INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD., ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 8121844

Pin t e r, M a r t h a Pe r e sz l en y i

THEATRICALITY IN THE LATE FARCE OF MOLIERE: 1666 - 1671

The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1981

University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106

Copyright 1981

by Pinter, Martha Pereszlenyi All Rights Reserved THEATRICALITY IN THE LATE FARCE OF MOLI^RE:

1666 - 1671

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By Martha Peresslenyi Pinter, B.A., M.A.

******

The Ohio State University

1981

Reading Committee: Approved By

Dr. Charles G. S. Williams

Dr. Pierre Astier Adviser Dr. Margarita Levisi Department of Romance Languages ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my adviser, Dr. Charles

G. S. Williams, whose course on Molifere inspired me to pursue further work and research, and who unselfishly gave me many hours of his time, help, and encouragement. I would also like to thank my friends, colleagues, and family, especially my mother, father, and husband, for their loving support. VITA

November 8, 1948 ...... Born, Braunau-am-Inn, Austria

1970 ...... B.A. , magna cum laude, The Cleveland State Unxversity, Cleveland, Ohio

1970-1971 ...... University Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

19 71 ...... Scholarship, Bryn Mawr College in Avignon, France

1971-1975 ...... Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1972 ...... M.A., The Ohio State Univer­ sity, Columbus, Ohio

19 75 ...... Instructor, The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio

19 75-1976 ...... Assistant Professor, Slippery Rock State College, Pennsyl­ vania

19 77 - present ...... Co-ordinator, The French Individualized Instruction Program, The Ohio State Uni­ versity, Columbus, Ohio, formerly through a Grant by The National Endowment for the Humanities

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: French Literature

Seventeenth Century. Dr. Charles G. S. Williams, Dr. Hugh M. Davidson

iii Eighteenth Century. Dr. Hugh M. Davidson, Dr. Ronald C. Rosbottom

Sixteenth Century. Dr. Robert Cottrell

Nineteenth Century. Dr. Charles Carlut

Twentieth Century. Dr. Pierre Astier

Medieval and Linguistics. Dr. Hans-Erich Keller

Minor Field: Spanish Literature

Medieval: Dr. Aristobulo Pardo

Golden Age: Dr. Margarita Levisi

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

A. "Le Premier farceur de France": An Overview of the Topic ...... 1 B. Etat present: Molifere and Farce ...... 6 C. Molifere andthe Italian Connection: La Commedia dell'arte ...... 12 D. Etat present: The Commedia dell1arte . . . 15 E. Molifere's Theatricality: Towards a Definition and a Description...... 19 1. The Comic Aesthetic...... 20 2. Theatre as Ritual ...... 21 3. The B a r o q u e ...... 24 F. Molifere, homme de thfeatre: Etat prisent . 2 8 1. The "New View" of Moore and Bray . . . 28 2. Molifere the Formalist...... 30 a. "Structure Studies"...... 30 b. Rastier, Relyea, et al.: The Semiotic View ...... 35 c. Anthologies ...... 37 3. Molifere Dramaturge ...... 41 4. Performance and Spectacle: Actors and Directors ...... 4 3 G. Three Late Farces: The Politics of Self-Parody ...... 48

II. A. The "Farceur," His Art in 1666: Spectacle and Performance ...... 6 8 B. The Question of "Sources" ...... 80 1. Parody: Literary Sources and Their U s e ...... 80 a. Le Vilain m i r e ...... 82 b. La Femme m u e t t e ...... 93 2. Self-Parody: Alceste and the Sganarelles...... 95

v Chapter Page

C. Theatruro m u n d i ...... 104 1. Moliere and "the Doctors": The Craft of Farce in the "Medical Plays" and "impie en m^decine" .... 104 2. Play as Game: A Freudian Interpretation ...... 119 D. Conventions ...... 125 1. The "Theatricality" of Speech and Gesture: A Game T h e o r y ...... 125 2. From Rite and Ritual to Fantaisie v e r b a l e ...... 134 3. Mask T ...... 138

III.- GEORGE DANDIN, OR, MEGALOMANIA SHATTERED . . 150

A. The "Farceur," His Art in 166 8: Spectacle and Performance ...... 150 B. The Question of "Sources" ...... 150 1. Parody: Dramatico-literary Sources and Their U s e ...... 180 a. Medieval Farce, "Lessons," and the Theme of Cuckoldry...... 180 b. Calmo's Rhodiana, and the Influence of Boccaccio ...... 194 2. Self-Parody...... 199 a. Molihr6's Preliminary Sketch: La Jalousie du Barbouill£ ...... b. Moli&re1s "Unreconstructed Heroes" . 206 C. Theatrum M u n d i ...... 212 1. The Dreamworld: An Absurd Nightmare . . 212 2. Marriage, the Illusion of Marriage, and the Rituals of Illusion...... 216 D. Conventions: Unmasking Through Speech, Gesture, and C o s t u m e ...... 221

IV. LES FOURBERIES DE SCAPIN OR, MEGALOMANIA RE-ESTABLISHED ...... 2 35

A. The "Farceur," His Art in 1671: Spectacle and Performance ...... 2 35 B. The Question of "Sources": "Je prends mon bien oh je le trouve" ...... 255 1. Theatrical "Borrowings": Practicality and Parody ...... 256 a. Latin Comedy: Terence’s Phormio . . 256 b. Moliere and the Italian Theatrical T r a d i t i o n ...... 262 c. Contemporary French Comedy ...... 26 7

vi Chapter Page

2. Moli^re's’Own Repertoire: Self-Parody and Stagecraft ...... 2 72 a. Miscellaneous Borrowings ...... 2 73 b. L'Etourdi ...... 277

C. Theatrum Mundi ...... 280 1. Dom Juan, Mascarille, and Scapin .... 281 2. Scapin as Valet/Servant Character .... 286 D. Conventions: The Mask of the Mechanical B a l l e t ...... 288

V. CONCLUSION ...... 304

BIBLIOGRAPHY 315 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. "Le Premier farceur de France"; An Overview of the Topic

It is possible to trace Molifere's early relationship

with farce. We know that his father had access to a

number of loges or boutiques at the foire Saint-Germain.

Le Boulanger de Chalussay in Elomire Hypocondre (16 70)

claims that Molifere had a role with the opferateurs

Orvifetan and Bary. In Les Vferitables Prfetieuses (1660),

Somaize accuses him of having been a student of Guillot-

Gorju (d.1648) and implies that the latter’s widow sold

him his memoirs. Grimarest in La Vie de M. de Molifere

(1705) tells the story that Grandfather Cressfe often took

the young Jean-Baptiste to the Hdtel de Bourgogne and as

a consequence, Molifere's father feared that his son might become a comfedien.^

Around the time of the Fronde (164 8-16 53), the

Parisian public seems to have tired of the farce in the tradition of farceurs such as Tabarin (d.1633), a farceur of the Pont-Neuf; Gautier-Garguille (d. 16 32-16 34 ?);

Gros-Guillaume (d. 1634) , Turlupin (d. 1637) ; Alizon and 2 Guillot-Gorju. Tallemant des Rfeaux also mentions the

1 decline of farce during this period: "Jodelet, pour un

faring naif, est un bon acteur; il n'y a plus de farce

qu'au Marais oh il est, et c'est fe cause de luy qu'il y 3 en a." According to Scarron (Le Roman comique, Seconde

partie (1657), ch. VIII), "Aujourd'hui, la farce est comme

abolie.

But three years before the beginning of the Fronde,

Molifere had already left for the provinces which were in

all likelihood behind Paris in terms of tastes and trends. 5 Donneau de Visfe in Nouvelles nouvelles (1663), as well as

La Grange in the "Preface" to the 168 2 edition of the complete works of Molifere, indicate that while touring the provinces

Molifere composed "petits'divertissements" or "petites' g comedies" that were no longer in vogue in Paris. In all probability, these "petits divertissements" were farces.

After thirteen annfees d'apprentissage in the prov­

inces, Molifere and his troupe returned to Paris where they presented on 24 October 16 58 Corneille's Nicomfede before

Louis XIV in the Salle des Gardes of the Vieux Louvre.

As La Grange recounts in the "Preface," after the presentation of the tragedy Nicomfede, Molifere asked his majesty's indulgence "qu'il lui donnat un de ces petits

divertissements qui lui avoient acquis quelque reputation,

•n et dont il rfegaloit les provinces." The petite comfedie g was Le Docteur amoureux* The following year, Molifere presented Les Prfecieuses

m ridicules which Mademoiselle Desjardins called a farce,

although around 1660 it was common to present short one-

act plays under the title of comfedie, as did Montfleury

fils, Villiers, Poisson, and Brfecourt. The Registre of

La Grange mentions short comedies that were presented by

Molifere's troupe which were in all probability farces:

La Jalousie de Gros-Renfe, Gros-Renfe fecolier, Le Fagotier, 9 Le Mfedecin volant, and Le Docteur pfedant. Whether these were the products of Molifere's own composition or merely

canevas of existing traditional farces is a matter for

conjecture. Molifere will return to a one act comfedie in

1671 with La Comtesse d'Escarbagnas.

In my dissertation, I would like to examine in

detail the theatricality of three of Molifere1s late

farces: Le Mfedecin malgrfe lui (1666), George Dandin

(1668), and Les Fourberies de Scapin (1671). Although

the analysis of these three plays will form the body of

the dissertation, there will be occasional references to

other plays in order that these three late farces may be

fitted into Molifere's theatre as a whole.

I have chosen these three plays for two basic

reasons. First, Molifere the mature artist has developed

a deeper awareness not only of tradition (medieval farce,

l 1esprit gaulois, the commedia dell'arte) but also an

awareness and use of his own past, working with his own resources toward a more complex and sophisticated kind of

m comedy. Richard Poirier calls this kind of development the "politics of self-parody" in his critical work The

Performing Self (1971). Such "self-parody" first demands the closest possible intimacy with the resources of a given style and "treats writing as a performance rather than a codification of significances."^ Rather than utilizing the method of traditional criticism, seeing the man through the work, or for example, seeing the recurrence of the theme of cuckoldry as a reflection of Moliere's marital woes, one works intertextually and looks to the earlier plays as a training ground for the perfection of a theatrico-literary style: thus, La Jalousie du Barbouill£, an early farce, is seen as a store-house of theatrical techniques rather than as an early philosophical or per­ sonal statement regarding Molidre's relationship with, or attitude toward women. With respect to "performance,"

Poirier notes a curious exercise of power: performance becomes narcissistic in that it is eager for public approval and pressure to compete with reality for the control of the mind of the spectators.^ Here lies a vast terrain for the examination of the "theatricality" of theatrical convention.

My second reason for the choice of these three plays is that there is a lacuna in Moli^re criticism that deals with the theatricality of the late farces as a whole. 5

Theatrico-historically oriented criticism tends to deal with the late farces one by one, or the early works such as L'Etourdi (16 53). The large body of traditional scholar­ ship as well as the "new criticism" tends to favor what are considered the "major plays," the grandes comedies: Pom

Juan (1665), Tartuffe (1664 and 1669), and Le Misanthrope

(1666). Although some of Moli&re's late com^dies-ballets

(as for example, Monsieur de Pourceaugnac— 1669) are also considered farce, there is already a large body of crit- 12 icism devoted exclusively to the com§die-ballet. The original George Dandin was presented with a musical pastorale attached to the Divertissement at Versailles, but these intermfedes were cut from the later performances at the Palais Royal. Historically, Dandin has almost always been and continues to be played as straight farce, and we shall examine the reasons and implications in the chapter on Dandin. I have, however, chosen not to give major consideration to the late com£die-ballet/farce from which the musical elements are not traditionally dropped in performance, or from which the cutting of the interludes would irrevocably alter the style and content of the play. Hence, I have excluded Pourceaugnac, Le

Bourgeois Gentilhomme (1670), and Le Malade imaginaire

(1673) .

I hope to give a fuller and fresh view of "theatri­ cality." My basic definition is two-fold. It involves first the idea of theatrum mundi, or, as Elizabeth Burns

describes the theatrical metaphor in Theatricality, A Study

of Convention in Theatre and in Social Life (1972): the 13 world becomes a stage and the theatre its paradigm.

Secondly, the reality of theatrical illusion is dependent

on certain conventions which are simply mutual understand­

ings about the meaning of the action and include, for 14 example, gesture and speech. Let us begin by a mise-au-

point, in bibliographical terms, of Molidre and farce.

B. Etat present; Molidre and Farce

Barbara Bowen, in Les Caract6ristiques essentielles

de la farce frangaise et leur survivance dans les ann£es

1550-1620 (1964), notes that the word farce is from the

low Latin farsa which originally referred to a play with 15 jargon. Robert Garapon in La Fantaisie verbale et le

comique dans le theatre frangais du moyen &qe & la fin du

XVIIe sidcle (1957) adds that the use of jargon in six­

teenth-century farce was destined to communicate the plot 16 to an audience who did not always speak French. Thus, with respect to actor/audience interplay, the theatrical

convention of "speech" adapts to a practical necessity.

Halina Lewicka, in "Un Proc£d£ comique de l'ancienne 17 farce: la fausse comprehension du langage" (1970), bases her arguments on Bowen1s Les Caracteristiques essenti­ elles. . . to expand her own theory that farce is verbally comical when a character is ignorant of the conventions of everyday language. Such linguistic lacunae, in farce, may even be evident in the "ignorant" character's gestures.

Nevertheless, Lewicka emphasizes "speech," and her main argument is that a verbally farcical situation arises when a character is unable to distinguish the literal meaning of a verbal exchange from the figurative meaning. (We can apply Lewicka's theory to, for example, L*Amour mgdecin

(166 5): Sganarelle, when told by the doctors that his ill daughter suffers from "beaucoup d'impuretes en elle" re­ plies "Ma fille est impure?"— 11,2). Lewicka also points out that such an effect can be doubly comical when the speaker rusefully and purposely pretends to misunderstand the linguistic structure (the adjacent semantic structure, or that which the transformationalists call "underlying semantic structure").

