
This post is a “rerun” of my review of Balzac’s Letters of Two Brides, a charming, if slight, epistolary novel, translated by R. S. Scott in 1898. I recently read the new translation, The Memoirs of Two Young Wives (NYRB Classics),. The “review” below applies ot both versions.

In the introduction to the 1898 edition of Honoré de Balzac’s novel Letters of Two Brides, George Saintsbury assures us it is not the best of Balzac.
It is far, far from his best. Nonetheless, it has been reissued by NYRB, in a new translation by Jordan Stump, under the title The Memoirs of Two Young Wives. After reading a sample online of the new translation, which didn’t seem very different from my 1898 copy (translated by R. S. Scott), I stuck with the old: and chips of paper littered the floor as I cut the pages. And that’s a reason to read the new!
Written in the form of letters between two best friends, this slight epistolary novel explores women’s attitudes toward marriage. Two women of very different social strata went to convent school together. Louise, intended by her aristocratic family to be a nun, is rescued from the convent by her Carmelite aunt’s knowledge that Louise is “in a decline.” Once she is home in Paris, her mother dolls her up in splendid clothes, she thrives at social events, and she is a belle. But Louise falls in love with her Spanish tutor, who turns out to be a former duc (exiled) but is still, I think, a count–or maybe the opposite–and let me say this romanticism is completely unlike Balazc.
I find Renee more sympathetic than Louise, because there’s none of this hanging from the balcony/hiding in a tree business–that’s what Louise and her lover (later her husband) go in for. On the other hand, Renee’s family always intended her to marry. Once home in the country, she agrees to marry a traumatized war veteran, former prisoner-of-war, and landowner. She doesn’t love him, but she wants a family. And, though I’m surprised by this, her practicality is much more sympathetic than Louise’s drama.
Eventually, I became intrigued–especially by Renee, who is a philosopher. And the two brides are so different that they bicker back and forth: Louise tells Renee her marriage to the tutor is one long passion fest, and she pities Renee for not being in love. (Louise later has a second passionate marriage). Renee tells Louise that she can’t expect the madly-in-love thing to last forever and needs to think about what will last. Guess who wins in the end?
This book is very slight, and actually a bit gushy as well as romantic. Saintsbury, who writes the introduction to the 1898 translation, doesn’t admire it either: he thinks French writers don’t know how to write about women. I simply thought it was a lesser work of Balzac.
But I’ve never met a novel by Balzac I didn’t like. Not his best, but far from his worst

Your post immediately sent me down a Balzac rabbit hole, i.e., reviewing what I’d read, gloating over my little Balzac trove (most of which I HAVEN’t read) and (alas? Yeah?) filling in some gaps with a mini-binge with Penguin Classics! It’s been quite awhile since I dipped into Balzac, reading Cousin Eugenie Grandet” & “Cousin Bette” years and years ago. I liked them both but — time & other books intervened, as so often happens. Also, Balzac was so very prolific, it can be just a bit overwhelming deciding what to read next. Your favorites?
When in doubt, read Cousin Bette! Of course you’ve already done it. HIs “mainstream,” i.e., best-known, novels, are usually the best. Cousin Pons is fascinating and even a bit Henry Jame-ish..