade has scared himself so
badly by the obvious resolution of the psychodrama that he
has set his creators to act out that he decides to censor her
response. It frightens him. So Madame de Mistival must
deny responsibility even for her own responses. She will
experience sexuality like a theft from herself.
Neither she, nor Eugenie, nor Dolmance, nor even Saint
Ange, nor, especially, Sade, can tolerate the implication of
her orgasm. 'She comes, it's certain ! ' But this is Eugenie's
vicious mockery; Mother must never be allowed to come,
and so to come alive. She cannot be corrupted into the ex
perience of sexual pleasure and so set free. She is locked
forever in the fortress of her flesh, a sleeping beauty whose
lapse of being is absolute and eternal. If she were allowed to
taste one single moment 's pleasure in the abuses that are
heaped upon her, abuses that would glut Saint-Ange or her
own daughter with j oy, that would overthrow the whole
scheme.
Vice and virtue, that is, energy and passivity, that is, evil
and good, would then be states to which one could accede.
As it is, in the model of the world that Sade has made, a man
or a woman is naturally vicious or naturally virtuous;
Eugenie is already corrupt when she arrives at Saint-Ange's
The School of Lpue 129
boudoir, Juliette was already wicked when she registered at
Delbene's academy. Sade's manicheistic dualism sees the
world as irredeemably evil; vice must always prosper. virtue
always despair. There is no hope for us as we are now. The
Republic in which the laws 'are as mild as the people they
govern ' is as much a fantasy as Saint-Ange 's voluptuous
boudoir. Sade 's vision is utterly without transcendence.
But, if he could have allowed himself to violate the last
taboo of all. and allow wretched and abused Madame de
Mistival to experience pleasure, then the terms of his vision
would be disrupted. Transcendence would have crept in. He
might even have to make room for hope.
Being would cease to be a state-in-itself; it would tben be
possible to move between modes of being in a moral and not
a sexual sense. By denying the possibility of corruption,
Sade denies the possibility of regeneration.
The possibility of the redemption from virtue would
suggest the reciprocal possibility of a fall from vice.
But Madame de Mistival, if she does indeed feel the first
faint prick of pleasure, faints to avoid the consciousness of
it. They rouse her from the faint only to sew her up. Then
she is infected and now she is impregnable. She no longer co
exists with even the possibility of pleasure. She is better
than dead.
Now we are beginning to approach the central paradox of
all Sade 's pornography, which is inherent in the paradox of
his own sexuality.
Sade, contemplating the phallus, real or artificial, dithers.
Let us prescribe it to our daughters, by all means. But he
cannot finally decide whether it is an instrument of
pleasure, pure and simple. as it might be in the Republic,
where women are common fountains of pleasure , or a
weapon of admonition, pure and simple, as it is for Eugenie.
for Clairwil and his male libertines.
He himself has always wanted one. He wanted his
mother 's phallus but it transpired she had none to give him;
if Freud is correct and boy children regularly endow all the
other beings in the world with the appendage they them
selves possess, the shock and grief of the discovery that the
mother lacks one must be profound. The mother is also his
dearest beloved and his mirror, just as she is for the girl
child.
He wanted his mother 's imaginary phallus but found he
had deceived himself; she possessed, instead, a dark, secret
place of which he was so afraid that he had hastily to seal it
up before it engulfed him. But the existence of this un
stoppable hole makes him perpetually dissatisfied with his
own equipment. He wants a bigger, a yet bigger one and
rummages around in the chest in which he keeps his dildos,
a chest like the one Saint-Ange keeps in her boudoir filled
with dildos of every size, he searches to find one that will be
big enough to console him for his fear of castration, a
phallus of the size with which he adorns his heroes and also
his heroines .
But, the more immense the organ with which h e equips
himself, the greater grows the abyss into which it must
plunge. In order to fuck his mother, he needs the most
massive dildo in the world; and still it will not satisfy her.
Still she will not die of it. Still she will not come; for, when
the anatomy lesson, the misanthropy lesson, the lesson in
politics, in rage, in terror, is over, we must send her back to
her husband, to Father, to whom she belongs.
Home again, home again, fast as you can.
So Mother is exile in perpetuity from this world in the
locked, rotting castle of her flesh. We may not fully enjoy
her. Exhaustion will always intervene. ' It's finished
. . . over . . . oh, why must weakness succeed passions so
alive?' There is no solace for the libertine's insatiability
because access to the object of love is always denied him.
Eugenie 's transgression initially disrupts but finally
restores the status quo. Mother has not been eroticised.
Eugenie has destroyed, spoiled what she could not possess,
exorcised the ghost of her first love and now she can exist
freely in this world.
Has she not her father 's permission to do so?
Home again, home again, fast as you can, my lovely
Mama, to the husband who has prepared this instructive