Lewicka's later companion volume Etudes sur l'ancienne farce frangaise (1974) begins by proposing a definition of farce based on subject matter as well as the purely verbal aspects which border on "folie d^chain^e" as well as "folie bouffonne." She also dis­ cusses two popular schemas: "1'enfant (or 1'imbecile) 18 mis & l'ecole" and "le mari jaloux." Traces of both

Lewicka's farce schemas resurface in Le Mgdecin malgrg lui as well as George Dandin. Sganarelle is "taught a lesson" by Martine who seeks revenge by having him beaten. Indeed it was often by beatings from the master that schoolboys

0 learned their lessons. Perhaps this is how Molidre him­ self learned his Latin, which he employs in this play as both jargon and burlesque parody. In George Dandin, not only is the latter beaten by his wife, but he is constantly the butt of "lessons" by his wife's parents. The mari jaloux of the medieval farce had to contend with the infidelity of his wife with the parish priest no less! In

George Dandin, the parish priest, symbol of religious authority, is metamorphosed into Clitandre, symbol of class authority. Likewise, the use of Latin, symbol of church authority, appears in Le Mddecin as macaronic Latin meta­ morphosed into a symbol of medical authority.

Rend Bray, in Molidre, homme de thdatre (1954) , underlines Molidre's debt to farce, but it was really

Gustave Lanson who was the first major contributor to theories about Molidre's direct relationship with farce.

Lanson in his classic article "Molidre et la farce" (1901) establishes Molidre's theatre as simply metamorphoses of an underlying structure which is none other than farce.

As Lanson explains, no matter how much we pay homage to

Molidre's creative genius, to his debt to classical,

French, Italian, and Spanish comedy, it was in farce that he had his true roots. It was there that he found the principles of pantomime and active gestures. Lanson also feels that the principle of character as Molidre uses it is molded from his observation and his invention into masks, beginning with that of Mascarille and Sganarelle, two masks of valets in the Italian manner. After 1666 however, Molifere individualizes his types, thus coming closer to life, bringing reality to illusion and illusion to reality, and marking a step in the true imitation of manners. But throughout his article, Lanson continually returns to the idea that it was through farce that Molifere learned to situate the source of laughter outside the plot and entirely in the relationship that his people bear to people in real life. That which differentiates Molifere's farce from the Italian "types" is the portrait of contem- 19 porary social relationships and conditions.

Raymond Lebfegue, in an article also entitled "Molifere et la farce" (1964), basically agrees with Lanson in acknowledging Molifere's debt to farce coupled with his debt to the Commedia and comic lazzi. Lebfegue also pro­ duces parallels between known farces and those of Molifere.

He points out, as did Lanson, that Moli&re is careful to observe rofetier as well as social rapport (which of course 20 constitutes the basic theme of George Dandin).

In her article "Some Elements of French Farce in

Molifere" (1966), Barbara Bowen shows the continuity of the tradition of French farce by pointing out "similarities concerning types of plot, use of language to indicate states of mind, emphasis on theatre as illusion and 10 general attitudes to such matters as marriage, cuckoldry 21 and the implications of human folly." Bowen as well as

Lewicka discuss the relevance of the choice of traditional names in medieval farce which also appear in Molifere's.

Bowen notes that a farceur called "Soteville" is mentioned

in Le Bateleur. "Dandin" (or "Dando") is a generic farce name (like "Jehan") for cuckold.

Speaking of cuckoldry, Peter H. Nurse in Classical

Voices; Corneille, Racine, Molifere, Madame de Lafayette

(1971), discusses Molifere's enormous debt to the tradition of popular farce and its preoccupation with the cocu and other marital misfortunes which arise from the tyrannical mismanagement of the home. Nurse emphasizes that the theme of cocuage looms so ominously because marriage and

family life constitute the most obvious social group.

Molifere's cockolds then become archetypes of the basic 22 human predicament. In the sense of the theatrical,

Molifere's farces (as well as his other plays) allow the spectator to experience "dramatically" certain basic aspects of his nature.

Paul Saintonge in "Thfeme et variations" (1966), however, chose not to emphasize archetypal criticism nor the effect on the spectator in favor of exploring the artistic and aesthetic development of the playwright him­ self throughout the course of his dramatico-literary

career. Saintonge claims that Molifere used two basic 11 themes, from the farces, to the ballets, to the high come­ dies: forced marriage and the jealous husband. Beginning with the early farces such as Le Medecin volant, L'Etourdi,

Le Dfepit amoureux and La Jalousie du Barbouillfe, Saintonge builds up to the late farces Le Mfedecin malgrfe lui, George

Dandin, and Les Fourberies de Scapin, claiming that with

Scapin . .we find his final mastery of the traditional complicated farce. After a number of comedies of character,

Molifere returned to his first love Italian farce. He takes the traditional double plots of the early plays and handles them as though they were one." Saintonge continues, claim­ ing that the survey of farces provides a valuable insight for ". . . i t shows Molifere experimenting with the same 23 material until he creates a mold of his own." Hence, m this statement, Saintonge is suggesting what is one of the basic tenets of this dissertation: that in his late farces,

Molifere is engaging in self-parody which emerges as a new, more sophisticated, and aesthetically appealing type of comedy.

In the above survey, we have examined the work of the major contributors to Molifere scholarship who have under­ lined his enormous debt to the spirit and technique of

French farce. It was not, however, the French theatre alone which influenced Molifere who is often quoted as having stated: "Je prends mon bien oil je le trouve." Molifere found quite a good deal of bien in the commedia dell*arte. 12 c * Molifere and the Italian Connection: La Commedia dell' arte

Regarding the farces that Molifere played in the provinces, two have been definitely attributed to him:

Le Medecin volant and La Jalousie du Barbouillfe. The first, according to Louis Moland, is incontestably a French construction of a canevas of the commedia: II Medico volante. In the "Preface" to the Vferitables Pretieuses,

Somaize refers to this play as "une singerie dont il

[Molifere] fetait seul capable" (1660) . In 1661, Boursault, regarding the same play, stated: "Le sujet est italien: il a fetfe traduit dans notre langue, reprfesentfe de tous cotfes."

The docteur of the Docteur amoureux, a farce attributed to

Molifere, was, according to Moland, one of the "grande famille des pedants dont la savante Bologne fut la citfe 24 natale."

Although Molifere is indebted to the French farce with respect to plots, themes, and the esprit gaulois, this debt is intertwined with the enormous influence exerted by the commedia dell'arte . Molifere owes not only various plots, scenes, episodes, intrigues, and characters to the Ital­ ians, but also the art of pantomime, gesture, and more natural movement. In the chapters specifically devoted to the plays, especially the chapter on Les Fourberies, we shall see how certain aspects of Molifere's "theatricality" are really more Italian than French. Indeed, the Italian 13 infiltration early in the seventeenth century may have been an influencing factor on the Pont Neuf farces, which in 25 turn influenced Molifere's early theatrical experiences.

It is often said that Molifere took Scaramouche for a model for his acting techniques and "stage business."

Scaramouche, who had first come to Paris in 1639, left

Paris in 1648, probably because of the Fronde. He formed his own Fiorelli-Locatelli troupe and returned to Paris around 16 53 to play at the Petit Bourbon, which Molifere's troupe shared with the Italians, 165 8-1659. The two troupes later shared similar arrangements at the theatre of the

Palais Royal. The importance of the role of Scaramouche and the Italians cannot be overemphasized in a discussion of the development of Molifere's theatrical techniques.

Although Molifere was later credited with bringing a fresh­ ness to the comic genre and to its acting techniques, invective was heaped upon him in his own time. In

Elomire Hypocondre, Le Boulanger de Challusay portrayed

Molifere as a hypochondriacal, malicious, moneygrabbing playwright, who created nothing of his own, but was a fawning imitator of the Italian technique:

. . . Par exemple, Elomire Veut se rendre parfait dans l'art de faire rire; Que fait-il, le matois, dans ce hardy dessein? Chez le grand Scaramouche il va soir et matin. Lfe, le miroir en main, et ce grand homme en face, Il n'est contorsion, posture ny grimace Que ce grand Ecolier du plus grand des bouffons ^ Ne fasse et ne refasse en cent et cent fagons. . . 14

It is likely that de Chalussay as well as some of his contemporaries (Somaize, for example) were motivated by feelings of jealousy of the playwright's success, not to mention the fact, that in de Chalussay's case, he was out to make a name•for himself in the literary world, and what better way than to find fault with a successful playwright?

Such assertions, however, contributed to the charges of plagiarism which have often been leveled at Molifere's works.

In this dissertation, however, we shall see that although

Molifere did quite likely "borrow" certain plots and

"stage business," in his late farces he has developed and refined his techniques (which include parody, self-parody, and the burlesque) to a point where we can no longer label them as simple "plagiarisms." They are products of his own fertile imagination and bedazzling theatricality. By coming full circle, Molifere produces his own "Italianate" theatricality through mimesis as well as self-parody.

An enormous amount of scholarship has been devoted to researching Molifere's relationship with the commedia from various viewpoints: theatrical, structural, thematic, source materials and direct borrowings. It would be beyond the scope and purpose of this dissertation to examine critically each and every one of them other than those which have direct bearing on the plays which will be discussed. These will be noted in the chapters. The following works, however, have proven particularly useful 15

especially in a study devoted to the theatricality of the 27 farces.

D. Etat present; The Commedia dell'arte

Louis Moland's Molifere et la comfedie italienne (1867),

though superseded in some points by later investigations,

remains the basic scholarly work on this particular connec­

tion. Pierre Louis Duchartre's The Italian Comedy (19 29,

translated into English 1966 by R. T. Weaver) is an excel­

lent historical introduction to the commedia. Duchartre

does not mention Molifere extensively, but the iconographic

aspects of the work are invaluable in establishing the

flavor of the "stage-business" of the various troupes

I. A. Schwartz's The Commedia dell1arte and Its Influence

on French Comedy in the Seventeenth Century (1933) is

considered a standard classic but provides no fresh or particularly meaningful insights. Winifred Smith's La

Commedia dell'arte was considered a monumental achievement when it first appeared in 1912. It has since fallen into

disfavor among commedia as well as Molifere scholars. Its

republication, however, in 1964 with an added set of

illustrations renders it worthy of investigation.

Of particular value with regard to the study of

theatricality are Constant Mic's La Commedia dell'arte

(1927) and Katherine M. Lea's Italian Popular Comedy (1934).

These works have stood the test of time and serve as a 16 sound guide on the subject. (Mic's chapter on "L'Art de l'acteur," p. 10 8-71, is particularly useful.) Regarding

Bergson's theories put forth in Le Rire (1901), Mic adds:

"L'effet comique ne peut etre atteint que si le specta- teur ne prend pas part aux Emotions des personnages en scfene et ne rfeagit au spectacle de celles-ci qu'avec sa 2 8 seule intelligence, sans 1'intervention du sentiment."

If we apply Mic's theories, then, to the plays to be discussed, a performance of Le Medecin or Les Fourberies would be little likely to arouse "Emotions de sentiment" in the spectator. There might be a case made for the arousal of empathic emotions with regard to Dandin, but the dance interludes give this play an optique theatrale that pre­ vents this. Katharine M. Lea's chapter entitled "The

Scenari" (p. 129-220) discusses farce, parody, and pastorale as the modification of academic models by the free use of magic and buffoonery. Lea adds that "the most interesting contribution to the art of farce construction made by the Commedia was the device of deliberate repeti­ tions. When something happens three times in succession, 29 we laugh whether it is a joke or not." (Lea, like Mic, is also probably influenced by the Bergsonian sense of the comic.) Molifere makes extensive use of this device in gesture, speech and structure as well.

Allardyce Nicoll's Mimes, Masks, and Miracles (1931), an early work, has several sections on the commedia. In The World of Harlequin (1963), Nicoll notes that the commedia, while basically a clown's theatre and a theatre of laughter, has been shortchanged critically and histori­

cally by scholars who have failed to give full credit to the part played by the amorous complications. We shall see, however, that MoliSre's borrowings indicate that he did not neglect the amorous complications depicted in the commedia plays, but transformed and reconstructed them in a way peculiar to him. The d£pit amoureux scenes of the early plays and farces evolve into a self-parody in the late farces, e.g., the marital squabble followed by recon­ ciliation that opens Le M^decin malgr£ lui.

The most important contributions to MoliSre scholar­ ship since 19 50 regarding the commedia, its theatricality, and its rapport with Molidre have been made by Gustave

Attinger and an American scholar, Philip A. Wadsworth.

Gustave Attinger, in L 1Esprit de la Commedia dell*arte dans le theatre frangais (19 50), gives an account of the acting techniques employed by Scaramouche (pantomime), and reaffirms the importance in Moli^resque comedy of gesture, mime, and other techniques of the Italian tradi­ tion. This view is shared by other critics since 1950 who emphasize the "physicality" of "theatricality." Attinger claims that ". . . au d^but de sa carri^re, MoliSre s'est tourn6 vers les italiens, pour leur emprunter ce qu'aucun auteur ant^rieur ou contemporain ne leur avait demand^: 18 non pas des sujets d'intrigue, ni l'apparat d'une mise en sc^ne, mais 1'action, les postures et, comme corollaire, 30 1 1universalite du type."

Philip A. Wadsworth in Molifere and the Italian

Theatrical Tradition (1977) presents a historical, struc­ tural, and thematic analysis of the commedia erudita as well as the commedia dell'arte in order to show how both traditions may have influenced Molidre. Wadsworth provides a meticulous study (with the bonus of an up-to-date bibliography) that analyzes in detail several Italian models and canevas as well as Molifere's plays. He is care­ ful to point out, however, certain limitations with respect to the guidance that Molifere received (or took) from

Italian dramaturgy. For this dissertation, it is of par­ ticular relevance to note that one of these limitations was that Moli&re, according to Wadsworth, "was in full possession of this inheritance by the time of L'Ecole des femmes, after which, while he did not forget the lessons learned, his imitation of Italian (and sometimes Latin) 31 models became far more independent and imaginative."

