However, a ‘spiritual autobiography’ does not necessarily presuppose an objective kind of autobiography. This basic objectivity lacking as it does not concern itself with the precision of factual detail. Indeed, Proust’s conscious departure from a more traditional and realistic narrative is evident from his letters to Dreyfus as he writes that “Not once does one of my characters shut a window, wash his hands, put on an overcoat, utter a phrase of introduction. If there is anything new about this book, this would be it”. Indeed, the narrator seems lost in his own world, it’s parameters defined by his vivid, almost synaesthesic appreciation of his surroundings that is, for example “dégustation de plaisir” causée par les petits boutons d’or”; this awareness focused on his own inner sensation, rather than dry observation.
Moreover, the narrative develops through visits to one time span to another, as if by accident. It retains a sense of the chronological development of days, which is then disturbed by the discontinuity of the seasons depicted (from Easter he jumps to summer, then suddenly to autumn) and also the constantly changing yearly patterns, as seen from his child memories of his aging aunt Leonié and the subsequent analysis of them in an adult context.
Not only the narrator’s fleeting impressions that are highly subjective, but so his overall vision, as he appreciates the conventionally objective concepts i.e. time, in a highly subjective manner, portraying it as relative, much in the sense of it’s appreciation by a child.
However, the issue of the author’s objectivity in Combray is by no means exhausted by these considerations, as they are almost too rooted in conventional reality to explain a more complex aim of the narrator. It is particularly interesting to re-consider his vision of time and memory by his own criteria. Proust’s appreciation of Bergson’s theories had undeniably helped to shape the complex chronology of Combray, as he sought to redefine the nature of self through memory, believing that the memory can be enriched when the angle of our perception of it changes. Undeniably, the multiplicity of Marcel’s “I” facilitates the constant alteration the angle of the narrator’s (and our) perception of his character, as the narrator is seen to consistently depict that “I” with the aid of different memories in order to try and identify its most authentic expression. It is this departure from a fixed perspective that enables the narrator to attempt almost impossible heights of objectivity, that is, to transcend the limitations of his own contemporary perspective and try to get a glimpse of his own truest character. This constant appeal to memory for this kind of re-evaluation is exemplified by Marcel’s sudden change in mood when travelling back from Martinville to Combray, this change occurring just as his mind wonders back to home and the recollection of needing his mother’s goodnight kiss occurs. “la zone de tristesse où je venais d’entrer était aussi distincte de la zone où je m’élençais avec joie il y aviat un moment encore, que dans certains ceils une bande rose est séparée comme par une ligne d’une bande verte ou d’une bande noire”. Although this juxtaposition of Marcel’s state of mind is portrayed as an involuntary memory, the narrator seems to have deliberately over emphasised this sudden switch between the boy’s almost euphoric happiness and utter misery, and in so doing he highlights the constantly fluctuating self awareness of the “I” within himself.
Angelica Godden was right to observe that “Proust seeks truth of the essentialist kind, nothing to do with the supposedly factual world”, (as indeed can be inferred from those words he wrote to Dreyfus). His pursuit of ultimate objectivity lies in his awareness of the supremacy of intuition over intellect. The narrator himself considers his reflections as “ toujours liées a un object particulier déprevu de valeur intellectuelle et ne se raportant à aucune véritée abstarite”. His synaesthetic appreciation of the world enables him to access the involuntary memory in at its most profound. He certainly is, as Milly suggests, “an extraordinaire metteur en scene”, as is exemplified by his fantastically unusual and evocative metaphorical comparisons of the aubépines to the tracery of the gothic cathedrals. By his sophisticated appreciation of metaphor this narrator is able to express “je ne sais quois” of things, it is not insignificant, perhaps, that the metaphor is directly linked to intuition in psychology. It is in this way that he is seen to depict a certain “abstract consciousness”, common to us all. The subjective observation of this narrative insists, therefore, on direct communication with the reader, easily incorporating us into his world by the evocative power of metaphor. We can consider this intuitive approach as a shared dream of the narrator and his reader, or, equally, as an apt, and therefore objective observation. Ultimately, this dialogue with the reader is composed through an appeal to their aesthetic values and it is the individual and so subjective appreciation of these values that holds the key to desciphering the intricacy of the narrative.
Brian Rogers had explored the narrator’s relationships with the other characters in the novel in some depth, his conclusion once again confirming the a happy coexistence of a subjective and anobjective side within the personality of the narrator. This, in particurlar, is evident from Marcel’s relationship with Mme de Gueremente “a la quelle j’ai si souvent rêvé, maintenant que je voiyais qu’elle existait effectivement en dehors de moi”. Once his perception of her collides with the truth, he is dissapointed by his inability to appreciate life as it is. Similarly, he crystallises on the idea of Gilberte to such an extent, that he imagines the color of her eyes, rather than sees their true physical qualities. His detailed observations are more those of his imagination rather than the actuality of his existence, subjective as ever, but, perhaps, expressing that percieved appreciation of the spirit of peple that surround him- in Guilberte’s case her beauty, in Mme de Gueremande’s her noble qualities. Once more the narrator is prompted to examine and re-examine his nature through the reactions of his own “I” to external stimuli in the story. His relationship with the other characters, is perhaps the most interesting point of this contunued cross refernce because it is there that the reality is seen to differ most widely from his most impressionistically intuitive, and therefore supposedly most true and valid observations.
When considering the perspective of the narration , it is important to recognise the importance of what Nathalie Sarraute calls the “causal chains” in Proust’s work, because they explain the duality of the narrator’s nature. When seeking to get to the what is most objective and true, both for the narrator and his readers, the author is operates by creating an oppotunity for the narrator to re- evaluate his intuitive impressions. Since his almost scientific asessment of the fact is impossible without it’s careful observation, however subjective, and it’s truest nature cannot be desciphered without the help of intuition, the narrator must be both objective and subjective in his approach, both an observer that strings the facts together and the dreamer that meditates on their significance.