afternoon for you.
For Eug{mie's transgression is authorised. It is her
graduation exercise at the school of love in which her father
has enrolled her. Her mother arrives at the academy in order
to remove her from it shortly after the delivery of a letter
from the licentious de Mistival himself, authorising his
wife's martyrisation. When they strip her, they discover her
husband has just roundly whipped her. They may do with
her whatever they please; Father has told them so. The
boudoir, the temple of vice, is a Garden of Eden in which
God has permitted the consumption of the fruit of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil.
So, finally, the violation of the mother is no more than a
performance, a show; it demonstrates and creates Eugenie's
autonomy but also the limits of her autonomy, for her
freedom is well policed by the faceless authority beyond the
nursery, outside the mirror, the father who knows all, sees
all and permits almost everything, except absolute freedom.
The boudoir is a privileged place where these dangerous
experiments in synthesising freedom may be conducted in
safety. Eugenie does not place herself at real risk by her
experiments , nor does she put her companions at risk by
aspiring, with her new-found independence, to acts which
would put them in j eopardy. She attacks only that part of
herself, her reproductive function, she can afford to lose.
The taboo against the mother is truly broken once and once
only and that is when Eugenie penetrates her mother with
the dildo.
Were Madame de Mistival to have come, then all the
dykes would be breached at once and chaos and universal
night instantly descend; pleasure would have asserted itself
triumphantly over pain and the necessity for the existence
of repression as a sexual stimulant would have ceased to
exist. There would arise the possibility of a world in which
the concept of taboo is meaningless and pornography itself
would cease to exist. Sade, the prisoner who created
freedom in the model of his prison, would have put himself
out of business; he is as much afraid of freedom as the next
man. So he makes her faint.
He makes her faint because he can only conceive of
freedom as existing in opposition, freedom as defined by
tyranny. So, on the very edge of an extraordinary discovery
about the nature of the relation between mothers and
daughters, at the climax of his pioneering exploration of
this most obscure of psychic areas, he gives in to a principle
of safety. Instead of constructing a machine for liberation,
he substitutes instead a masturbatory device. He is on the
point of becoming a revolutionary pornography; but he,
finally, lacks the courage.
He reverts, now, to being a simple pornographer.
Moreover, the old lag is always imprisoned, even when he
is out of his cell, by his own perversion. His perversion, that
is an unnatural obsession with pain, is almost like a magic
circle which he has constructed around himself to preserve
himself from the terrible freedom to which his ideas might
lay him open. If 'art is the perpetual immoral subversion of
the established order', then why, having gone so far, why
not now let Madame de Mistival be overcome by the
passions which surround her? Could not the object of
genital hatred become the obj ect of genital love? Why does
.
this notion upset him so?
But the taboo against the mother has been violated only
to be immediately and hideously restored. The obscenities
and profanations never quite fulfil the subversion implicit in
them. Shall we prescribe or proscribe this book to our
daughters? Sade dithers.
Father must know all, authorise all, or else Eugenie might
truly take possession of her autonomy and, say, sheer off
Dolmance's prick, transform him forever to the condition to
which he aspires when he spreads out beneath the handsome
virility of the Chevalier, and so truly exercise for herself the
phallic mastery at which Sade, Dolmance himself and her
own father assure her she has just arrived.
She savages her mother in order to achieve sexual
autonomy, according to the rules of the academy; to attack
Father or his substitutes in order to achieve existential
autonomy is against the rules. Eugenie's sexual egoism
must be sanctioned by the group in which she participates;
it must be observed. It must be contained by their ob
servation or else it might threaten the rules of the school
itself.
The Sadeian woman, then, subverts only her own socially
conditioned role in the world of god, the king and the law.
She does not subvert her society, except incidentally, as a
storm trooper of the individual consciousness. She remains
in the area of privilege created by her class, just as Sade
remains in the philosophic framework of his time.
Nevertheless, Sade suggests a type of Oedipal conflict in
relation to the mother which is not restricted by gender.
Eugenie enacts the crime of Oedipus in a richly psychotic
trance; she both copulates with her mother and effectively
murders her. In this bewildering dream, Mother becomes
the essential primal object, subsuming both parents to
herself, as Durand, the phallic and non-reproductive mother,
also did.
And, perhaps, in spite of the instructions he sends by his
messenger, Father is always absent from this scenario
because, in fact, he does not exist.
II K L E I N I A N A P PE N D I X: L I B E RTY, M I S A N T H R O P Y
AND THE B R E AST
The struggle between life and death instincts and the