Extrapolating from Wadsworth's theory, we shall see that in his late farces, Moli&re had long since internalized the playful spectacle and gestural aspects of the Italian models. Thus, his reworking of themes and structural forms is based, in the late farces, on a self-parody as much as the Italian theatrical tradition. 19

Summing up our survey of Molidre's debt to the farces of French ancestry and to the Italian popular theatre, we

turn to Philip Wadsworth:

. . . when Moli&re embarked on his career, both in Lyons and Paris, there coexisted two fairly distinct types of farcical plays, the brief pieces of French ancestry and the far more elaborate productions done by the Italians. The two farcical traditions had only a limited influence upon one another. The Italians sometimes adopted French themes and the satire of manners . . . French actors and playwrights borrowed Italian devices— a stock character, a plot or situation, a gag or a routine. None of them except MoliSre, however, really understood or ex­ ploited the comic potential of the Italian popular theater. . . Only Molidre appreciated the spectacu­ lar features of the commedia dell*arte and succeeded in combining them with the traditional materials of French farce.32

Quite a strong and sweeping statement for even as re­ spected a critic and scholar as Wadsworth. It is not our contention to debate the above generalizations. We shall, however, assume that Moli&re is indeed indebted to both the

French farce and the commedia, and his originality resides in his own special theatricality that finds itself crystal­ lized in the late farces, most notably Les Fourberies de

Scapin. I shall now examine what I term "Molidre's special theatricality" in light of the above statements, drawing upon recent scholarship to formulate a definition particular to Molifere and his late farce.

E. Molifere's Theatricality: Towards a Definition and a Description As stated earlier in this introduction, my general definition given to theatricality in this dissertation is 20

two-fold: theatrum mundi, or the world is a stage and the

theatre its paradigm; and certain gestures, language tech­ niques, and theatrical structures are "conventions" mutually agreed upon by actors, audience, and playwright.

Since in this introduction I plan to give a brief overview of each chapter, I will treat the theatrum mundi and the

conventions particular to each play at that time.

There are, however, certain aspects of "Molidre's special theatricality" which must be discussed so that his

late farces may be understood and fitted into the frame­ work of his dramaturgy as a whole. These involve first the

idea of the comic aesthetic as it applies to Moli&re's particular society; secondly, the idea of the theatre as

"ritual"; and finally, the aspect of the baroque with regard to the theatre as a fete or an ile enchant£e.

The Comic Aesthetic

Jules Brody attacks the dilemma of Moli^re's comic aesthetic in "Esth£tique et socidt£ chez MoliSre" (196 8).

According to Brody, we might infer that from a theatrical viewpoint, Moli&re's efforts were always directed at pre­ senting the dramatic spectacle in terms that would appeal to an aristocratic audience. Moli^re saw society as basically insensitive to true values and susceptible to charlatans and tyrants. The best defense was an escape into aesthetic beauty. Transformed onstage, certain 21 characters are incapable of what Brody calls "cette vraie noblesse," an absolute aesthetic of natural grace and elegance. This is a characteristic that cannot be

"bought" at any price. The main conflict in MoliSre's comedies is not, therefore, morality or immorality, but rather grace versus gaucherie. Seen in this light, George

Dandin is morally right, but "esthetiquement dans son 33 tort." Extrapolating from Brody's thesis, we can inter­ pret Dorn Juan as one of these deliberate aesthetic heroes, a "masked" man who remains master of his power of illusion.

There is no question of immorality, therefore, but grace versus gaucherie regarding the triumph of the Dorn who re­ tains the aesthetic of vraie noblesse till the end. Scapin becomes the masked master of his own power in his own world of illusion. Hence, Scapin becomes an aesthetic parody of

Dorn Juan. The play Scapin itself, then, becomes a theatri­ cal dramatization of the aesthetics and politics of self­ parody .

2. Theatre as Ritual

Let us now turn to an examination of the role of ritual in Molidre's theatricality. When the comic pattern of drama is examined, the scapegoat theory of ritual emerges. The play itself is the ritual, and the characters are the scapegoats through which the spectator may admit his own humanity by permitting himself to laugh at the 22

"obscene" which, in farce, is the comedy of the body. Re­

garding ritual "exorcism," Lionel Gossman's "Moli&re and

Tartuffe: Law and Order in the Seventeenth Century" (19 70)

viewed Moli^re's comedy as the means by which a society

consolidated its group identity. It was a kind of "exor­

cism" of the possessed which allowed for a release of

social tensions and a reestablishment of a certain equilib­

rium. The fathers in Le M^decin and Les Fourberies as well

as the husband in George Dandin are "exorcised" because

they are tampering with a precarious equilibrium. Such

rituals also have a connection with theories of the theatre 34 as play as well as game. The "odd-man-out" as well as

the player who refuses to play by the rules must be exorcised/thrown out of the game.

But in a ritual interpretation of theatricality, we must also establish that the spectator would have some motive for watching/taking part in the ritual/game/play/

spectacle. Eric Bentley and John Dennis Hurrell provide a clue as to why Molifere's farces are particularly good mediums for exposing the spectator to such "exorcisms" and primeval scenario. It is because of the emphasis in farce on quick movement, the relationship to the body, and that which Bentley terms the "marriage joke."

Eric Bentley in his introductory essay "The Psychol­ ogy of Farce" in Let's Get a Divorce 1 And Other Plays

(195 8) discusses the "marriage joke" with its scenario of 23 husband, wife, and lover. But Bentley is quick to add that such a joke exists only for a culture that knows itself 35 committed to marriage. Farce allows a ritual group laughter for this society.

John Dennis Hurrell in "A Note on Farce" (1959) quickly dispels the notion that farce leaves the spectator a laughing lunatic embarrassed at his own emotions at the end of the play because he has indulged in a low form of 3 6 merriment. He tends to agree with Bentley's Freudian psychology of farce as a "safety valve" for a society that has the institution of marriage at its center. In addi­ tion, like Bentley, he relates farce to life as dreamwork is to life: symbolically, farce is the repressed desire to act out the impulse to desecrate such a holy place (here, 37 marriage).

Hurrell then continues by relating these theories to the basic differences between tragedy, comedy, and farce.

In tragedy, Hurrell suggests that the basic situation is

"Having sinned against moral laws, how can I save my soul?"

In comedy, "Having sinned against the sanctity of a social institution, how can I preserve my reputation?" In farce, however, the basic dilemma is, "Being caught in this predicament, how can I contrive escape or concealment, so that our world can continue smoothly and safely as it did before human weakness asserted itself?" The common denom­ inator of all farcical heroes is that they must rely 24

basically on wits and ingenuity. Applied to Sganarelle of

Le M^decin and Scapin, this is quite true. In the

aesthetic sense, there is no need to question morality or

the ethics of the farcical situations. Dandin, too, tries

to escape his predicament by means of wits, but his methods

provide a disturbing element: no matter his schemes, he is

bound to fail. His dreamworld becomes nightmare. As the

action progresses, Dandin becomes a monomaniac completely

committed to a single solution. His behavior becomes

absurd, bordering on folie and madness, because, carried to

its conclusion, his action constitutes reason followed 3 8 beyond any possibility of a compromise. In terms of

self-parody, Dandin is the unlucky descendant of Molidre's

other monomaniacs: Arnolphe, Dorn Garcie, and Alceste.

Despite the "ritual" nature of farce, Molifere's spectator

can remain emotionally distanced from Dandin as a person

because of Molidre's choice of the medium of farce as well

as the aristocratic aesthetic.

3. The Baroque

For aesthetic pleasure, the spectator must view the play as a "framed" object, disassociating himself to the

extent that it would never occur to him to enter the stage world of the enfolding play to impede the flow of the

action. Yet, the very nature of theatre and its relation­

ship with the theatrum mundi demands a certain interplay 25 whereby the outer world is reshaped into a theatrical reality. An examination of the baroque elements in

Moli&re's theatre will shed light on this paradox.

Helen Purkis in "Illusion th^Sitrale" (1977) gets to the crux of the problem when she states;

Voilh le grand paradoxe du thSitre. Nous sommes physiquement dans un Edifice oil il y a separation entre salle et sc£ne, et nous prenons part £. une operation de 1 1 imagination oh il ne faut aucune barri&re entre notre imagination et celle de l'auteur. Celle-ci, ou plutot ce qu'elle a cr§d, est pourtant physiquement incarnee sur la scene. Le physique et 1'imagination sont de deux ordres d'existence diffdrents, il n'y a pas de contact physique possible entre eux.39

Purkis in the above article also examines Rousset's thesis that Moliere's comedies-ballets offer both "une image et une critique de la fdte." But Rousset's theories, although particularly apropos in a discussion of the original presentation of George Dandin, are not necessar­ ily limited only to com^die-ballet. We find traces of baroque, and of fete, in the farces as well.

Jean Rousset's L'lnt^rieur et l'ext£rieur. Essais sur la po6sie et sur le th6citre au XVIIe si£cle (1968) studies baroque works along his already established lines of mirror, water (substance for which the seventeenth cen­ tury had a particular fascination), change and permanence.

Rousset sees the role of the author as "En d^composant et regroupant sur la scfene les £l£ments de l'univers thdatrale, le dramaturge met en relation les plans distinct de la fiction et de la r£alit6, de 1'action jou6e

et de 1'action contempl^e, s'exergant & explorer les effets

de la representation soit sur 1'action elle-meme, soit sur 40 le spectateur, sort enfin sur l'acteur." He also sees

"la scSne et la salle" as an "lie enchant^e" where the

decor and architecture of the stage itself is an integral 41 part of the theatrical illusion. With regard to theatri­

cality, Rousset's remarks are particularly pertinent because they show the points of contact for the baroque

temperament and Moliere's comedy, both of which emphasize

sumptuous decor, costuming, movement, change, and mask in

an effort to maximize illusion, minimize reality, convince

the spectator that this illusion i£ reality, and convince

the actor that he is not merely playing a role.

Purkis, in the article noted above, also stated that

the spectator was in need of a "double optic" which had as

its goal to "se laisser prendre par 1'action, tout en 4 2 restant conscient de soi pour la juger, 1'interpreter."

Robert J. Nelson in "Classicism: the Crisis of the Baroque in French Literature" (1971) also speaks of a "double optic" but interprets it as a double perspective of theatricality:

. . . in the twin motifs of theatrical self-con­ sciousness and self-conscious theatricality, Moli&re, perhaps more than any of the great classics, satisfies that criterion which is for many theoricians of the Baroque its principle hallmark: the transcendence of phenomenal reality— if not through the discovery of a 27

divinely created word, then through the mental transformation of it in artistic creation.4 3

For Nelson, Moliere's "double perspective" finds a . . solution through art" especially in the com6dies-ballets towards the end of his career [such as Dandin], with the comedie-ballet as the "... artistic rendition of a dream, the formalized nostalgia for a poetic order tenta­ tively and hesitatingly expressed in earlier plays in their 44 more self-conscious preoccupation with theatricality."

In the above statement, Nelson too, points to Moliere's self-parody from an artistic/baroque perspective.

Getting down to specifics, Nelson notes that Moli&re's plays have a great number of baroque elements such as the play-within-a-play, role playing, and para-verbal baroque elements. Using L'Etourdi and Les Fourberies de Scapin as examples, Nelson points out that"the schemes concocted by

Moliere's masked masters of deception are progressively 45 more elaborate." The spectator is not concerned with what will happen next but how. As the schemer moves from the simple to the elaborate tricks, he also moves from the

"verbally direct" to the "verbally masked," often in the form of a dialect (Scapin's various dialects in Les

Fourberies). (Relating this theory back to our remarks on ritual, it is striking to note that the "blocking" figures such as Dandin or the fathers are unmasked, but the characters who become the meneur-de-jeu or the masters of 28

illusion take on a mask that becomes progressively

greater.^ )

Thus, our definition of theatricality has been ex­

panded to include references particular to Moliere's

dramaturgy: the aristocratic aesthetic, the role of ritual,

and the influence of the baroque on both spectacle and

performance. We have also examined the role of the

commedia as well as native French farce on Molidre's

theatricality.- At this point, a mise-au-point of the "New

View," specifically "Moli^re the formalist” as well as the

"performing Moli&re" is in order. This will lead me to a

presentation in a chapter-by-chapter rdsum£ of claims for my own contribution, among which are restoration in full

theatricality of some biographical and philosophical

elements.

F. Moli&re, homme de theatre: Etat present

1. The "New View” of Moore and Bray

While the biographical and historical vein continues

and prefers to seek "Moli&re the man seen through the

plays," there has been a definite trend and collaboration

on the part of scholar/critics and actor/directors to re­

ject almost entirely the "person" Molidre, or to consider

him only in terms of structure, dramaturgie, or poetic

creation. Many are English or American critics who have

followed Will G. Moore. Moore, in his Molifere, a New 29

Criticism (1949, reprinted 1968) revolutionized MoliSre

scholarship by his method of internal analysis whereby he disclosed the unity of the plays and the essence

of comedy. Moore examines various aspects of theatrical­

ity in mime, mask, speech, and scene to support his theory

that the plays are constructed according to the exigencies

of the theatre.

Ren6 Bray's Molidre, homme de theatre (1954) has

been called by some critics and scholars a companion volume

and a continuation of Moore's work. Bray attempts to explain the plays in terms of Molifere's profession as actor

and director (hence, Poirier's idea of "self-parody") as well as in terms of the traditions and exigencies of the

stage (or theatrical "conventions").

Although many academic, early critics (most notably,

H. Carrington Lancaster, A History of French Dramatic

Literature in the Seventeenth Century, 1936) saw Moliere

as a professional man of the theatre rather than as a moralist, philosopher, or sociologist, it is generally

Moore and Bray who are credited with the trend and popular­

ity of the "new view." It is beyond the scope as well as

the intent of my own dissertation to present a resume or a mise-au-point of every piece of Moli&re scholarship written 47 on this "New View," already vast m its dimensions.

Nevertheless, in order to zero in on theatricality, I have

divided this 6tat present into three major areas: Moliere 30 the formalist, followed by Moli&re dramaturge, and finally

a few short notes on modern interpretations of spectacle and performance, as well as actors and directors.

2. Moli^re the Formalist

a. "Structure Studies"

Building on, or related to the work of Moore and Bray, several scholars have contributed significant works which may be termed "structure studies." While the emphasis in these works is not primarily on dramaturgie (of the farces or any other plays), their thematic and intertextual methods have shed light on Moliere's theatricality both in terms of the theatrum mundi as well as in terms of theatrical "conventions." I am purposely using the term

"structure studies" to distinguish it from the term

"structural" or "structuralist" because these two terms in the recent past have become closely allied with "semiotic

criticism" which will be treated in a separate category.

