Customer Reviews

The Monk (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Matthew Lewis' "The Monk" is not a book you should read to little kids at bed-time. In the tradition of works like Walpole's "Castle of Otranto" and Radcliffe's "Mysteries of Udolpho," "The Monk" uses the established standards of the gothic romance, and takes them all to outrageous extremes. The novel explores themes of sexuality, violence, and sexual violence at great length. While some may find these play themselves out in a rather tame fashion by to-day's standards, consider that this novel was written and published in 1796 by a member of the British Parliament.

The title monastic is Ambrosio, who was abandoned by his parents as an infant. Raised in a monastery, Ambrosio is a religious fast-tracker taught to disdain sin and hold himself up as a model of purity, untempted by secular pleasure. In Madrid, as the novel begins, he is the young abbot, leader of a monastery. A mesmerizing public speaker, Ambrosio becomes proud and vain, as his popular weekly sermons quickly raise him to the status of an idol. Mischief and misfortunes ensue as Ambrosio's real virtues are put to the test.

What gradually appears to be nothing more than cheap melodramatic pornography is actually a sophisticated critique of the socio-political atmosphere of the late 18th century. "The Monk" operates as a critique not only of Roman Catholicism, but of religious fervor in general. The novel also has much to say about the nature of fame and hero-worship, making it relevant even to-day. "The Monk" also explores themes of government in general - showing the pros and cons of theocracy, oligarchy, pure democracy, and even questions matters of self-governance.

Without getting over-serious, I should also note that Lewis manages to sneak instances of humour into his gothic romance. "The Monk" is at times, a great deal of fun to read. It has all the requisite elements of a rainy-night novel - obscure legends, magic spells, terrible demons, chase scenes, and intersecting love stories. "The Monk" is a fantastic and engaging novel, and one which you will not soon forget after reading.

A classic in the gothic genre, in fact even a founding novel of the genre. It is at first sight a strong criticism of religious orders that lead to extreme violence and narrow-mindedness instead of charity, purity, humility, etc. But it is also another denunciation, that of the practice of some noble families of getting rid of some of their daughters by sending them to nunneries. Yet it is a novel that has many other interests. For one it is anti-Faust : the monk is the one who knows, who preaches THE truth, but he is also the one who is easily tempted and dragged into the worst crimes. Then, when the devil comes into the picture, it is not to save that monk from death, but to destroy him utterly : the objective of the devil has been, all along, to tempt him and to lead him to the worst destruction possible when he thinks he is saved from death by this very devil. The devil more or less takes possession of him, puts him under pressure in order to punish him in his mortal body a hundred times more severely than the Inquisition, to punish him not for his crime but for having been a monk who preached purity. Two objectives for the devil : to get rid of this cumbersome monk for the task of the devil in the world, and to prove to the world that monks and other moral fundamentalists are fakes and monsters. In this element this novel is modern because it announces the death of God among the people, the regression of religion. And yet it does not go as far as Goethe will go with Faust. Another interest is in the negation of sexuality by these religious fundamentalits : negatiion for themselves, but also negation for the whole society. Sex is dirty, sex is ungodly, sex is to be absolutely rejected, even if it does not take much for the monk to fall into it, though the nun, next door, seems to be a lot more unpliant on the subject. Women are more fundamentalistic than men on the subject, in the Catholic church. And yet it is through a woman that the devil will tempt the monk, how else could he do it anyway, though he will not even try to tempt the nun. Contradictory messages then. A last remark about how popular opinion is variable and can shift within seconds from adulation to the most extreme and destructive violence and hatred. This aspect goes along with the method the Inquisition uses to lead someone who is redhandedly taken while committing a crime to his or her execution by forcing that person to confess the crimes the court wants him or her to confess : and they will use all methods, even the most cruel ones, to reach their aim. They are not really concerned by the crime itself ot the truth but only by proving to the people with spectacular autodafes how good and useful they are at protecting people against evil. The Inquisition is an ego trip for powerthirsty religious dignitaries. All that and many other aspects make this novel fascinating and in a way modern.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

As stated in the other reviews, The Monk certainly is for mature readers only. I'm not an expert in the gothic genre, but I have read a gothic book or two in my day so here is my humble opinion. Although the descriptions in this book are centered around less than wholesome events, the book easily catches your attention and imagination. The langauge, in my opinion, is well written but less complex and easier to understand than some of the other books of its time.
Another thing I enjoyed about the monk was that it did not overdo the descriptions as I thought Radcliffe's The Mysteries of UdolphoThe Mysteries of Udolpho (Penguin Classics) did.

Some of the best qualities in the book were: the snipits of interesting poetry, The story of The Bleeding Nun (which in itself is an interesting story), and the concentration on several characters as opposed to just one.
Although the Monk is certainly not everyone's proverbial cup of tea, I think that if one enjoys the gothic novel with extreme elements of debauchery and is looking for a book without an overly complex venacular The Monk is a great read.

i had just finished udolpho when i picked this one up. i really liked this book, it was a very masculine Gothic. it had some problems though. for instance, a maiden's value hinges on her virginity, this came up several times and the book was always in firm support of virginity regardless of the way it was taken or the person who took it. the story itself was fast paced and easy to read. i would encourage people to read it.

This is an absolutely amazing work of fiction. I am so pleased that my present English course assigned this book. True, the book is not for the faint of heart, and although I typically shy away from horror movies, I truly found Lewis' work absolutely engaging. I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in literature, for this English major couldn't put it down.

This book is a glorious bit of trash. Skip the latest incarnation of Hollywood vampires and spend an afternoon absorbed in carriage chases, church burnings, rough sex, gory murders, ghosts, and pacts with the devil in this all-on-the-surface Gothic pulp novel. Despite being written over 200 years ago Lewis easily matches the visceral, gruesome style of modern day horror novelists like Stephen King or Clive Barker. For instance, a domineering mother superior character is literally trampled into mush by an angry crowd, and that's just one of dozens of creative death sequences.