ensuing threat of annihilation of the self and of the object
by destructive impulses are fundamental factors in the
infant's initial relation to his mother. For his desires imply
that the breast and soon the mother should do away with
these destructive impulses and the pain of persecutory
anxiety.
Envy and Gratitude, Melanie Klein

Eugenie 's transgression is an exemplary vengeance upon
the very idea of the good, a vengeance upon the primal
'good' object, the body of the mother. In the terms of the
analysis of Melanie Klein, 'good breast' is the prototype of
the fountain of all nourishment; the breast that Sade's
libertines take such delight in whipping, upon which they
take such derisive glee in wiping their arses, is, as Freud
says, 'the place where love and hunger meet ', a moving
symbol of the existence and the satisfaction of the most
basic of all human needs. The body of the mother is the
great, good place, the concretisation of the earthly paradise;
these fantasies, according to Klein, enrich the primal object,
the first thing we meet when we come out of the womb, the
great, good place in which we lived without knowing it. The
experience of the primal object becomes the foundation for
trust, hope and a belief in the existence of good.
Sade/Eugenie profanes the primal object in the conviction
that hope, trust and the good are delusions.
'Envy contributes to the infant's difficulties in building
up a good obj ect, for he feels that the gratification of which
he was deprived has been kept for himself by the breast
that frustrated him, ' says Melanie Klein. This envy may
manifest itself in violent attacks on the mother 's body.
Envy, jealousy and greed are the vices of early childhood. If
envy implies the subject 's relation with one other per
son only and a desire to rob that person of a desirable
possession, or, if robbing is impossible, at least to spoil it, so
that nobody else may benefit from it, then j ealousy implies a
more peopled landscape and a relation to at least two people.
Envy and greed are our first negative emotions; we envy the
breast its abundance and greedily wish to drink it dry.
Jealousy implies a degree of maturing; we now perceive
something other than the breast and ourselves, we perceive
a third. The experience of jealousy marks the point at which
the solipsistic accord between child and mother ceases. Life
as a social being begins.
We are j ealous because we feel there is only a limited
The School of Lo�e 135
amount of love available and somebody else may secure it
all . Eugenie sews up her mother so that she will not be able
to produce any little brothers and sisters; Madame de
Mistival must undergo this ordeal in order to remove the
desolating notion of the arrival of rivals who will j ostle
Eugenie for attention for themselves and deprive her of
unique nourishment. But Madame de Mistival is already
possessed by Eugenie's own father; she bears the marks of
his possession on her body, he has beaten her until her
buttocks look like watered silk, to show how absolute is his
right to the use of her flesh and the degree to which her flesh
affects him by its insubornable separateness from him.
Eugenie 's rage is no different at source from her father 's
rage. The libertine frenzy of father and daughter in Sade's
parable spring from greed, envy and j ealousy, a helpless
rage at the organs of generation that bore us into a world of
pain where the enjoyment of the senses is all that can
alleviate the daily horror of living. In the introduction to
Philosophy in the Boudoir, , Sade writes: 'It is only by
sacrificing everything to sensual pleasure that this being
known as Man, cast into the world in spite of himself, may
succeed in sowing a few roses on the thorns of life. '
Sade 's quarrel, therefore, is not only with the mother, who
can deprive him of love and sustenance at will; it is the very
fact of generation that he finds intolerable. In the short
story, Eugenie de Franval, Franval denies his daughter 's
right to marry and have children: 'Then you think the
human race should be allowed to die out?' his wife asks him.
'Why not?' he replies. 'A planet whose only product is
poison cannot be rooted opt too quickly. '
The Sadeian libertine cannot forgive the mother, not for
what she is, but for what she has done - for having
thoughtlessly, needlessly inflicted life upon him. Therefore
he conducts his irreconcileable existence entirely upon a
metaphysical plane; his whole life is a violent protest
against an irreversible condition because, though it is easy
to stop living, it is impossible to erase the fact of one 's birth.
One may not remove oneself from history, though Sade tried
to do it. His will directs he should be buried in a ditch, and
'the ditch, once covered over, about it acorns shan be
strewn, in order that the spot become green again, and the
copse grown back thick over it, the traces of my grave may
disappear from the face of the earth, as I trust the memory
of me shall fade out of the minds of all men. '
Rage and despair of this quality has a heroic
monumentality; but, in his work, Sade is finally ambivalent.
Eug{mie seals up her mother to keep the dangerous infection
of fecundity from spilling into the world but she does not,
dare not, excise the womb where the child is produced. Let
us quarantine the fecund woman; let us keep her out of
sexual circulation, so she does not allow a fallen race to
continue to perpetuate its miseries. But we will not go quite
so far as to sterilise her completely - because Sade is still in
complicity with the authority which he hates.
five
S P E C U L AT IVE F I N AL E :
THE F UN C T I O N O F F L E S H
. . . the process of human cultural development, in which

sexuality remains the weak spot.
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality,