Alvin Eustis's Moll^re as Ironic Contemplator (1973) is particularly useful in its treatment of the abundant ironies of the theatrical convention of speech. Eustis's implied premise, that Moliere's intention was almost always parodical, can also help to crystallize the role of self­ parody in Moliere's dramaturgie. Dramaturgie is only one of Jacques Guicharnaud's broad perspectives in his Moli^re, une aventure th^atrale (196 3). Guicharnaud's treatment 31

of the mask is particularly valuable in that it relates to

a sense of isolation in the characters after Le

Misanthrope, which was, according to Guicharnaud, the cul- 4 8 mination of a dramatic impasse. This would have a bear­

ing on the late farces in terms of dramaturgie.

Guicharnaud, though referring primarily to Tartuffe, dis­

cusses the ritual and scapegoat effects of theatre that I mentioned earlier as related to "Moliere's special theatri­

cality." Guicharnaud's title belies its meaning: "aventure

th£atrale" is an intellectual and a philosophical one.

Marcel Gutwirth, in Moli^re, ou 1'invention comique.

La Metamorphose des themes et la creation des types (1966),

chooses to study roles and types, themes and genres, to explain the comic as "un ph£nom£ne psychomoteur parfaite- ment mystdrieux" which is, at the same time, an intellectual 49 emotion. Gutwirth examines the role of the valets and

the servants; love, the woman, and marriage; the husband,

the father, the old man; the bores; as well as heroic comedy. Of particular interest to my own study is that

Gutwirth also discusses two of Moliere's preliminary

farces, La Jalousie du Barbouill§ and Le M6decin volant, in

addition to studying the evolution of comic types.

Judd D. Hubert in Moli^re and the Comedy of Intellect

(1962) retains B^nichou's premise (Morales du grand sifecle), that as MoliSre gained access to higher social

circles, any moral viewpoint expressed in the plays tends 32

to be aristocratic and mirrors prejudice or contempt toward

the bourgeois and his values. (Especially applicable in

this study to Dandin.) Yet, Hubert goes beyond race, moment, and milieu type criticism by claiming that Moli&re,

as a sort of "king's jester," can challenge the conformity

of this society and consciously or unconsciously trans­

form divertissement into a subversion, or perhaps a liber­

ation, achieved through dramatic illusion and convention

(hence, theatricality). While Moore stressed the unity of

the plays, Hubert feels that each play has its own unique moral vision and dramatic structure which he sets out to

examine, basing many of his theories on aggression,

destruction, and ritual immolation. With Hubert, we can

see once again the aspect of ritual in Moliere's

dramaturgie.

The correspondence between primitive rituals and

sophisticated modern customs which show comedy to be a

reflection of social values (hence, theatrum mundi) is

examined by Harold C. Knutson in Moli&re, dn Archetypal

Approach (19 76), the first systematic application of

archetypal criticism to Moliere's entire work. Knutson's

thesis is that Moliere's world is caught in a ritual bondage, peopled by "buffoons" and "heavy fathers" who must be "exorcised." Dandin as "buffoon" and the "heavy

fathers" of Le M^decin and Les Fourberies readily spring

to mind. In Moli^re, the Comedy of Unreason (1968), Francis L.

Lawrence uses a diversified rather than a strictly thematic

approach to examine, for example, Molifere's artificial

denouements as mere theatrical conventions. (We can apply

this to the death of the uncle, a mors ex machina in Le

Mddecin which allows the "amorous young couple" to

marry.) Lionel Gossman, in Men and Masks, a Study of

Moli£re (196 3), also uses a diversified rather than a

strictly thematic approach (although he seems to take issue

with the Moore/Bray position as too narrow; it is much too

tempting to hide behind a wall of aesthetics). One half of

Gossman1 s work is devoted to Amphitryon, Dorn Juan, Le

Misanthrope, Tartuffe, and of particular interest to my

study, George Dandin. The other half is a combination of

"new criticism" and "structural criticism."

Two French critics, Charles Mauron and Jacques

Scherer, bridge the gap between "structure studies" and the

semiotic. Charles Mauron in La Psychocritique du genre

comigue (1970) sought Molifere's "mythe personnel," but

found that the recurring image of "le blondin fourbant. un barbon" was not Molifere's personal obsession but rather a

recurring traditional type. Mauron also touches on

archetypal criticism: ". . . l a fantaisie de triomphe sur

le p&re, dans 1'oeuvre de Plaute, devient, dans celle de 50 Molidre, une fantaisie de cocuage." Jacques Scherer's

insights into "structure" in La Dramaturgie classique 34

(1950) crystallize in a single play in Structures de

Tartuffe (1966). The "structures" are examined under four headings: historique, id^ologique, dramatique, and gestuelle. The remarks on geste are particularly appli­ cable to a study of theatricality. In addition many of these remarks on geste coincide with current stage inter­ pretations of Moliere's works. Now, moving as we did

from "structure studies" to the structural, let us examine recent developments in the semiotic interpretation of

Molidre's theatre.

b. Rastier, Relyea, et al.: The Semiotic View

Certain inherent difficulties must be overcome when applying semiotic methods to theatrical works. To begin, much of the method is based on the written text. For

Molifere, however, the act of writing and the act of per­ formance are intertwined. Also, the nature of the work is not static in that each and every performance becomes an entity in itself. Semiotic methods such as those designed by V. Propp regarding the fairy tales are concerned with a r£cit narratif. The narrator may be absent or present in the narration itself, but nevertheless, he is there. The narrator, at least, remains static. In theatre, there may be as many narrators as actors. Also, in theatrical terms, it is insufficient to speak of a texte dialogique.

We must also be aware of a dicours th§ttral, a system of

geste th§£tral, discours de thfettre comique, a system of discours de theatre comique moli^resque, and so on.

Frangois Rastier's "Niveaux d 1ambiguitds des struc­ tures narratives" (1971), a massive piece, is the first rigorously scientifique structuralist critique of a

Moli&re play (Dorn Juan). Rastier derives his methodology from folklorists, the Russian V. Propp in particular, as well as the French A. J. Greimas. He describes his method as "La mise en correlation des deux systdmes sSmiologiques, which "£quivaut & la construction d'un modfele d'interprd- 51 tation totalisante." Rastier's conclusion is, like many 5 2 other "traditional" critics, that Dorn Juan is guilty of hypocrisy. But unlike traditional critics, he disclaims any other attacks on the "immorality” of the Dorn's behavior concluding that hypocrisy is his only crime, for it is hypocrisy alone which is the contenu of the two semiologi- cal systems recognized by the two "locuteurs actants opposes," Dorn Juan and Sganarelle. Any other accusation has a value which is "ind£termin6e."

Rastier's method has its limitations with regard to theatricality. It tends to focus on speech and thus to neglect other factors, such as the idea of the spectacle, the impromptu, interpretive gesture by actors, and quite 53 simply, the bedazzling quality of the theatre.

Although not directed specifically to Molidre, and again, zeroing in on speech and taking for granted that text precedes performance, Sanda Golopentia-Eretescu's 36

"Grammaire de la parodie" (1969) is a potentially valuable contribution to semiotically oriented Molifere scholarship.

Golopentia-Eretescu examines the phenomenon of parody as well as self-parody along linguistic as well as semiotic lines, presenting as a basic theory that the parodi£ and the parodiant presuppose a couple auteur/lecteur. Parodie represents the case of intertextualit6, or the influence of "texte sur les textes," whereas autoparodie represents the case of intratextualit§, or a text which surveys and reflects back upon itself. In semiological terms,

Golopentia-Eretescu demonstrates that the successful parodist (or autoparodist) must have an extremely high degree of familiarity with the parody itself as well as the text parodied. In this manner, the parodist controls both the sujet parlant (in theatrical terms, the actor) as well as the auditeur (the spectators) while remaining himself both a sujet parlant as well as an auditeur of his own work as well as the text parodied. At times, the parody is considered so good that it becomes a work in its own right and is no longer considered a parody. Applied to

Molidre, we can see here a semiological presentation of

Poirier's "politics of self parody" which insisted on the closest possible intimacy with the texts as well as treat­ ing writing as a performance. Then, once Moli&re has internalized the lessons from the French farces as well as the Italian theatre, not to mention his own early works, 37

his late farces emerge as highly successful products that

stand on their own, and for which the label of parody

becomes an optional interpretation.

The most recent semiologically oriented critical work

is Susan Relyea's Signs, Systems and Meanings (1976), where

in a study of L'Ecole des Femmes, Tartuffe, Dorn Juan, and

Amphitryon, Relyea studies vocal and nonvocal behavior

signals. She also touches on the interaction of language

and meaning in Moliere's plays as they relate to theoreti­

cal works on language in the seventeenth century,

Descartes's philosophy, and the grammarians of Port-Royal.

Of particular interest to my study is Relyea's discussion

of the doctrines of "transubstantiation" or the power by

which the "word" becomes the "thing," which will be dis- 54 cussed in the chapter on Le M6decin. Although Relyea,

too, stresses "speech" ("The winners usually maintain lin­

guistic and intellectual domination . . . and quickly be- 5 5 comes losers if that domination slips away" ), she also

stresses the importance of gesture as a sign, as well as

systems of signs such as social classes, marriage, and

clothing from a semiological perspective,

c. Anthologies

Aside from the semiological view, at least four recent

anthologies of critical works are worthy of mention.

Molifere, a Collection of Critical Essays (1964) edited by

Jacques Guicharnaud is a standard classic. As Guicharnaud 38

states in the "Introduction," scholars have been working

on a "retheatricalization of farce," and many of the essays

(Lanson, Bray, Simon, Moore) are devoted to the craft of

comedy.

Ten essays in a special issue of L 1Esprit Cr^ateur

(volume also entitled Paths to Freedom: Studies in French

Classicism in Honor of E.B.O. Borgerhoff) appeared in 19 71

edited by Ronald W. Tobin and John Erickson. It includes essays on the theatrical notion of existence as well as

the baroque/classical controversy.

The year 19 73 marked the tercentary of Molifere's death and the appearance of two anthologies devoted to

Molidre studies. W. D. Howarth and Merlin Thomas, editors, presented us with Moli&re: Stage and Study. Essays in

Honour of. W. G. Moore. Two of the essays in Molidre Studies

to Commemorate the Tercentary of his Death (1973), George

B. Daniel, editor, are of particular interest to my dis­ sertation: Marcel Gutwirth's "Dandin, ou les §garements de la pastorale" and Edouard Morot-Sir's "La Dynamique du th^citre de Moli^re."

The most recent of the anthologies is Molifere and the

Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity

(1975) edited by Roger Johnson, Jr., Editha S. Neumann, and

Guy T. Trail.^ Sidney Pellissier's contribution to this anthology, "Ionesco and Molifere," is particularly pertin­ ent. Pellissier demonstrates that Ionesco's view of the 39

"craft" of comedy as well as many of his stylistic devices

are moli^resque. Both Ionesco’s and Moliere's vision of the world as projected unto the stage are pervasively comic, even when their mimetic art represents a situation which is ludicrous, grotesque, or pathetic. For example, in a comparative structural analysis of La Legon and

Tartuffe, Pellissier demonstrates how the characters of the professor and Tartuffe are similarly conceived and executed comic personnages who consciously disguise their evil in­ tents. Their mask is eventually dropped because of their inability to control their own sensuous appetites.

In this same anthology, Edith Kern in "Molifere and the

Tradition of the Grotesque" draws from Mikhail Bakhtin's brilliant Rabelais and His World to promote the notion of moli^resque comedy as the fantasy of triumph of carnival

laughter, a grotesque laughter that was repressed and condemned by the classical tradition of rationality and biens^ance. (Even Lanson only went so far as to "condone" popular farce.) Kern feels that works such as Mauron1s

Psychocritique du genre comique with its oedipal patterns are a "straitjacket" for Moli&re's vibrant imagination.

Rather, she suggests that MoliSre, like a participant in a

carnival, was uniquely capable of making a fool of himself,

for he often reserved for himself the role of the character who is outwitted. Kern sees a fantasy of triumph in that

the deathly m playwright can laugh at himself while 40 playing the role of an imaginary invalid. With respect to linguistic techniques, Kern asserts that Moliere's doctors, for example, turn logic upside down, piling up synonyms and approaching the grotesque much in the manner of Rabelais.

Finally, William A. Mould's contribution to Moli&re and the Commonwealth of Letters, entitled "Illusion and

Reality; A New Resolution of an Old Paradox," begins with the notion that the comic universe is based in part on the comic disparity between illusion and reality. For example,

Moli^re invents doctors who do not really cure people who are not really ill. Mould, however, illustrates that

Moli&re has several approaches to the paradox of illusion versus reality as far as theatrical craft is concerned, and that furthermore, these approaches become more sophisti­ cated as the playwright matures. By the time of Scapin, the theatrical device of "play within a play" renders the main drama mere "real" because the spectator's awareness of illusion is transferred to the second play.

Thus, to sum up this section of my §tat present, I have demonstrated that beginning with Moore and Bray, recent scholarship has offered the moli£riste an eclectic variety of "structure studies," "semiotic" interpretations, and excellent anthologies with up-to-date discoveries. I would now like to continue with an 6tat present of

Moli^re dramaturge. This section will allow me to further 41 narrow in on Moli&re's theatricality in terms of theatrum mundi as well as theatrical conventions.

3. Moli^re Dramaturge

My basic definition of theatricality necessitates a familiarity with Moliere's particular 6poque as well as the actors and stage conditions of his period. Several scholars have presented a Moli&re dramaturge in light of the above, but without delving into assumptions about Molidre's moral philosophy or the sociological ramifications and specula­ tions. Maurice Descotes in Les Grands Roles du theatre de

Molidre (196 0) attempts to show that Moli^re aimed not so much for realism but rather to please and amuse the public.

He also discusses the actors in the troupe and the various roles they held. Since the actors were well known in public life as well, this may have had a bearing on the reception of certain plays. If we apply the information that

Descotes provides for us to a play like Dandin, Armande and

Molidre, who were reported to be experiencing personal marital difficulties, playing against each other as

Ang^lique and Dandin would double the comic effect.

Pierre Gaxotte in Moli6re, fameux comddien (19 71) also discusses Molifere's dramatic composition according to the physical composition and capacity of his actors, and he tells 57 us that "Sen g^nie s'est formd sur les planches."

