This paper investigates the claim made by recent critics that there is a strong non‐figurative element in Flaubert's work. the introduction (pp. 66–72) challenges the view of Realism proposed by Barthes, suggesting that the mimetic element should be regarded as an integral part of the semiotic system which the novel constitutes. the next section (pp. 72–77) examines Flaubertian description which, it has often been felt, has a disruptive effect; it is argued that both the symbolic and mimetic effects created by descriptive details may lessen the threat they pose to the balance of the novel. the next section (pp. 77–79) deals with plot, examining the effects of suppressing causal connectives and the various forms of disturbance ‐ at the level of the sentence, of the units of plot, and of theme ‐ brought about by Flaubert's deep‐seated compulsion to defer. the following section (pp. 80–83) analyzes the way Flaubert uses the cultural code and challenges the view that he has capitulated to the voice of endoxal wisdom; the role of the narrator is shown to be of key importance, both in spiking human stupidity and in setting up links between the fictional world and external reality. the conclusion (pp. 83–84) suggests thatMadame Bovarycannot be assimilated to either of the models put on display in the novel but successfully avoids the dange