Sigmund Freud
The word 'fleisch', in German, provokes me to an in

voluntary shudder. In the English language, we make a fine
distinction between flesh, which is usually alive and,
typically, human; and meat, which is dead, inert, animal and
intended for consumption. Substitute the word 'flesh' in the
Anglican service of Holy Communion; 'Take, eat, this is my
meat which was given for you . . . ' and the sacred comestible
becomes the offering of something less than, rather than
more than, human. 'Flesh ' in English carries with it Ii whole
system of human connotations and the flesh of the Son of
Man cannot . be animalised into meat without an inhar
monious confusion of meaning. But, because it is human,
flesh is also ambiguous; we are adjured to shun the world,
the flesh and the Devil. Fleshly delights are lewd distrac
tions from the contemplation of higher, that is, of spiritual,
things; the pleasures of the flesh are vulgar and unrefined,
even with an element of beastliness about them, although
flesh tints have the sumptuous succulence of peaches
because flesh plus skin equals sensuality.
.
But, if flesh plus skin equals sensuality, then flesh minus
skin equals meat. The skin has turned into rind, or
crackling; the garden of fleshly delights becomes a butcher's
shop, or Sweeney Todd's kitchen. My flesh encounters your
taste for meat. So much the worse for me.
What are the butcherly delights of meat? These are not
sensual but analytical. The satisfaction of scientific
curiosity in dissection. A clinical pleasure in the precision
with which the process of reducing the living, moving, vivid
object to the dead status of thing is accomplished. The
pleasure of watching the spectacle of the slaughter that
derives from the knowledge one is dissociated from the
spectacle; the bloody excitation of the audience in the
abattoir, who watch the dramatic transformation act, from
living flesh to dead meat, derives from the knowledge they
are safe from the knife themselves. There is the technical
pleasure of carving and the anticipatory pleasure of the
prospect of eating the meat, of the assimilation of the dead
stuff, after which it will be humanly transformed into flesh.
Flesh has specific orifices to contain the prick that
penetrates it but meat's relation to the knife is more random
and a thrust anywhere will do. Sade explores the inhuman
sexual possibilities of meat; it is a rrustake to think that the
substance of which his actors are made is flesh. There is
nothing alive or sensual about them. Sade is a great puritan
and will disinfect of sensuality anything he can lay his
hands on; there!ore he writes about sexual relations in terms
of butchery and meat.
The murderous attacks on the victims demonstrate the
abyss between the parties to the crime, an abyss of in
comprehension that cannot be bridged. The lamb does not
understand why it is lead to the slaughter and so it goes
willingly, because it is in ignorance. Even when it dawns on
the lamb that it is going to be killed, the lamb only struggles
Speculative Finale 139
because it does not understand that it cannot escape; and,
besides, it is hampered by the natural ignorance of the
herbivore, who does not even know it is possible to eat meat.
The lamb could understand easily enough how mint sauce
might be delicious but it does not have the mental ap
paratus to appreciate that its own hindquarters are also
nourishing food if suitably cooked, for those with different
tastes. Which is why we prefer to eat the herbivores.
Because, under no circumstances, could they eat us.
The relations between men and women are often distorted
by the reluctance of both parties to acknowledge that the
function of flesh is meat to the carnivore but not grass to
the herbivore.
The ignorance of one party as to the intentions of the
other makes the victim so defenceless against predation
that it can seem as if a treacherous complicity finally unites
them; as though, in some sense, the victim wills a victim's
fate. But, if any of the Sadeian victims seem to incite their
masters to their violence by tacitly accepting their right to
administer it, let us not make too much of this apparent
complicity. There is no defence at all against absolute
tyranny.
Constance, most abused of all the wives in The Hundred
and Twenty Days at Sodom, seeing she has no choice, cleans
out her husband's arsehole with her tongue. 'And the poor
creature, only too accustomed to these horrors, carried
them out as a dutiful, a thoughtful wife, should; ah,
great God! what will not dread and thralldom produce. '
Absolute tyranny is, by definition, absolute; once the
victims, seized by force, enter the impregnable castle, they
are already as good as dead. Minski, the cannibal giant, tells
Juliette that she and her companions are in his power, to do
with as he pleases, as soon as they enter his island fortress.
Don Clement warns Justine that any resistance to the
masters in the church of St Mary-in-the-Wood is useless.
The Chateau of Silling, the imitation Sodom, is utterly
impregnable and the paths that brought the victims there
have been destroyed behind them. The victims have been
erased from the world and now live, their own ghosts
aJthough they are not yet dead, only awaiting death, in a
world where the function of their own flesh is to reveal to
them the gratuitous inevitability of pain, to demonstrate
the shocking tragedy of mortality itself, that all flesh may
be transformed, at any moment, to meat.
Necrophagy is the exposition of the meatiness of human
flesh. Necrophagy parodies the sacramental meal by
making its assumptions real. The fifteen·year�ld boy
I
roasted for dinner at Minski 's house is served up without
ceremony; for Minski, he is nothing more nor less than a
good meal. Minski claims he owes his health, strength,
youthful appearance and abundant seminal secretions to his
habitual diet of other people. Cannibalism, the most
elementary act of exploitation, that of turning the other
directly into a comestible; of seeing the other in the most
primitive terms of use.
The strong abuse, exploit and meatify the weak, says
Sade. They must and will devour their natural prey. The
primal condition of man cannot be modified in any way; it is,
eat or be eaten. Eat, assimilate; but the process doesn't stop
there. Defaecate, assimilate again. How greedily the
coprophile consumes the physical surplus of the act of
eating.
Only the most violent of all transformations, that of the
transformation of the Kingdom of God into a secular
republic will overthrow these relations. In the Kingdom of
God, man is made in the image of God and therefore a
ravenous, cannibalistic, vicious, egocentric tyrant. Since
God does not exist, man must make of himself something a
great deal better; that God must be shown not to exist, and
only corrupts our institutions as a baleful shadow, is the
'
source of Sade 's passionate and ' continual atheism. The
Kingdom of God and the secular Republic are notions that
transcend monarchy, religion and democracy; they are to do
with authoritarianism and libertarianism.
�
In this world, which was made by God, sexuality is
inhuman. In other words, in a society which still ascribes an
illusory metaphysic to matters which are in reality solely to
do with the relations between human beings, the expression
of the sexual nature of men and women is not seen as part of
human nature. Sexuality, in this estranged form, becomes a
denial of a basis of mutuality, of the acknowledgement of
equal rights to exist in the world, from which any durable
form of human intercourse can spring.
Sexuality, stripped of the idea of free exchange, is not in
any way humane; it is nothing but pure cruelty. Carnal
knowledge is the infernal knowledge of the flesh as meat.
The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is
cooked up and served for breakfast in Minski's house in the
form of testicle patties and virgin's blood sausages.
So flesh becomes meat by a magical transition about
which there is nothing natural. Nobody in Sade's por
nography dies of natural causes, of old age or sickness.
Death is always a violent infliction by another, or even by
Nature itself. Or perhaps, rather, death is always 'natural'
since Nature itself is a murderer. When the thunderbolt
strikes down Justine, Nature has murdered the girl as ef
fectively as the libertines could have done. In Sade, Nature
is a version of the Cruel God of the Old Testament.
Death, in Sade, is always the sudden, violent metamor
phosis of the vivid into the inert. Death is always such an
outrage, such a crime, such an impiety that Sade must have
found it as hard to reconcile himself to the fact of mortality
as he did to the fact of birth.
'
The act of predation - the butcher's job of rendering the
flesh of the victim into meat for the table, which Minski
himself performs in an exemplary fashion by the violence of
his very act of copulation - is the assertion of the abyss
between master and victim. There is no question of
reciprocal sensation; the idea of it is abhorrent to the
Sadeian libertine, except under certain special cir
cumstances where two of a kind meet and perform rituals of
which both understand the significance. In these cases,