Gaxotte cites theatre professionals such as Copeau who also 42 saw Molifere as an "homme de mStier," whereas Ramon

Fernandez saw him in terms of an aesthetic guest in La Vie de Molifere (1929).^

Rene Jasinski in Moli&re (1969) presents a histori­ cally oriented study viewing Moli&re the actor/author/ director as a man of his time. Jean Meyer in an interpre­ tive biography Moli&re (1963), suggests several romanesque stories to illuminate MoliSre's theatricality. Meyer tells us that after Le Misanthrope, Molidre spent the rest of his 59 career with "les plaisirs de la forme." This study of

Molidre's life by an actor is in the tradition of Mme

Dussane, who composed "Molifere S la scfene" for the Oeuvres completes of Moli§re edited by Bray and Scherer (19 54).

Dussane gives a performance history of Molifere's theatre from the seventeenth century through Jean Vilar. Strikingly, the first two pages of her work begin with MoliSre's empha­ sis on movement as well as his debt to the commedia.

Finally, an older, but nevertheless useful work (that influenced Moore) is Valdemar Vedel's Deux classiques frangais vus par un critique etranger:Corneille et son temps—

Moli&re (19 35). He informs us that Moli^re above all "est 6 0 n6 dramaturge et acteur." For Vedel, moli^resque comedy functions primarily as visual spectacle for the purpose of entertainment, reaching its peak of success when it becomes pure entertainment. Emphasizing Moli^re's use of the mask,

Vedel claims that: "La comSdie est la sorte de ruse que Moli^re eraploie de pr£f£rence. Jouer de la com^die dans la

com§die, jouer un personnage qui h son tour joue un autre,

voil& certes, de quoi satisfaire en Molifere le d€mon de

thgcitre. And we shall see in this dissertation how

Molifire reaches "his peak of success" as well as "pure

entertainment" with Scapin, who is a true "d^mon de theatre.

4. Performance and Spectacle: Actors and Directors

A mise-au-point of Moli^re scholarship directly related to theatricality would be incomplete without the mention of the contributions made by modern directors and actors. In this section, we will discuss first the contri­ butions of Copeau and Jouvet, followed by a brief overview of recent trends in Moli^re productions. (I will not, however, discuss recent performances of the farces I have chosen for my study, preferring to discuss them in the context of the particular chapters. This is with the exception of Copeau's production of Scapin which is cru­

cial to an understanding of modern theatricality.) Fin­ ally, I will briefly touch on a few attempts by dramatists themselves to "resurrect" Moli&re.

For Jacques Copeau, movement is a kind of body poetry: mime, gesture and acrobatics become a poetic metaphor. In general, Copeau "ritualized" farce, stylized the decor and the gestures, and rediscovered the element of pure entertainment. Copeau's Moli^re: Les Fourberies de Scapin (1951) is the director's own account of his 1917 production. Copeau used the trdteau nu, a kind of raised platform built in the form of connecting cubes with narrow 6 2 stairs leading from one level to the next. Thus, there is never any break in the visual contact between actor and spectator. The emphasis that Copeau placed on movement

(rapid and physical) bordered on a kind of demonic dance reminiscent of the commedia1s impromptu and impulsive 6 3 animation. For Copeau, the commedia was Molifere's source of inspiration.^

For Louis Jouvet, theatricality includes a mystical union of actor and playwright. The actor becomes the part 6 5 and the part becomes the actor. MoliSre thus lives through the actor and the play takes on its original force.

Jouvet in Molifere et la com6die classigue (1965) bases his chapters on acting lessons given at the Conservatoire be­ tween 19 39 and 1940. He emphasizes that "le theatre, 6 6 c'est guelque chose de physique" but he does not neglect the role of diction. In numerous "Conferencia" (XXXI-1937,

XXXII-1938; XXVII-194 8; LVII-1950) Jouvet himself explains his famous revivals of Moli&re's plays which greatly in­ fluenced a public who had previously considered Molidre a subject for the Sorbonne or for children.

Michel Corvin in "Illusion sc^nique et illusion thgcitrale" (19 79) provides an important contribution to theatrical as well as Molidre studies, analyzing several 45

recent mises-en-sc6ne of MoliSre's plays. Corvin discusses the contributions of Bourdet, Planchon, and others, but of

special interest is his discussion of Antoine Vitez's

tetrad of Moli&re plays produced in the spirit of the

Palais Royal noting two semantic axes apparent in recent

Moli&re productions: farce and violence. Corvin concludes that we are in a new age of theatre that most likely is a

reflection of the age of Artaud. His tetrad is somewhat

controversial for it reflects aesthetic as well as many dramatic considerations. L'Ecole desfemmes, Tartuffe, Dorn

Juan, and Le Misanthrope are played with one set, one cast, 6 7 and a set of recurrent themes and characters. Then again, Copeau, Jouvet (and ironically MoliSre as well) were considered revolutionary in their day.

A few other recent Moli^re productions besides that of 6 8 Vitez are worthy of note. Some controversial directors will present us with a Moli&re that is too contemporary

for some tastes, but it will enlarge our optigue th6Ktrale in seeing Moliere as an "homme de th^Stre." The following two are examples.

Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme under the direction of

Bernard Ballet was presented in Sartrouville by La

Compagnie du Cothurne in 1970. Jourdain was played as an energetic entrepreneur rather than the traditional silly dupe. To enliven the spectacle, Lully's "musique pour divertissement" was replaced by the more modern sounds of 69 "les Pink Floyd." The same company had produced m

1969 under the direction of Patrice Chereau a Dorn Juan in which the latter as well as Sganarelle are clad in snug leather pants. Dorn Juan is a leftist seventeenth-century intellectual and Sganarelle a cynical member of the peasant class. The women don't speak. "Instead, they convulse, scream, faint, and have wild erotic fantasies. The highly controversial production was banned from the Com£die-

Frangaise by the then director, Maurice Escande, who 71 labeled it "ignoble" and a "niaiserie." (Ironically, I mentioned earlier that one of Molidre's earliest farces,

Le M^decin Volant, was labeled a "singerie" by Somaize.)

Such productions may elicit sighs of "MoliSre, oil es -tu?" from the traditionalists. Fortunately, Gilles

Sandier in "Un Pom Juan dans la vraie tradition" (19 78) re­ views Pom Juan as it was performed at the Th£citre du Soleil

(Cartoucherie de Vincennes). The Pom was Philippe Caubdre

(who played Molidre in the Mnouchkine movie Molidre, la vie d1un honnete homme). The whole is played in a farcical key, a sure Moli&re tradition.

Attempts by the dramatists themselves to resurrect

Moliere are frought with problems. Jean Anouilh's La

Petite Moli&re was originally a film scenario with ani­ mated dialogue from his comedies as well as scenes from his life. It never made the screen. One critic called it 47

"une vie de Molidre racont£e aux lecteurs de Match ou de 72 Marie-Claire."

Another dramatist who has painted a theatrical por­ trait of Molidre is Jean-Louis Barrault in Le Portrait de

Molidre (1964). The actors play as if in an impromptu, performing a play within a play with a narrator for the

"enchainements." Commedia features such as geste, mime, and pantomime add to the production. Scenes from the works reflect Barrault's fondness for farce (among others, Le

M^decin malgr£ lui, George Dandin, and Les Fourberies de

Scapin) . The movement and mime of the Scapin sequences are particularly noteworthy, for Barrault was highly praised for his interpretation of Scapin in the Jouvet ' . 73 production.

Ariane Mnouchkine's film Molifere, la vie d'un honn§te homme has been both soundly praised as well as criticized.

Some reviews and reviewers call attention to its educa­ tional value, as well as its highly theatrical tableau scenes, pure enchantment for the eye as well as the ear.

Other have claimed that the film is weak and disorganized, overemphasizes death, neglects the plays themselves, and in the "affairs of the heart" presents Molidre as an 74 "insouciant tomcat."

Thus, we can see that even when we limit the mise- au-point of Moli^re scholarship to "MoliSre the formalist,"

"Molidre dramaturge," and "Molidre in performance," critical methodology is eclectic. In my dissertation by

examining Moliere's three late farces, I believe I will

make a contribution to Moli&re studies which will be in the

tradition of the "new view" and "retheatricalization."

G. Three Late Farces: The Politics of Self-Parody

I shall devote the second, third, and fourth chapters

of my dissertation mainly to three of Moliere's late farces

Le Medecin malgrg lui, George Dandin, and Les Fourberies de

Scapin. Each chapter has four major subdivisions. The

first subdivision discusses the historical fortunes and

stage history of each play with respect to the farceur and

his art in spectacle and performance. The second subdi­

vision for each play attacks the question of "sources," but

not in the sense of literary passages lifted verbatim.

Rather, by means of parody and self-parody, Moli^re reworks

these materials into his own dramaturgie. The third subdi­

vision is the theatrum mundi. Each play has its own

"optique theatrale" with respect to author/actor/audience

interplay. In Le Medecin, it is the role of doctors and medicine in society. In Dandin, it is marriage and social

standing. In Les Fourberies, it is the role of "l'art pour l'art," "th^ttre pour theatre," or, pure spectacle.

In addition, the discussion of "play" and "game" will

afford me the opportunity to examine the interaction of

characters with one another, as well as the theatrical

games that the author plays with audience. The fourth 49 and final subdivision of each chapter will examine the theatrical conventions of speech and gesture. The role of mask will be examined as the theatrical dramatization of the paradox of illusion versus reality. These three chapters will be followed by a concluding chapter.

Introductory passages in "Chapter Two" will discuss the staging of Le M^decin malgr£ lui. Molidre may have been acquainted with traditional sources such as Le Vilain mire, a fabliau. Though staying within the bounds of the tradi­ tional story, MoliSre personalized the actual "per­ formance" in the sense that Poirier has given to the term.

It is my contention that discussing the role of doctors and medicine will show that, in this play at least, the de­ piction of Sganarelle is not so much an attack on doctors because of Moli^re's ill health as the emergence of the absurd, whereby the impostor rules by the function of 75 speech. The "play" involving sexual and scatological ref­ erences will be given a Freudian interpretation. For Freud, laughter depends on sex, aggression, or a combination of both.

Regarding the convention of speech, I will examine 77 the burlesque in its seventeenth-century connotation, which includes the burlesque as the extreme of the pr^cieux. A "game theory" and the ballet des paroles will highlight my discussion of the interplay of speech and gestures, especially as manifested in the flow of words, 50 i.e., Sganarelle's use of medical terminology and loss of inhibitions as well as his overt sexual advances to the nurse while in a "drunken" state. My study of fantaisie verbale refers to the use of language as being comic in 7 8 itself rather than that which is being said. An exam­ ination of "speech" will show the comic techniques in

Lucas's accent, Sganarelle's macaronic Latin, and his jumbled way of reasoning. "Transubstantiation" and "con- substantiation" are normally religious terms referring to 79 the Eucharistic ceremony. I will apply this terminology to show how certain characters become (transubstantiation) or pretend to become (consubstantiation) that which they are not. The "stage business" or lazzi include, for example, the traditional commedia beatings as well as costumes.

The use of "mask" in Moli&re's theatre refers to the comic that is evoked when the "mask" falls and reveals the character as he truly is. But here lies the essential difference between Le M^decin malgrg lui and George Dandin.

The alternate title that I chose for "Chapter Two" was

"megalomania," or the process by which a character feels himself to be greater than he truly is. As the word itself suggests, this mania, or obsession gives the megalomaniac a miles gloriosus complex by which he plans to accomplish grandiose things. Megalomania also refers to infantile or childish feelings of omnipotence, especially when retained 51

in adult life, as might be examined in a Freudian analysis

of arrested development. For Sganarelle, his "illusion" of

becoming a doctor becomes "reality" within the context of

the play. At the denouement, Sganarelle stays with his new

role: he has truly become the m^decin. But George Dandin

is the exemplification of megalomania shattered, because

neither through marriage, nor through the adoption of a new

name can he become a noble. The split of the mask and reality is perhaps best exemplified in his monologues, when he addresses himself as "the other," referring to himself as "George Dandin"in the third person.

In "Chapter Three," the literary heritage of George

Dandin is indebted to the farce and fabliau tradition of the mal-marie as well as the cuckold. There is an obvious link with Boccaccio, although scholars such as G. Mirandola in La Fortuna del Boccaccio nella cultura francese (1971) feel that Boccaccio was little understood and was merely readapted to conform to the taste and age of La Fontaine and Moli&re. In any event, the Boccaccio tales become

"readapted" as dramatized spectacle rather than literary text. The Cornelian hero, the man of action becomes, in the theatre of Moli&re, a man of words. But for Dandin, even words fail him.

La Jalousie du Barbouill£ is perhaps only a prelim­ inary sketch dating from Molidre's apprentissage. Plays such as L'Ecole des femmes and Le Misanthrope are related 52 to Dandin in terms of dramatic structure, but also through the bitterness, pessimism, and amour-propre in the La

Rochefoucauldian sense of the term— "L'Amour propre est

l 1amour de soi-meme, et de toutes choses pour soi, il rend les hommes idolatres d'eux-memes, et les rendrait les tyrans des autres si leur fortune leur en donnait les moyens. . Fortune has smiled on Dandin in his financial affairs, but in the affairs of the heart, fortune's smile has turned to a grimace.

In the theatrum mundi, the happy drunken world of

Sganarelle in Le Mgdecine malgre lui has become a dream­ world, but of nightmare and obsession that is reflected even in the external structure of the play: the same basic action occurs in each of the three acts and Dandin is trapped each time. Freudian concepts can be applied here again, referring to the inherent cruelty of laughter in its sexual and aggressive manifestations.

The theatrical conventions in George Dandin will be analyzed using a methodology similar to that used in Le

Medecin malgr£ lui. What is essential to note with respect to the two plays is that although the theatrical conventions of farce seem quite similar, it is the under­ lying motifs which have tempted many scholars such as

Moore, Picard, and Venesoen to view George Dandin as a 80 kind of oxymoronic "burlesque tragedy." In "Chapter Four," Les Fourberies de Scapin reestab­

lishes megalomania and the happy farce of Le M^decin with

hardly a trace of the scars of Dandin. Following prelim­

inary remarks on spectacle and performance, the alleged

"literary" sources of the play provide an opportune moment

for a discussion of Molihre's alleged plagiarism. As

Lanson points out in his Histoire de la literature

frangaise (1894), Molihre's "plagiarism" can be linked with

the works of Plautus, Terence, the commedia, Italian and

French contes, Boccaccio and Straparole, Sorel, the nouvelles and the comedies of Scarron, Larivey and

Desmarets, Cyrano's Le Pedant joud and Boisrobert's La

Belle Plaideuse. Lanson lends a forgiving note by remark­ ing that had it not been for Molihre's comic genius in his remaniement, such plays and contes would have long been

forgotten. 81 Then too, Lanson insists that such Italian and French elements are only on the surface and the real base of Molihre's theatre was the spirit and tradition of the medieval farce.

