V. Conclusion

In order to integrate all the reflections we have just made within an synoptic framework, we bring them together once again in the guise of a conclusion. After outlining a theoretical framework (where we approached homosexuality from five points of view, namely myth, science, history, culture and literature), we concentrated on the question of how the Search was received. Here, we came across diverse reactions: some applauded the work in progress while others repudiated it (because, among other reasons, of the homosexuality that is extensively described therein).

After examining the title, the summary and the epigraph of Sodom and Gomorrah I [Cities of the Plain, Part I], we closely examined the theory of inversion proposed by Marcel. From this study, it emerges that the Protagonist has introduced an elaborate structure into the representation of inversion. He outlines a whole theory in the first part of Sodom and Gomorrah. As a basis, Marcel constructs a bipartite foundation (myth and science) on which he presents many types of homosexualities and homosexuals, using metaphorical language. This theoretical foundation is illustrated by what follows. We think, for example, of Charlus, who fits the “solitary homosexual” case. Marcel raises many questions (for example, is homosexuality innate or acquired, cultural or natural?) inspired by the ideas in force at the time (cf. I Homosexual love). The answers arise from the same source of inspiration, even though Marcel offers nothing definitive: as we saw in the second chapter, nothing is simple, sure or stable. In the Search, there is one of every kind. The Protagonist’s relativism states nothing as fixed.

If Sodom lends itself to many approaches, many interpretations, Gomorrah does so no less. When lesbianism appears, Marcel remains at sea: as he never sees much (if Gomorrah does not show itself voluntarily, it remains invisible), the Protagonist gives himself up to a daydreamy, imaginary description of feminine love. Also, negative reactions are not long in coming.

In order to complete the analysis of Gomorrah, we studied how Gomorrah compared to Sodom before concentrating on the theory of the transposition of the sexes.

In the third chapter, we analyzed the three great homosexual scenes of the Search. From Montjouvain to the Guermantes mansion to the Paris flophouse, Marcel undergoes a negative evolution in relation to what he sees – or what he does not see, since there is always a problem: the curtains are drawn, or the transom is too high. As we have seen, these “problems” fit in with the collection of “security measures” taken by Proust in order not to scandalize his readers too much. It is not until the third scene, in the flophouse, that Marcel describes what he sees. It is thus made clear that the Protagonist has undergone an evolution in his description of “observed homosexuality.”

At the end, we analyze the homosexual characters of the Search. From these portraits it emerges clearly that the theory of inversion as Marcel presented it to us in Sodom and Gomorrah I has been put into practice. As we saw in the second chapter, there is one specimen of each type – an idea that is absolutely confirmed during the analysis of the homosexual characters.

In this thesis, we have tried to confront the difficult and delicate question of homosexuality in a deliberately descriptive and classificatory manner. Beginning with a representation, we have attempted to show when and how certain acts, characters, perversions are represented by Proust. It is evident that, with such a “classification,” one is far from having said everything. In view of the length of this work, we have contented ourselves with a classificatory analysis, leaving the moral questions for a later work.