violence is a form of play. Otherwise, the dichotomy be
tween active and passive, evil and good, is absolute, and,
what is more, perceived as unchanging, an immutable
division between classes.
Reciprocity of sensation is not possible because to share is
to be robbed.
Dom Clement the monk outlines an economic theory of
the nature of sexual pleasure to Justine during her stay in
his establishment. Just as Juliette was so rich that she
could not afford to give alms, so Clement argues that there
is not enough pleasure to go round and he must have it all. If
I give anybody else any of my pleasure, I will diminish my
own, just as, if I give you half my apple, then I shall only
have half left for myself. Pleasure may never be shared, or it
will be diminished. A shared pleasure is a betrayal of the
self, a seeping away of some of the · subject's precious
egotism. To share is to be stolen from, says Clement; when a
woman pilfers her sexual pleasure from a man, she patently
reduces his own and to witness her pleasure can do nothing
more for him than to flatter his vanity.
Since gratified vanity is a pleasure of sentimental affect
only and therefore inferior to the real pleasure of the senses,
it is to be despised. Besides, a man's vanity may be flattered
in a far more piquant manner by harshly denying a woman
any pleasure at all and forcing her to minister only to the
man's pleasure, at the cost of her visible pain. ' In one word,
is not he who imposes much more surely the master than he
who shares? ' The nature of Clement's pleasure is by no
means a sensual one; his pleasure is a cerebral one, even an
intellectual one - that of the enhancement of the ego. When
pleasure is violently denied the partner, the self's pleasure is
enhanced in direct relation to the visible unpleasure of the
victim. And so the self knows it exists.
Sexual pleasure, therefore, consists primarily in the
submission of the partner; but that is not enough. The
annihilation of the partner is the only sufficient proof of the
)
I
triumph of the ego. Dolmance declares that an erection is

sufficient in itself to make a man a despot; pride, says
Dolmance, causes a man 'to wish to be the only one in the
world capable of experiencing what he feels; the idea of
seeing another enj oy as he enjoys reduces him to a kind of
equality with that other which impairs the unspeakable
charm despotism inspires in him. '
The uniquely unselfing experience of orgasm may be
enjoyed to the full only when it is experienced uniquely;
perhaps only when there is nobody to observe the loss of self
in the orgasm. Dolmance prefers to take women from
behind, in a position where he cannot see or be seen.
Now the sexual act becomes a matter of extreme privacy,
in which only the nervous agitation -of the partner who
experiences the strongest sensation during intercourse has
any significance. The despot inflicts sex on the slave and he
is perfectly justified in doing so. Dolmance opines that
nature intends man to feel superior, to be a despot, and that
is why man is physically .stronger than woman. Further, the
orgasm is experienced as a fury because nature intends that
'behaviour during copulation should be the same as
behaviour in anger'.
Wreaking an impotent fury on an object that may not
respond because it has been stunned into submission, he
gnaws, bites and soils the loved and hated flesh. All men
want to molest women during sexual activity, says
Dolmance; that is the sign of their natural superiority to
them.
Remember that this lecture is given to an audience of
women; Saint-Ange and Eugenie listen and applaud; since
he is good enough to class them with the masters, they, too,
will be permitted to tyrannise as much as they please.
Libido, since it is sex itself, is genderless; vessels of un
diluted libido, these superwomen are included amongst the
agressors, the unique individuals who follow the desolating
logic of the imagination to that lonely. pitch of phallic
supremacy up above the world in as awesome and rigorous a
puritanism as Simeon Stylites on his pole. This is a con
spiracy of carnivores. 'We, you, Madame, and I, those like
ourselves - we are the only people who deserve to be listened
to ! '
Dolmance, however, has so greatly excited himself with
his own discourse that he is forced to break off and bugger
Augustin, the gardener. All present execute another
geometric exercise and ej aculate in unison. But the presence
of his fellow-conspirators in the group games does not
alleviate the solitude of the libertine; rather, it enhances it.
The libertine 's sovereign orgasm is not shared with his
fellow libertines; it simply occurs at the same time. The
parallel if simultaneous orgasms of the libertines cannot
intersect with one another. There is no fusion to confuse, to
interfere with the unique experience.
In Sade, sexual pleasure is an entirely inward experience.
Roles may be changed about and women become men, men
women; the whipper will be whipped in his turn. But the
territoriality of the subject 's pleasure cannot be invaded
because sexual pleasure is nothing but a private and in
dividual shock of the nerves. Noirceuil defines pleasure:
'What is pleasure? Simply this: that which occurs when
voluptuous atoms, or atoms emanated from voluptuous
objects, clash with and fire the electrical particles cir
culating in the hollow of our nerve fibres. To complete the
pleasure the clash must be as violent as possible. ' This is a
form of exacerbated auto-eroticism. Sexual pleasure is not
experienced as experience; it does not modify the subject.
An entirely externally induced phenomenon, its sensation is
absolutely personal. just as it does not hurt the knife if you
cut yourself with it.
Yet, curiously enough, Sade himself is the lamb led to
slaughter as well as the butcher with the insensible knife. In
the well-documented events of a certain morning in 1772 in
a bedroom in Marseilles, the hired girl flogged Sade with a
heather broom; he marked the number of blows with his
knife in the mantlepiece. Then, while he coupled with the
Specula tive Finale 145
girl, his valet buggered him. Throughout the Cytherean
morning, the girl stated, he addressed his servant as
'Monsieur Ie Marquis ', elementary transformation of pain
and pleasure, aristocrat and servant. Dolmance gasps to
Saint-Ange's brother: 'Deign, Oh my love, to serve me as a
woman after having been my lover. ' He presents Eugenie de
Mistival with her weapon; an indiarubber dildo, with which
to bugger him. When he whips her, he consoles Eugenie with
the assertion of a dialectic of mutual aggression: 'Now
victim for a moment, my lovely angel, soon you'll persecute
me in your turn. '
These violent transformations of appearance are the only
ways in which Sade can envisage reciprocity. Mutual
aggression can never take place at the same time but only in
a serial fashion, now me, now you, and the cock, the phallus,
the sceptre of a virility which is not a state-in-itself, in fact,
however phallocentric the notion of sexuality implicit in
Sade's pornography might be, but a modality, is passed
from man to woman, woman to man, man to man, woman to
woman, back and forth, as in a parlour game.
We must not confuse these parlour games with those
kinds of real relations that change you. Sexual activity in
these Sadeian communities of equals is a social exploit, a
communal activity, an infertility festival, with a charic
quality. It has certain relations to kinetic art. The libertines
assemble themselves in a.r:chitectonic configurations, fuck
furiously, discharge all together - all fall down. They have
arranged themselves as for a group photograph, and it is the
most complicated mechanics that must set the erotic engine
in motion, mouth against cunt, cock in anus, tongue on
testicles, finger on clitoris (whose sexual function is not a
discovery of the twentieth century). Like a good housewife
organising her store cupboard, Sade wants a place for
everything and everything in its place in the regimented
pursuit of pleasure.
Suitably garbed for these pornographic occasions in
kitsch uniforms of gauze, assembled in voluptuous boudoirs
or arranged like sacrilegious offerings upon the altars of
churches, the libertines perform extraordinary tableaux
with well-drilled precision. Among this well-populated
activity, there is as little room for intimacy as there is upon
the football field.
The bed is now as public as the dinner table and governed
by the same rules of formal confrontation. Flesh has lost its
common factor; that it is the substance of which we are all
made and yet that differentiates us. It has acquired, in
stead, ' the function of confusing kind and gender, man and
beast, woman and fowl. The subject itself becomes an objet
de luxe in these elaborately choreographed masques of
abstraction, of alienation.
The libertine goes to the orgy to enhance his notion of his
unique and supreme self; but, only in the group, among his
peers, is the self truly lost. Where desire is a function of the
act rather than the act a function of desire, desire loses its
troubling otherness; it ceases to be a movement outwards
from the self. The arrows of desire are turned back on the
heart, and pierce it.
For the libertine chooses to surround himself, not with
lovers or partners, but with accomplices, The libertine
would not trust a partner, who would rob him of pleasure by
causing him to feel rather than to experience.
The presence of his accomplices preserves his ego from the
singular confrontation with the object of a reciprocal desire
which is, in itself, both passive object and active subject.
Such a partner acts on us as we act on it; both partners are
changed by the exchange and, if submission is mutual, then
aggression is mutual. Such a partner might prove to the
libertine that sexuality is an aspect of being, rather than a
crime against being; but the libertine doesn't, after all , want
to know that. If the evidence of Sade's ingrained puritanism
is that he believes sex in itself to be a crime, and associates
its expression with violent crime, the libertine's entire
pleasure is the cerebral, not sensual one, of knowing he is
engaging in forbidden activity. It is the presence of his
!
accomplices, all engaged on the same project, that convinces