On the other hand, an examination of the role of the valet in Ilolihre's earlier plays, most notably L'Etourdi, coupled with his statement "Je prends mon bien oh je le trouve" will eventually lead back to the concept of "self­ parody": Moli&re found his bien in himself.

The concept of theatrum mundi provides a rich prospect

for analysis. The concept of l'art pour l'art and 54 theatre pour theatre will be examined in its relationship 82 with aesthetics of comedy, theatre, and parody, especi­ ally in the relationship of author/actor/audience that

Copeau rediscovered, as well as the craft of acting as defined by Jouvet. The concept of "play" and "play within a play" is evident in the tricks (fourberies) played by the characters on each other. To the delight of the audience, sometimes the audience itself participates in the fourberie by the fact that the spectator knows what is going on and plays along with Scapin, while a character such as G^ronte is unaware of the true situation. But

Scapin, in his role as meneur-du-jeupleads not only the characters of the plot, but also the audience, since it is a suprise for the audience as well just exactly what will be Scapin1s newest trick. The sudden "surprise" or reali­ zation of the fourberie on the part of the audience is what causes them to laugh according to Bergson's analysis of the mechanism of comedy.

Elements of Bergson's analysis of laughter are carried over into the theatrical conventions. With respect to gesture, in III, 2, for example, G^ronte as "jack-in-the- box" would cause laughter. As an "automatism," G^ronte would cease to be human and pass over into the realm of objects which merely perform a mechanical function. Thus, he would be on the level of Scapin's baton. But inherent in the idea of the "mechanical" is that although at a certain point the action continues "automatically," at some time it had a prime mover. In this case, for both the bSton as well as G^ronte, the prime mover was Scapin. The techniques of speech, such as Scapin's Gascon dialect in

III, 2, only serve to aid him in his role as meneur-de-jeu.

But for Scapin, the mask he assumes as meneur-de-jeu is a mask which does not fall. NOTES

For an excellent synopsis of Molidre's early contacts with French farce, see Raymond Lebegue, "Moli&re et la farce," CAIEF, 16 (1964), 183-201. Le Boulanger de Chalussay, Somaize, and Grimarest quoted by LebSgue, pp. 186-87. Much of the information we have regarding Moli&re's early life (i.e., pre-1658) tends to be anecdotal in nature. The seminal critical work of Gustave Michaut, La Jeunesse de Molifere (Paris: Hachette, 1922), has demon­ strated that we have no conclusive evidence either proving or disproving much of the information. It was Somaize, who, in the "Preface" to his Les Vdritables Prdtieuses (1660) referred to Moli^re as "le premier farceur de France." See also the monumental 855-page work by Madeleine Jurgens and Elizabeth Maxfield-Miller, Cent Ans de recherches sur Moli&re, sur sa famille, et sur les com^diens de sa troupe (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale: 1963). George Mongrddien* s' Recueil des textes et des documents du XVIIifeme si&cle relatifs A Moli&re (Paris: CNRS, 1965) and Mongr^dien's "Supplement" together with Jacques Vanuxem in DSS, 9 8-99 (19 7 3) 123-4 2, are considered companion volumes to Jurgens and Maxfield-Miller. Sylvia Chevalley, the archiviste-bibliothdcaire of the Com^die-Frangaise, gives an account of Molidre’s troupe from 1622 to 1633 in Moli^re en son temps (Paris: Minkoff, 1973). 2 Leb&gue, p. 187. It was during the 1620s that the three farceurs of the Hotel de Bourgogne, Gros-Guillaume, Gautier Garguille, and Turlupin, were performing their comic monologues, bawdy solo songs, and humorous sketches of local events. Outside the theatre, farceurs such as Tabarin performed on trestle stages on the Pont-Neuf. Their function was to draw crowds so that a charlatan or op£rateur could then peddle quack medicines or rudimentary quack dentistry. For a discussion of the farceurs, see Geoffrey Brereton, French Comic Drama from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century (London: Methuen, 19 77) , pp. §"-10. For the best and most recent editions of two farces tabarinigues, see Jaques Scherer, Theatre du dix-septifeme sidcle (Paris: Gallimard- BibliothSque de la Pl^iade, 19 75), pp. 233-44. For iconography, see S.W. Deierkauf-Holsboer, L'Histoire de la mise-en-scdne dans le theatre francais & Paris de 1600 1673 (Paris: Nizet, 1960), and Jean Robert, "Iconographie relative ^ des farceurs frangais et italiens," RHT, 28 (1976), 162-64, on a series of copies of portraits in the Roudillon Collection of Jodelet, Guillot- Gorju, Gandolin, Capitan, Mezzetin, and Contadino. Sylvie Chevalley in Les Dossiers Molidre: Molidre (Geneve: 56 57

Ed. Minkoff, 1973), p. 2, presents an engraving of Turlupin, Gautier-Garguille, and Gros-Guillaume at the Hotel de Bourgogne. The engraving dates from 16 34-35. 3 Tallemant des R§aux, Historiettes, ed. Antoine Adam (Paris: Gallimard -Biblioth^que de la Pl£iade, 1960), II, 777. In this Historiette entitled "Mondory ou l'histoire des principaux comidiens franpois" (11,773-78), Tallemant discusses actors and farces of the period, claiming that Madeleine B^jart is said to be the "meilleure actrice de toutes," although he himself has never seen her perform. In one of his memorable mistatements, Tallemant adds that Molifere left the Sorbonne [which he never attended] to follow the lovely Madeleine, and that he married her [which he did not]. Speaking of Molifere's plays, however, he adds: "Ce n'est pas un merveilleux acteur, si ce n'est pour le ridicule. II n'y a que sa troupe qui jotle ses pieces; elles sont comiques" (II, 778). 4 Quoted by Leb&gue, p. 187n. 5 . . Information contrasting provincial with Parisian taste from Lebegue, pp. 187-88. Donneau de Vis£ cited by Lebegue, p. 188.

/T Much of what is known about Moli&re's early life is based on La Grange's "Preface" to the first almost complete edition of MoliSre's works (16 82) and on his invaluable Registre. La Grange was an actor who had joined the com­ pany at Easter of 1659 and remained with it till his death in 169 2. He had begun writing the Registre after Moli&re's death in 16 73. His memory of early events has been proven to be sometimes faulty, but the errors are usually minor, often having to do with exact dates. He based the Registre on note books or account books that he kept throughout his career. See also Brereton, p. 87. 7 La Grange, "Preface," in Oeuvres de Molidre, ed. Eugene Despois and Paul Mesnard (Paris: Hachette - Collec­ tion des Grands Ecrivains de la France, 1873), I, xiv. Henceforth, all direct quotations from Moli^re's plays will be cited from the Despois-Mesnard edition (13 vols., 1873-1900), unless otherwise noted. Act and scenic division will follow the quotation without volume or page number.

8Le Docteur amoureux has been attributed to Molifere's own hand in recent years in a critical edition presented by P. Lerat (Paris: Nizet, 1973). However, an earlier facsimile edition of a supposed seventeenth-century manu­ script edited by A. J. Guibert (GenSve: Librairie E. Droz; 58

Paris: Librairie Minard, 1960) discussed the strong possi­ bility that the farce was Molifere's own without coming to that definite conclusion. g LebSgue, p. 188.

■^Richard Poirier, The Performing Self (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 27. 11 Poirier, p. 87: "Performance is an exercise of power, a very curious one. Curious because it is at first so furiously self-consultive, so even narcissistic, and later so eager for publicity, love, and historical dimen­ sion. " 12 This includes two recent dissertations: Joyce Arlene Chumbley, "The World of Moli&re's Comedy-Ballets," Diss. Hawaii 1973, and Louis Eugene Auld, "The Unity of Molifere's Comedy-Ballets," Diss. Bryn Mawr 1969. Chumbley's encyclopedic 709 page thesis discusses the comedy-ballets in their seventeenth-c entury settings, in­ cluding sources, costumes, and scenery. Auld later pub­ lished "The Music of the Spheres in the Comedy-Ballets," ECr,6 (1966), 176-87, in which he cites Molidre himself to show com^die-ballet as a new genre. 13 See Elizabeth Burns, "The Theatrical Metaphor: the World as a Stage, and the Theatre as Paradigm," in Theatricality: A Study of Convention in the Theatre and in Social Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), pp. 8-21. R. Poirier also notes that "The world performs itself in its own terms and metaphors," p. 95. 14 For a discussion of theatrical conventions, see Burns, especially chapter 4, "Conventions of Performance," pp. 28-39. 15 Barbara Bowen, Les Caract^ristiques essentielles de la farce frangaise et leur survivance dans les ann6es 1550- 1620 (Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1964). See also the excellent general introduction to Bowen's edition of Four Farces (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967) and "Le Theatre du clich4," CAIEF, 26 (1974), 33-46. In the latter article, Bowen disagrees with those critics who claim that farce is a very simple entertainment lacking any elements of artifice or "rhetoric." 16 Robert Garapon, La Fantaisie verbale et le comique dans le theatre frangais du moyen ctge A la fin du XVIIfe sTicle (Paris: Armand Colin, 195 7) , see pp. 36-47. 59 17 Halina Lewicka, "Un Proced£ comique de l'ancienne farce: la fausse comprehension du langage,"’ Melanges de langue et de litt^rature du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance offerts a Jean Frappier par ses collogues, ses 6l6ves, et ses amis (Geneva: Droz, 1970), II, 653-58. 18 Halina Lewicka, Etudes sur l'ancienne farce frangaise (Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 19 74), pp. 16-17,32-54. 19 Gustave Lanson, "Moliere et la farce," Revue de Paris (May, 1901) , pp. 129-53; rpt. in G. Lanson, Essais de methode, de critique, et d'histoires littgraire, ed". H. Peyre (Par l s: Hachette, 1965) , pp. 189-210. See also Alfred Simon's excellent synopsis of theatricality with respect to gestures, words, masks, farce, etc., in "The Elementary Rites of MoliSre's Comedy," trans. Stirling Haig, in Jacques Guicharnaud, ed., Molifere, A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964). Rpt. and trans. of "Les Rites 61dmentaires de la com£die moli^resque," Cahiers de la Compagnie Madeleine Renaud - Jean-Louis Barrault, No. 15 (January, 1956) , pp. 14-28. 20 LebSgue, pp. 183-201. See also LebSgue1s Le Theatre comigue en France de Pathelin k M^lite (Paris: Hatier - Collection Connaissances de Lettres, 1972), p. 29: "Dans la com^die classique, les principaux personnages se d^finissent par leur vice ou travers essentiel. Dans la farce, ils sont caracteris^s par leur metier ou leur situation conjugale ou par les deux." See also LebSgue's "Le Moyen Age dans le th££tre frangais du XVIIe si&cle," DSS, 114-115 (1977), 31-42. Leb^gue points out that Corneille, Racine, and Moli&re borrowed from medieval mysteries and farces. 21 Barbara Bowen, "Some Elements of French Farce in MoliSre," ECr, 6 (1966), 175. 22 See Peter-H. Nurse. Classical Voices: Corneille, Racine, Molidre, Mme de Lafayette (London: Harrap, 1971). 2 3 Paul Saintonge, "Thdme et variations," ECr, 6 (1966), 147. 24 Louis Moland, Molidre et la com£die italienne (Paris: Didier, 186 7), pp. 246-47. Somaize and Boursault quoted by Moland. 25 For a study of the fetes foraines and their rela­ tionship with the Italians, see Marcello Spaziani, "Le Origini italiane della commedia foraine," SFr, 6 (1962), 60

223-44. Philip A. Wadsworth in Moli&re and the Italian Theatrical Tradition (Columbia, S.C.: French Literature Publications, 1977), finds little influence of the Italians on the French and vice versa with respect to the medieval and early seventeenth-century French farces. See discus­ sion, p. 82. 26 For the frontispiece depicting Moliere imitating Scaramouche, see Chevalley, p. 34. Le Boulanger de Chalussay, Elonire hypocondre, ed. F. W. Vogler, in Molifere Mocked (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972), p. 127 for quotation. The name "Elomire," an ana­ gram of Molidre, appeared first in 166 3 in Z^linde, ou la veritable critique de l'Ecole des femmes~et la Critique de la critique by Donneau de Vise. MoliSre's enemies adopted the name and used it to ridicule his admiration for the famous com^dien Scaramouche. 27 For this and subsequent Etats Presents in the "Introduction," full bibliographical reference will be found in the "Bibliography" section. Works cited will be footnoted only if directly quoted, or supplementary information is provided in the footnote. 2 8 Constant Mic, La Commedia delI1arte (Paris: J. Schiffrin, 1927), p. 60. 29 Katherine M. Lea, Italian Popular Comedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19 34), I, 19 5. 30 Gustave Attinger, L1Esprit de la Commedia dell'arte dans le theatre frangais (Paris: Librairie Th^atrale, 1950), p. 163. 31 Wadsworth, p. x.

"^Wadsworth, p. 82. 33 Jules Brody, "Esth£tique et soci^td chez MoliSre," in Dramaturgie et soci^td au 16e et au 17e sidcles (Paris: CNRS, 1968), p. 318.