Despite being labeled as a "classic," the actual quality of writing isn't particularly skilled. The characters are one dimensional and it's not a far stretch to call the book misogynistic as most the female characters fall into the "beautiful, sexy virgin" category or the "beautiful, sexy devil-bitch" category. But the pacing is great, the book moves, and the twisty plot satisfies.

I'd also recommend reading the intro to the book. Lewis' biography is almost as colorful as his novel, and it informs the reading.

I'd never heard of this book until it was assigned reading for my graduate 18th Century Lit class. That said, "The Monk" should be on every high school's summer reading list.

Ambrosio's story is strange, twisted, and ultimately horrifying. As I read and after I finished, I kept thinking this plot is worthy of Shakespeare. If Shakespeare had written a novel, "The Monk" would have been it. In fact I wrote a paper for class comparing Ambrosio to Macbeth.

Finally, I can't believe it hasn't been made into a film.

this is much better than Uldolpho, Otranto, or Okandale abby.(please pardon any misspellings of the names). it is rather creepy and i would think that the author must considered raping someone as well as i think that he must have seen a person drug down and murdered by an angry mob because, these scenes and the thoughts and sensations of the characters are very believable. it does have some dated attitudes that are annoying (i.e. i lost my maidenhead therefore i am no good and must die). as far as gothic novels go, this is one of the best.

Unlike, for example, Beckford's "Vathek" and Radcliffe's "The Italian," "The Monk" is a classic gothic novel that has only historical interest. When he wrote it, Lewis set out to go beyond anything his predecessors and competitors had done in terms of shocking the reader. In that respect, he definitely succeeded -- his book was notorious for over 100 years, and even by today's standards it's an eyebrow-raiser. Illicit sex, torture, rape, murder, satanism (with one real-live demon, no less) are all here, described in "loving" detail.

All this sounds more titillating that it really is. Lewis's style is completely conventional, the characters are two-dimensional, and long stretches are quite dull. "The Monk" is worth reading if you have a real interest in classic gothic literature, but otherwise it may be safely by-passed.

Satan might dread to dwell in his (Lewis') skull for there he might find a deeper hell -- Byron. It wasn't as graphic and eroticly descriptive as one might be lead to believe by the reviews here; although for it's time apparently it was. The narratives were a bit tedious, dialogue was good, it was a solid story and was worthily meaningful. It seemed to advocate, somewhat in the line of Rousseauian/Romantic thinking that people are born with natures and should endeavor to find and live their authentic selves; society should not chain people to custom, tradition, or have abusive power. I didn't see it as whole hearted anti-Catholic or anti-Christian attack as I saw it as an attack on power and superstition, which not all religious people subscribe to; however it did point to the Romantic notion of there being a higher virtue present in nature it is just a matter of finding one's authentic nature (symptomatic of having one's feelings and actions in harmony). It was in-line with the Romantic/Humanist zeitgeist. The Monk, as the author points out, knew only the life of a monk, from birth, but as the author directly states his nature was something entirely un-monkish which was the root of the problem and the door for which demons could enter (in Lewisfs thinking). Once his authentic nature was awakened he became a threat because he had inauthentic powers which the demons were all too willing to utilize (his inauthentic powers which Romanitic/Humanists wanted to rid the world of); a few other characters are forced into these inauthentic lives as well by corupt uses of power. The hero is someone who is not wrapped in superstition but uses a disguise to hide his power (money/title) so he can know people for who they really are and not have money infringe upon human relationships, he is a Romantic-humanist who proves more virtuous than the church people; his feelings and actions were in harmony and he was not ruled by superstition. The demons are those who enjoy deception and portraying themselves as something they are not, they are the posers and inauthentic peoples who prey on people who are not who they are (and whose feelings and actions are in disharmony) by accident, choice, or vanity, greed, what have you. Some good monks and nuns are described, however, so it was not a whole hearted attack on religion per say; as some reviewers seem to imply.

The gypsy? Why does the author have her who she is? She mocks those that are not who they are with gleeful joy, she sees the precipice of hell and dances near it to envoke the anger of demons and mock them, she tells people who they really are, but she is no demon, she asks for money openly and tells it like it is, she even warns people by her manner that to be near her is to unveil disguises, so beaware of the truth -- the truth can be funny, that is what separates comedians (a high art) from clowns.

Theodorious disguises himself out of love for his master his intentions are entirely different, his intentions are purely of the heart.

The book supports Rousseau's ideas and is in-line with Romantic thinking of the time that society should not place people in chains and perhaps supports Rousseau's statement (in one of the most controversial statements ever and is really the root of public education) gthat people must be forced to be free.hObviously the Monk has many candidates whose lives might be made happier under such a standard

A solid book, if it is taken in the right spirit. A literary momento mori in several places as well. It was also interesting that it was written by a nineteen year old. A definite advocation for the Romantic/Humanist Natural Man of Rousseau, Jefferson (he wrote a Bible with all the miracles taken out and the Declaration of Independence, by-the-way), Beethoven, Byron etc. A fine work of its genra and era. It is easy to see how personal these ideas must have been in Lewis' life and the the choices he was going to undertake, plus the particular situation of his mother and father's relationship as he was growing up.

Some see contradiction between this book and Lewis' stance against slavery. Slavery, in the Protestant world, was largely justified by religious superstition, Lewis' heroes are obviously not superstitious; so I see no contradiction. It must be remembered that Jefferson, Rousseau, Beethoven, Washington, Byron etc. had much more in common with Jerry Garcia than Jerry Fallwell.