him he commits a crime. The knowledge that sexuality is
criminal preserves him from the onslaught of love.
If he were not criminal, he would be forced to abdicate
from his position as the lord of creation, made in the image
of God; his criminality is his excuse, the source of his pride,
and of his denial of love.
The libertine 's perversions are the actings-out of his
denial of love. Yet Freud suggests the 'mental factor' plays
a large part in accomplishing the transformation of the
instinctual desire for simple sensual pleasure in the case of
necrophily, coprophily and bestiality. The Sadeian libertine
is proudly conscious of such activities as 'perversions ', even
as he strenuously denies the actual concept of perversion;
that to eat shit and screw corpses and dogs are not the
pastimes of the common man is part of his pride in doing so
himself. Yet this transformation of the appetite in favour of
the initially unappetising is human work, not criminal work.
Freud says: ' It is impossible to deny that . . . a piece of work
has been performed which, in spite of its horrifying result, is
the equivalent of an idealisation of the instinct. The om
nipotence of love is perhaps never more strongly proved
than in such of its aberrations as these.'
The excremental enthusiasm of the libertines transforms
the ordure in which they roll to a bed of roses. The pleasure
of the libertine philosophers derives in a great part from the
knowledge they have overcome their initial disgust. By the
exercise of the will, they have overcome repugnance and so,
in one sense, are liberated from the intransigence of reality.
This liberation from reality is their notion of freedom; the
way to freedom lies through the privy. But the conquest of
morality and aesthetics, of shame, disgust and fear, the
pursuit of greater and greater sexual sophistication in terms
of private sensation lead them directly to the satisfactions
of the child; transgression becomes regression and, like a
baby, they play with their own excrement.
Even the pursuit of the vilest of all passions, the mur-
derous passions, lead them back to the cradle in the end;
they have not acquired these tastes in the process of
maturing. They had only forgotten them. Now, freed from
all adult restraint, they remember them �gain. 'It may be
assumed that the impulse of cruelty arises from the instinct
for mastery and appears at a period of sexual life at which
the genitals have not yet taken over their later role,' suggests
Freud. The shamelessness and violence of the libertines is
that of little children who are easily cruel because they have
not learned the capacity for pity which the libertines
dismiss as 'childish' because the libertines themselves have
not yet grown up enough to acknowledge the presence of
others in their solipsistic world.
Juliette, as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer say,
embodies 'intellectual pleasure in regression'. She attacks
civilisation with its own weapons. She exercises rigorously
rational thought; she creates systems; she exhibits an iron
self-control. Her will triumphs over the barriers of pain,
shame, disgust and morality until her behaviour reverts to
the polymorphous perversity of the child, who has not yet
learnt the human objections to cruelty because, in a social
sense, no child is yet fully human. Her destination has
always been her commencement. The triumph of the will
recreates, as its Utopia, the world of early childhood, and
that is a world of nightmare, impotence and fear, in which
the child fantasises, out of its own powerlessness, an ab
solute supremacy.
Yet the adult world of work may not be evaded; but it, too ,
is transformed. Sexual satisfaction may be obtained only at
the cost of enormous expenditures of energy. Pleasure is a
hard task-master. The Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom
offers a black version of the Protestant ethic but the profit,
the orgasm obtained with so much effort, the product of so
much pain and endeavour - the pursuit of this profit leads
directly to hell. To a perfectly material hell. The final
murderous passion recounted by Desgranges is called the
'hell-game '. The libertine, assisted by torturers disguised as
demons, himself pretends to be the devil; Juliette similarly
dresses Saint Fond as a demon during an orgy. If we once
needed the notion of a hell in order to console ourselves that
something exists worse than this world, we no longer need it
now.
The elaboration of pleasure will change its quality; the
simple passions of the libertines in Duclos' accounts in the
first book will elaborate insensibly, will become the complex
atrocities of the third book.
To obtain his precious orgasm, the libertine must now
hunt it down single-mindedly through seas of blood and
excrement. But, the more earnestly he strives, the further
the goal recedes from him. He is forced to invest more and
more energy in the pursuit of orgasm;- all the same, it grows
harder and harder for him to come. His rituals become more
elaborate, his needs more abstract. The structure of his own
invented reality hardens around him and imprisons him.
The passions he thought would free him from the cage of
being become the very bars of the cage that traps him; he
himself cannot escape the theatrical decor he has created
around himself in order to give himself the confidence to
immolate his victims. During the hell-game, the libertine is
himself as much in hell as his victims are and they can at
least escape from it by dying. He cannot.
Sade 's eroticism, with its tragic style, its displays, its
corteges, its sacrifices, its masks and costumes, preserves
something of the demonology of primitive man. The
libertines are indeed like men possessed by demons. Their
orgasms are like the visitation of the gods of Voodoo, an
nihilating, appalling. Minski 's orgasm, th;:tt kills his part
ners, is announced by a ringing yell. Catherine the Great
screams and blasphemes. Durand emits dreadful screams
and her limbs twitch and thresh; she seems to have suc
cumbed to a fit. Saint Fond's shrieks, his contortions, his
blasphemies are appalling and he half faints at the climax.
These descriptions are those of torture; this is 'the precious
climax, which characterises the enj oyment as good or bad.'
The return to the self after such a crisis must be a
lowering passage. Orgasm has possessed the libertine;
during the irreducible timelessness of the moment of
orgasm, the hole in the world through which we fall, he has
been as a god, but this state is as fearful as it is pleasurable
and, besides, is lost as soon as it is attained. He has burst
into the Utopia of desire, in which only the self exists; he has
not negotiated the terms of his arrival there, as gentle lovers
do, but taken Utopia by force. See, the conquering hero
comes. And, just as immediately, he has been expelled from
it, a fall like Lucifer's, from heaven to hell.
The annihilation of the self and the resurrection of the
body, to die in pain and to painfully return from death, is the
sacred drama of the Sadeian orgasm. In this drama, flesh is
used instrumentally , to provoke these spasmodic visitations
of dreadful pleasure. In this flesh, nothing human remains;
it aspires to the condition of the sacramental meal. It is
never the instrument of love.
In his diabolic solitude, only the possibility of love could
awake the libertine to perfect, immaculate terror. It is in
this holy terror of love that we find, in both men and women
themselves, the source of all opposition to the emancipation
of women.
P O S TS C R I P T :
RED EMMA REPLIES
T O T H E M A DM A N O F C H A R E NTON
History tells us that every oppressed class gained