■^The best article dealing with a Molidre play and "games" is Hallam Walker's "Les Facheux and MoliSre's Use of Games," ECr, 11 (1971), 21-33. Walker draws from Roger Caillois's Les Jeux et les hommes (Paris: Gallimard, 1958), to posit four basic theories of games: chance, competition, masking, and vertigo. Walker applies these categories to Moli&re's plays, not necessarily limiting them to Les Facheux. Jacques Ehrmann's "Homo Ludens Revisited," YFS, 41 (1968), 31-57, is based on Johan 61

Huizinga's Homo Ludens; A Study of the Play Element in Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955) as well as the works of the linguist Emile Beneviste to present the theory that play originates in the sacred consisting of the consubstan- tial unity of myth and rite. See Emile Beneviste, "Le Jeu comme structure," Deucalion, no. 2 (1947), pp. 161-67. On the subject of games/play/aesthetics, consult Hilde Hein, "Play as an Aesthetic Concept," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 27 (1968), 67-71. 35 One could assert that the seventeenth century was committed to marriage, in the economic as well as the religious sense. But in Le M§decin malgr£ lui as well as Scapin, the dominant theme is the amorous young couple outwitting the authority/father figure, which is a stock theatrical device for many cultures. Dandin repeats the farce theme of cuckoldry but, as we shall see, with bitter and satirical overtones. 36 It is my contention that these farces were not primarily intended for low-class audiences in their original conception. Le M^decin has especially suffered in critical evaluation because of this superficial viewpoint. John Lough upholds this theory. See Paris Theatre Audiences in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957); Writer and Public in France from the Middle Ages to the Present Day (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978) ; and Seventeenth-Century French Drama: The Background (Oxford! Clarendon Press, 1979) .

37Sganarelle"s leering at the Nurse is not at all re­ pressed, but for Dandin, the dreamworld becomes nightmare and obsession. 3 8 The following works have proven extremely valuable in crystallizing the meaning of the "absurd" in a seven­ teenth-century context: Carlo Frangois, La Notion de l'absurde dans la literature frangaise du XVIIe siiicle (Paris: Klincksieck, 1973); Michel Foucault, Histoire de la folie k l'age classique (Paris: Gallimard, 1972); and Alan E. Knight, "The Medieval Theatre of the Absurd," PMLA, 86 (1971), 183-89.

39 Helen Purkis," L"Illusion th^atrale," SFr, 63 (1977), p. 419.

^ J e a n Rousset, L'Interieur et l'ext^rieur. Essais sur la po£sie et sur le theatre au XVIIfe si^cle (Paris: j"I Corti, 1968) , p"! 155. See also La Littgrature de l'clge baroque en France (Paris: J. Corti, 1961). Also consult "Dom Juan and the Baroque," Diogenes, 14 (Summer, 1956), 62

p. 13, where Rousset speaks of the "masked men" who are deliberate heroes, with references to Sganarelle and Scapin. See also "L'lle enchant^e. F§te et theatre au 17© si&cle," in Melanges . . . M. Brahmer (Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1967). 41 Related to Rousset's works and theories, see Regula Billeter, Les Valeurs spectaculaires dans 1 'oeuvre de Molifere (Boulogne: Imprimerie Maleva, 1962). Marie- Frangoise Christout in Le Ballet de Cour de Louis XIV, 1643-1672 (Paris: Picard^ 1967), gives details on the music, libretti, costumes, etc. Christout also includes an engraving of the original 166 8 "Fete de Versailles" (George Dandin) stage decor (plate no. 36). 4 2 Purkis, p. 415. In effect, Purkis is giving a "baroque optic" to Constant Mic's theories in his "L'Art de l'acteur" cited in the section on the commedia in my "Introduction." 4 3 Robert J. Nelson, "Classicism and the Crisis of the Baroque in French Literature," ECr, 11 (1971), p. 175

44 Nelson, p. 179.

4^Nelson, p. 175. 46 This, of course, refers to a symbolic mask. There is evidence that at least the fathers wore actual masks for the productions during Moli^re's time.

47The reader may wish to consult Laurence Romero, Molidre, Traditions in Criticism, 1900-1972 (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in Romance Languages and Litera­ tures, 19 74). See also his supplement, "Molidre Hie et Nunc: Criticism in the Last Decade," RomN, 15, Supplement No. 1 (1973), pp. 151-67, as well as Wolfgang Leiner's "Contributions am^ricaines aux etudes moli^resques 19 59- 19 72"in the same volume, pp. 16 8-86. 4 8 Jacques Guicharnaud, Moli^re, une aventure th^atrale (Paris: Gallimard, 1963). Speaking of Tartuffe, Guicharnaud indicates that one can establish a parallel between the hypocrite and his dupe(s) and the dramatist (or actor) and his public. The com^dien and his public arrive at a state of collective consciousness by which they ex­ orcise the hypocrite or "le mal," and the comedy thus takes on a "purgative" function. The idea of the year 1666 as a turning point in Moli&re's dramaturgie is not a new one to MoliSre criticism, but not every critic or scholar choses to interpret it as an "impasse." 63 49 Marcel Gutwirth, Moliere, ou l 1invention comigue. La Metamorphose des themes et la creation des types (Paris: Minard, 1966). See especially p. 8^ Gutwirth, however, emphasizes that Molifere's influence was more "gaulois" than Italian. ^Charles Mauron, Psychocritique du genre comique (Paris: Corti, 1960), p. 133. 51 Frangoxs Rastxer, "Niveaux d'ambiguit^s des struc­ tures narratives," Semiotica, 3 (19 71), 340. 52 See for example, Robert J. Nelson, "The Unrecon­ structed Heroes of Molifere," in Moliere, A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Jacques Guicharnaud (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964), p. 118; rpt. Tulane Drama Review, IV, 3 (Spring, 1980), pp. 14-37. 53 A few other works are helpful in sxtuatxng the semiological viewpoint. Bernard Magna's "L'Ecole des Femmes ou la conquete de la parole," RSH, 146 (1972), 125-40, is less rigorously scientific than Rastier's work, although it is structuralist and linguistically oriented. Magn6 demonstrates how Arnolphe's tyranny is accomplished by means of a verbal monopoly he holds over Agn£s. She liberates herself from this tyranny in propor­ tion to her increasingly lucid control of language. Gener­ ally useful is Tadensz Kowzan, ed., Analyse semioloqique du spectacle th§atrale (Lyon: University of Lyon, 1976). 54 Susan Relyea, Signs, Systems and Meanxngs: A Con­ temporary Semiotic Reading of Four Moliere Plays (Middle­ ton, Conn. : Wesleyan University Press, 1976) . See especially pp. 70-72.

Relyea, p. 5.

^ F o r a quick review and reference to the best articles, see W. G. Moore, MLR, 73 (1977), 950-51. 57 Pierre Gaxotte, Molifere, fameux com^dien (Paris: Hachette, 1971), p. 30. 58 Romero sees Fernandez's work as being in the "Man in the Works" tradition. See Moliere: Traditions in Criticism, pp. 63-67. 59 This corresponds to the view held by Guxcharnaud in Moliere, une aventure th£atrale. Meyer, however, suggests that Moli&re escaped into aesthetics to avoid a political role forced on him by the Tartuffe scandals. 64

Valdemar Vedel, Deux classiques frangais vus par un critique Stranger: Corneille en son temps— Molifere, trans. E. Cornet (Paris: Champion, 19 35) , p . 464.

61Vedel, p. 484. 6 2 For iconography, see Jacques Copeau, ed., Moliere, Les Fourberies de Scapin (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 19 51). See also the photographs included in Jacques Audiberti, Molidre (Paris: L 1Arche Editeur - Collection les Grands Dramaturges, 19 54). 6 3 These remarks are reminiscent of Vedel's perception of Moliere's "d^mon de theatre." 6 4 See Jacques Copeau, Le Theatre Populaire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1942), and his Registres. Tome II: Molidre, ed. Andr£ Cabanis (Paris: Gallimard, 1976), which includes Copeau's speeches, articles, notes on how to play Molidre from direct contact with the text, and Copeau's introduction for a planned edition of the works of Moliere. Jacques Arnavon, however, dismisses Molidre's Italian influence as incidental, and opposes the tr£ateau nu because he feels the highly stylized decor demands too much from the audience: Notes sur 1'interpretation de Molidre (Paris: Plon, 1923). For Arnavon, Molidre's theatre is as vraisemblable as possible. The director must establish ‘'entre 1 * interpretation et la r§alit6 un contact direct" (p. 29) by means of "un rapport permanent de vraisemblance entre le texte et le d§cor" (p. 49). /r c See also James K. Feibleman, "On the Metaphysics of the Performing Arts," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28 (1970), 295-299. Feibleman sees the aesthetically good actor as the one who submerges himself in his role and does not call attention to the act of act­ ing. [Hence, Molidre's more natural style as compared with the acting style of the Hotel de Bourgogne.] Feibleman also warns against updating a work to the extent that it becomes a grotesque deformation and a cheapened parody of the original. [Feibleman might thus argue that playing Dandin as a peasant repressed by the capitalists and in a Marxist tone deforms the original.] 6 6 Louis Jouvet, Moliere et la com£die classique. Extraits des cours de Louis Jouvet au Conservatoire (1939- 1940) (Paris: Gallimard - Collection Pratique du Theatre, 1965), p. 188. 65 6 7 Additional reviews of Vitez's tetrad may be found in Pierre Marcabru, "L'Effect Vitez," Le Point, 348 (1979), 186-87, as well as Raymond TempkineT "Molidre ou la con­ fession impudique," Europe, 57 (1979), 210-18; Philippe S6nart, "La Revue thlatraTe: une tetralogie de Molifere et le Malade Imaginaire," RDM 11 (1978), 688-96; and Matthieu Galey, ‘'MoliSre !T~T'6cole de Vitez, NL, 20-26 July, 1979, p. 11.

68One should not neglect Tony Harrison's British ver­ sion of The Misanthrope which sets the play in 1966, in- terpreting the regime of General de Gaulle as if he were Louis XIV. See Moliere / The Misanthrope (London: Rex Collings, 1973). Besides Harrison's translation, this edi­ tion also includes an introduction by the director as well, as numerous photographs. For other plays, see also Wallace Fowlie, Dionysus in Paris (New York: Meridian Books, I960).. Fowlie, essentially a popularizer, neglects serious scholar­ ship and references, but nevertheless, his work represents basic material. See also Guicharnaud, A Collection of Critical Essays, pp. 187-81, and Laurence Romero, Tradi­ tions in Criticism, pp. 153-158. 69 At any rate, the music most likely fit the specta­ tors, as did the music at the original Versailles performance. See Romero, p. 154. 70 Romero, p. 155.

^Romero, p. 155.

^ G u y Dumur, Theatre Populaire, 34 (1959), 103-04. 73 See Romero, p. Ill, and Jean-Louis Barrault, Portrait de Molidre, Cahiers Renaud-Barrault, 49 (1964) , 3-55. 74 Vernon Young,"Moli&re Imaginaire," New York Review of Books, 2 7, no. 3 (March 6, 19 80), p. 46. 75 See Carlo Francois, "M^decine et religion chez MoliSre: deux facettesd'une meme absurdity," FR, 42 (1969), 665-72. Francois's points are applicable to the use of language in Le M^decin malgrd lui. The "magicians" of the soul as well as the ’'magicians" of the body employ cant to control as well as to achieve dishonest ends. See also Frangois's La Notion de l'absurde . . ., Michel Foucault's La Folie. . ., and Will G. Moore's chapter "Speech" in Moliere, A New Criticism (1949; rpt. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 196 8), pp. 53-6 7. Morton Gurevitch's Comedy: The Irrational Vision (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1975) is also a useful work. Gurevitch claims that 66

"Although comedy is often generated by the forces of civilized sanity, and searching criticism, it is also acti­ vated perhaps just as often, by a drive to celebrate irrationalism. [The] . . . aim is to focus on comedy's interest in illogic and irreverence, in disorder and dis- inhibition . . . Farce also accepts folly as indispensable, but only because folly promises delightful annihilations of restraint" (p. 9). 76 Sigmund Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905), trans. James Strachey (New York: Norton, 1960). Regarding marriage, "there is no more personal claim than [marriage] for sexual freedom," remarks Freud, "and at no point has civilization tried to exercise severer repression than in the sphere of sexuality" (p. 110). Freud adds that "... marriage is not an arrange­ ment calculated to satisfy a man's sexuality" (p. 111). In the three plays I have chosen to analyze in detail, sexuality and marriage have very little to do with one another. Sexuality for Sganarelle is expressed in the verbal wit and gestures directed toward the Nurse. In Dandin, sexuality becomes a parody of courtly amants and cuckolds. There is a repression of the Italian models, a curious absence of sexuality in Scapin. The aggression in all these plays is, however, both verbal and gestural.

77For discussion and examples of burlesque words and phrases as well as the general notion of the burlesque, see Francis Bar, Le Genre burlesque en France au XVIIe sifecle: Etude de style (Paris: Artrey, 1960). See also Bar's article, "Fins et moyens de l'archa'isme chez les burlesques du XVIIe sifecle," CAIEF, 19 (1967), 39-58. In these works, Bar insists on the notion of the burlesque as "artificial," and hence an author-controlled creation. Thus, one might reasonably question the type of audience for whom these works were intended. 7 8 See Robert Garapon, La Fantaisie verbale et le comigue dans le theatre frangais du moyen age £ la fin du XVIIe si&cle (Paris: Armand Colm, 1957).

^ S e e Relyea, pp. 70-72. on See Will G. Moore, "The Comic Paradox," MLR, 68 (1973), 771-75. Moore remarks on Molifere's oxymoronic titles; see also Raymond Picard, Moli&re comique ou tragique? Le Cas d'Arnolphe," RHL, 72 (1972), 769-785. Many of the statements applied to Arnophe are also appli­ cable to Dandin; see also C. Venesoen, Molidre tragedien?" DSS, 83 (1969), 25-34. 67 81 Gustave Lanson, Histoire de la littgrature franqaise (1920; rpt. Paris; Hachette, 1951), pp. 517-18. 82 Several excellent articles crystallize the defini­ tion of aesthetic and literary parody. See, for example, G. D. Kiremidjian, "The Aesthetics of Parody," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28 (1960) , 231-42. Kiremidjian claims that "A parody is . . . a work which reflects a fundamental aspect of art and is at the same time a symptom of historical processes which invalidate the normal authenticity of primary forms" (p. 241). CHAPTER II

LE MEDECIN MALGRE LUI, OR, MEGALOMANIA

A. The "Farceur," His Art in 1666, and Spectacle and Performance

The early months of the year 1666 see the Theatre du Palais Royal shut, and Molifere gravely ill. The death of the Queen Mother on 20 January suspends all theatrical

activity. MoliSre can at least prolong his convalescence

in order to finish his Misanthrope which debuts on Friday

4 June 1666. The Mgdecin malgr£ lui first plays at the

Palais Royal on Friday 6 August 1666. Subligny in the

Muse Dauphine of 26 August proclaims:

. . . Catte bagatelle est d'un esprit si fin Que, s'il faut que je vous le die L'estime qu'on en fait est une maladie ^ Qui fait que dans Paris tout court au medecin.