true liberation from its masters through its own efforts.
It is necessary that woman learn that lesson, that she
realise that her freedom will reach as far as her power to
achieve her freedom reaches. It is, therefore, far more
iniportli.nt for her to begin with her inner regeneration,
to cut loose from the weight of prejudices, traditions,
and customs. The demand for equal rights in every
vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most
vital right is the right to love and be loved. Indeed, if
partial emancipation is to become a complete and true
emancipation of woman, it will have to do away with the
ridiculous notion that to be loved, to be sweetheart and
mother, is synonymous with being slave or subordinate.
It will have to do away with the absurd notion of the
dualism of the sexes, or that man and woman represent
two antagonistic worlds.
Pettiness separates, breadth unites. Let us be broad
and big. Let us not overlook vital things because of the
bulk of trifles confronting us. A true conception of the
relation of the sexes will not admit of conqueror and
conquered; it knows of but one great thing: to give of
one 's self boundlessly, in order to find one's self richer,
deeper, better. That alone can fill the emptiness, and
transform the tragedy of woman's emancipation into
joy, limitless joy.
The Tragedy of Woman 's Emancipation,

Emma Goldman
B I BL I OG R A P H Y
SADE 'S WORK
Oeuvres completes, 16 vols. (Cercle du.Livre Precieux, Paris,

1966-7)
Translations
The Complete Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom and other
writings tr. Richard Seaver and Austryn Wainhouse
(Grove Press:New York, New York, 1965)
,
The Hundred and Twenty Days at Sodom (Grove Press,

New York, 1966)
Juliette (Grove Press, New York, 1968)
OTH E R S O U R C E S
The Dialectics of Enlightenment, Theodor Adorno and Max

Horkheimer, tr. John Cumming (Allen Lane, London, 1973)
SadelFourierlLoyola, Roland Barthes, tr. Richard Miller
(Jonathan Cape, London, 1977)
L 'Erotisme, Georges Bataille (Editions de Minuit, Paris,
1957)
Bibliography 153
Must we Burn Sade ?, Simone de Beauvoir, with selections
from his writings chosen by Paul Dinnage (John Calder,
London, 1 962)
Anthologie de I 'Humeur Noir, ed. Andre Breton, Jean
Jacques Pauvert (Paris, 1966)
Symbolic Wounds, Bruno Bettelheim (Thames and Hudson,
London, 1955)
Life againstDeath: thePsychoanalyticalMeaning ofHistory,
Norman O. Brown (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1959)
Black Skin White Masks, Frantz Fanon, (MacGibbon & Kee,
London, 1968)
Love and Death in the American Novel, Leslie Fiedler
(Jonathan Cape, London, 1967)
Madness and Civilisation: a History of Insanity in the Age
of Reason, Michel Foucault, tr. Richard Howard (Tavistock
Publications, London, 1965)
Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud,
tr. James Strachey (Hogarth Press, London, revised edition
of 1962)
New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Sigmund
Freud, tr. James Strachey (Hogarth Press, London, revised
edition of 1962)
Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Sigmund Freud, tr. James
Strachey (Hogarth Press, London, edition of 1961)
Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Sigmund Freud,
tr. James Strachey (Hogarth Press, London, revised edition
of 1962)
The Life and Ideas of the Marquis de Sade, Geoffrey Gorer
(Panth!'lr, London, 1964)
Norma Jean: the story of Marilyn Monroe, Fred Lawrence
Guiles (W. H. Allen, London, 1969)
Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, edited by C. B. Macpherson
(Penguin, London, 1968}
164 , The Sadeian Woman
Envy and Gratitude, Melanie Klein (Tavistock Publications,

,
London, 1957)
'Kant avec Sade', Jacques Lacan, essay in Ecrits II
(Editions de Seuil, Paris, 1971)
Marquis de Sade, Gilbert Lely, tr. Alec Brown (Paul Elek,
London, 1961)
Psychoanalysis and Jleminism, Juliet Mitchell (Allen Lane,
London, 1974)
Marilyn, Norman Mailer (Hodder and Stoughton, London,
1973)
Not in God 's Image, Julia O 'Faolain and Lauro Martines
(Temple Smith, London, 1973)
Art and Pornography, Morse Peckham (Basic Books, New
York, 1969)
The Complete Works of Fran�is Rabelais, tr. Sir Thomas
Urquhart and Peter Motteux (Bodley Head, London, 1933)
The Marquis de Sade. Donald Thomas (Weidenfeld and
Nicholson, London, 1977)
Earth Spirit, and Pandora 's Box, Frank Wedekind, tr.
Stephen Spender (Calder and Boyars, London, 1972)
Anarchism and Other Essays, Emma Goldman, with a new
introduction by Richard Drinnon (Dover Publications, New
York, 1969)

The Sadeian Woman PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sadeian Woman PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sadeian Woman PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANGELA CARTER

AN EXERCISE IN CULTURAL HISTORY

Published by the Penguin Group

Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices:

First published in Great Britain by Vrrago Press Limited, 1979

Copyright © Angela Carter, 1979

CIP Data available.

Printed in the United States of America

Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to

THE DESECRATION OF THE TEMPLE 38

THE SCHOOL OF LOVE 116

SPECULATIVE FINALE 137

Sade was born in 1740, a great nobleman; and died in 1814,

Sadism i s not a name finally given t o a practice a s old

Madness and Civilisation,

I am not the slave of the Slavery that dehumanised my

Black Skin White Masks,

Pornographers are the enemies of women only because our

symbolic value is primarily that of a myth of patience and

dence of women upon men. This fact is now very largely a

them, because it does not affect their lives. It occurs in the

as possible for the sexual act to take place. There is no room

The privacy of the reader is invaded by his own desires,

his robes of office as he passes judgement on the whore. The

All the idealisations of the female from the earliest days

Love and Death in the American Novel,

Dans le sacrifice, la victime etait choisie de telle maniere

L 'Erotisme, Georges Bataille

. . . it's so different a life from what all girls expect.

Letter quoted from a woman seeking

Justine i s a good woman in a man's world. She i s a good

The Justine of Justine, or ' The Misfortunes of Virtue,

the robber band, but Justine, though almost persuaded by

anger and of her own violence; the repressions demanded of

The real value of a sexually attractive woman in a world

None but Marilyn Monroe could suggest such a purity of sexual

This is an apt anthem for Justine, always the unwitting

seriously. She must laugh it off. The beautiful creature must

Noirceuil, lover of Justine 's sister, describes the perfect

Beauty, virtue, innocence, candour, misfortune - the object of

Sade 's sexual metaphor is always ambiguous. Lin­

Belmore, the immolator of small boys, suggests to his good

Time i s a man, space i s a woman, and her masculine

The life of Juliette exists in a dialectical relationship to that

Her own daughter will marry Juliette when Juliette is

Justine i s the holy virgin; Juliette i s the profane whore. I f

III THE PHALLIC M O T H E R

Durand i s i n her late forties. She has arrived a t post­

The aggressive impulses o f little girls leave nothing to

New Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, No. Three:

I MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS

Philosophy in the Boudoir i s not a picaresque epic novel.

If we admit . . . that all women should submit to our desires,

Sade does not concern himself with problems of capital

E UGENIE: • • • every day I see before me an abomim�ble creature I 've

SAINT-ANGE: I think I can guess who that might be.

EUGENIE: Who do you suspect?

SAINT-ANGE: Your mother?

EUGENIE: Oh, let me hide my blushes in your bosom!

Sade 's sexual metaphor is always ambiguous. Lin

Durand i s i n her late forties. She has arrived a t post

The word 'fleisch', in German, provokes me to an in