The Misanthrope, after twenty-one performances, has been removed from the boards the preceding Sunday. The two plays are not presented together until four weeks later, and in the interval, the Medecin malgr6 lui plays eleven times: twice with Donneau de Visa's La M£re coquette, three times with La Coquette of Mademoiselle Desjardins, and six times with Les Facheux. It then plays with the

Misanthrope five times, and subsequently with Sertorius,

Les Visionnaires, Le Menteur, and Le Dgpit. For the year of its debut, 1666, it is finally withdrawn from the boards 68 2 on 8 October after a total of twenty-three performances,

a solidly successful play.

Le Mgdecin malgrd lui is in truth a fun-filled farce with laughter from beginning to end. The comedy opens in a forest setting. Enter Martine and Sganarelle, the tra­ ditional farce couple, in the midst of quarrelling, each 3 wishing to dominate the other. How could Martine ever hope to find another such woodcutter as he, who knows how to raisonner des choses, who had served a famous doctor for six years, and who has since a tender age known his rudi­ ment par coeur? She accuses him of eating the family out of house and home. He calls that a lie: he drinks part of it! She: "J'ai quatre pauvres petits enfants sur les bras.

He: "Mets-les & terre.” Their parodical d^pit amoureux reaches such a feverish pitch that to quiet her indictments

Sganarelle finally resorts to beating her with a stick.

Martine screams for help. Out comes running Monsieur

Robert, their neighbor. His thanks for upbraiding Sgana­ relle is a good smack from Martine: "Et je veux qu'il me batte, moi." They both harangue poor Monsieur Robert for not minding his own business and Sganarelle administers several more whallops to him for good measure. Sganarelle then coos words of sweet affection to Martine and asks for pardon: "Ma petite femme . . . viens, viens, viens . . . ce sont petites choses qui sont de temps en temps n^cessaires dans l'amiti6; et cinq ou six coups de bSton, 70 entre gens qui s'aiment, ne font que regaillardir l'affection. . . (1,2). Martine forgives him and Sganarelle is off to cut more wood. But Martine has only feigned appeasement, and in a vengeful monologue expresses her eager desire to have her husband punished: ". . . je brule en moi-mSme de trouver les moyens. . ." (1,3). Martine has not long to wait. 4 Valdre, old G^ronte's valet, and Lucas, Jacqueline's husband, enter. They are seeking a doctor for their master's daughter who has lost her power of speech. While

Lucinde is thus incapacitated, there can be no question of her marrying the wealthy suitor her father has chosen for her, although she herself favors the young impoverished

L^andre. What a set-up for a clever scheme for Martine!

She calls to Lucas and Val^re and tells them of a marvelous physician who has cured even cases thought hopeless. But he is an odd fellow (". . . fantasque, bizarre, quinteux").

He is presently out cutting wood, dresses in an accentric fashion, pretends to be an ignoramus, and furthermore, he abhores exercising "les merveilleux talents qu'il a eus du Ciel pour la m^decine" (1,4). A doctor who cuts wood?

Yes, but he will never admit to being a physician unless 5 one takes a stick and cudgels him. Martine exits; out comes Sganarelle, bottle in hand. Lucas and Val^re talk of cures, Sganarelle talks of cutting wood. They tell him he is a physician; he says he isn't. So, the remedy must be 71 applied! Lucas and Val£re each take a stick and thrash him twice. Sganarelle thus loudly agrees that he is a doctor, but are they quite certain? Why yes, and Sgnarelle listens in amazement at his own accomplishments: he has healed a child who fell from a bell tower, and brought g back to life a woman thought dead. Lucas and ValSre will take him to cure G^ronte's daughter and get him a doctor's robe and hat on the way. What a jokester! And what a physician!

Act Two finds us at G§ronte's house. Lucas and ValSre are assuring G6ronte that they have found for him "le plus grand medecin du monde," although he has a few loose 7 screws here and there. Jacqueline (the nourrice) does not believe in doctors: what Lucinde really needs is ". . . un g biau et bon mari, pour qui elle ellt de 1 1 amiqui£ (II, 1) .

She is curtly told to mind her own business.

Garbed in a doctor's hat and robe, Sganarelle enters, quoting Hippocrates. He thinks G^ronte, too, is a doctor, and when old G€ronte denies it, Sganarelle beats him, for that is the way he himself was awarded his "doctor's diploma." G^ronte is indignant, but he is reminded that

Sganarelle is a "jesting" doctor (un medecin goguenard).

Sganarelle then catches sight of Jacqueline. What marvel­ ous appendages, for Sganarelle envies the child that has suckled them, and begins to fondle her breasts. Lucas has quite a time getting Sganarelle's hands off his wife! 72

When Lucinde is brought in, Sganarelle remarks that she mustn't die without the doctor's orders and attempts to explain the cause of her malady with "medical jargon": humeurs, vapeurs, exhalaisons des influences. So much the better that no one understands Latin, for he can invent an explanation using medical terminology that is part gibber- 9 ish and part pat phrases from a Latin grammar. Geronte is a bit disturbed that Sganarelle has placed the heart and the liver on the wrong sides of the body, but is quickly re­ assured by the latter that modern medicine has changed all that with a method that is "toute nouvelle." His prescrip­ tion is that Lucinde be put to bed and given plenty of bread soaked in wine.'*'® Returning his attention to

Jacqueline, he offers her some more "medicine," but she declines. Sganarelle also makes a great show of pretending to decline payment from Geronte.'*''*'

At the end of Act II, Ldandre enters, and catches the attention of Sganarelle, and explains that Lucinde is merely feigning illness until she can find a way to marry him in­ stead of the suitor her father has chosen for her.

Ldandre asks the aid of Sganarelle who is quite intrigued:

". . . et j'y perdrai toute ma m^decine, ou la malade crevera, ou bien elle sera ^ vous" (II, 5).

Act III opens near Geronte's house. L^andre is dis­ guised as the apothecary whom Sganarelle will take with him to visit Lucinde. Sganarelle finally confesses that he is 73 not truly a doctor when L^andre continues to insist on being taught a few pat medical expressions so that his dis­ guise might be more believable. Even so, Sganarelle 12 finds the profession quite lucrative. Two peasants,

Thibaut and Perrin, have come to ask for some medicine for their dying wife/mother. Sganarelle is all too happy to oblige when they pay in advance.

The scene now returns to G^ronte's house. Sganarelle is delighted to find Jacqueline once again and begs her to become ill so that he may have the pleasure of administer­ ing some more of his medicine. He is about to embrace her 13 when the "importun qui revient" of the farce, Lucas her husband, intervenes. G£ronte enters to inform the "doctor" that his daughter is somewhat worse since he prescribed his medicine. That is all right, for according to Sganarelle, that is a sure sign that the medicine is working. Lucinde enters, and Sganarelle sends her off with the "apothecary" 14 who will "tater son pouls" while he "reasons" the cause of her malady with the father. Lucinde returns shortly, and in a torrent of words, informs her father that she will either marry L^andre or enter a convent. Gdronte begs the doctor to make her mute again, but Sganarelle cannot do that; he can only make the father deaf. Sganarelle then orders the "apothecary" to take Lucinde into the garden and administer "une prise de fuite purgative" and "deux drachmes de matrimonium en pilules," reminding him that 74

since he is a "fort habile homme dans votre metier," he

must "lui faire avaler la chose du mieux que vous

pourrez" (111,6).

While G6ronte is fuming over his daughter's insolence,

Lucas rushes in and announces that it was Ldandre who was

disguised as the apothecary and he has now fled with

Lucinde. For this, Sganarelle is to be hanged. Martine has finally caught up with her husband, and when she learns

of his predicament, assures him that she will not leave him

until she is certain he is dead. But Lucinde and L^andre

have had a change of heart as well as change of fortune.

They return. L^andre announces that he prefers to receive

Lucinde honorably from her father, and, what luck! His

uncle has just died, leaving him his entire fortune!

G6ronte is overjoyed, and Sganarelle is forgiven. The play

ends with Sganarelle warning Martine that henceforth she is

to pay him all the respect he is due, for ". . . l a coldre

d'un medecin est plus & craindre que l'on ne peut croire"

(III, 11).

It is quite evident from this synopsis that in Le 15 Medecin, the rollicking, fun-filled action never stops.

Indeed, the spectator has nary a chance to reflect upon

any possible melancholy thoughts on the part of the author,

nor much time to search for any "hidden meanings." Le

Medecin is pure mouvement and entertainment and its very

style is characteristic of Moli^re the actor rather than 75

Moli&re the author. It is lightly, perhaps even hastily written, and a reading of the play cannot even begin to do 16 it justice. Its success depends on the comic by-play of the actions and gestures which are inseparable from the dialogue.

Critical opinion of Le Medecin has since Molidre's time till the present tended to overlook, ignore, or dis- 17 miss the play as lacking any serious intent. Critical opinion has also tended to dismiss the play for its "lack of style," or supposed destination for "le peuple." But lack of critical attention is neither seconded nor borne out by the popularity that the farce has enjoyed with the public. Of all of Molidre's plays performed in France, Le

Medecin malgrg lui is the third most popular, eclipsed only by Tartuffe and L 1Avare (with even Le Misanthrope lag­ ging well behind in fourth place). The public has enjoyed a total of 2,175 performances in France alone, from the 1 ft year 16 66 through 1969.

We have already noted that in its debut year, Le

Medecin played twenty-three times. There were a total of thirty-six performances of Le Medecin malgr§ lui in the theatrical season of 1666-1667. (One of the two private stagings performed during Molidre's lifetime was given at 19 the Tuileries 6 January 1667, le jour des Rois. ) Eight performances followed in 1667-1668, five in 1668-1669, five again in 1669-1670, three in 1670-1671, one in 76

1671-1672, one again in 1672-1673 for a total of sixty performances during Moli&re's lifetime. From 167 3 to 1715

(death of Louis XIV), there were almost three hundred per- formances, almost as many as of Le Misanthrope.20

It was the nineteenth century which treated the stage fortunes of Le Medecin unkindly, both at home and abroad.

It was seldom performed, for its comic effects were often 21 considered vulgar, forced, and outmoded. But in general, the heritage of Le Medecin malgrg lui in spectacle and performance, in France and abroad, points to its success.

As early as 16 71, it had been translated into Dutch as De

Gedongen Doctor and published in Amsterdam. 22 In England around 1670, Fielding created a version of The Mock Doctor 23 for the celebrated Punch theatre. In the twentieth cen­ tury, the play has been translated and performed in

Japanese, Afrikaans, Russian, English, Swahili, and 24 Turkish.

In 1919, Le Medecin malgr£ lui was made into a silent 25 film with Maurice de Feraudy. Jacques Copeau then per­ formed a "bare stage" revival first in New York in 1918, 26 and then at the Theatre du Vieux Colombier in 1920.

Pierre Lidvre was quite unhappy with the mise-en-sc£ne of the 19 36 Com^die Franpaise performance (which as we know has in the recent past had a reputation for being steeped in tradition). Li&vre appreciated the gay theatrical nature of the costumes, but faulted the metteur-en-sc£ne 77

who should have been, according to Lidvre, . . un homme 27 capable d'mterroger un texte et de le commenter."

Lievre was disappointed that this production of Le Mddecin

malgr£ lui made it seem like a dull play. Closer to our

own day, the Com6die-Frangaise performed Le Medecin seventy

times between 1961 and 1969, but even this record lags well

behind the number of performances of the traditional favor­

ites, L'Avare and Tartuffe, 234 and 184 performances 28 respectively during this period.

The play received an excellent reception as it was

performed during the Festival d 1Avignon in the summer of 29 1953. A photograph of the 1961 Theatre du Palais-Royal

production depicts the farcical flavor of the play.

Sganarelle wears the black doctor's robe and pointed hat,

along with a white fraise. He is leering at a lusty, well-

endowed Jacqueline costumed in an extremely revealing,

low-cut gown. Sganarelle and Jacqueline are seated on a

bench while Lucas crawls around on the ground behind them.^

Le Medecin malgrd lui has also been staged through the medium of television. Norman R. Savoie, who has made a

survey and compiled statistics on televised productions of

Moli^re plays, informs us that Le Medecin has been pre­

sented on French television four times: 1952 (a Comedie-

Frangaise production), 1961, 1964, and 1965 (repeat of 31 the 1964 production). Canadian television aired a pro­

duction by the Theatre du Nouveau Monde in 196 3. Certain patois expressions were inserted into the dialogue of this performance, and Sganarelle was portrayed as a peasant of

Quebec who encounters English soldiers and peaux-rouges in 32 the forest. It can be argued that the medium of tele­ vision has both assets and liabilities with regard to the theatricality of the play. For example, one must admit that a televised production destroys a certain intimacy between the living actor and the spectators present in a theatre. On the other hand, certain "theatrical" conven­ tions can be rendered more "natural." For example, a

"stage whisper" or an "aside" must be said loud enough for everyone in the audience to hear in a live theatrical pro­ duction, whereas on television, it can be a real whisper or an announcer's voice-over.

Although a brief overview of the history of Le Medecin malgrg lui in spectacle and performance can elucidate our understanding of the theatrical fortunes of the play, nothing can, of course replace attendance at a performance during Molidre's lifetime for which we must rely on contem- 3 3 porary sources. In all likelihood, Moli&re himself played

Sganarelle. His costume suggested his role: yellow serge suit, wool stockings, a belt, a purse (une escarcelle), and a simple ruff (une fraise). Moli^re completed the outfit 34 (as in Le Misanthrope) with green ribbons, and as Lucas remarks, Sganarelle bears no small resemblance to a parrot.

Moli^re for this role also sported a large black beard. In the second and third acts, his costume consisted of the 35 traditional doctor's black robes and a pointed hat. Ap­ parently, Molidre's physiognomy, as we can ascertain from contemporary sources, was well-suited for buffoonery.

Everything about him suggests roundness: a round face, round bulging eyes, bushy eyebrows, heavy lids, a large nose with wide, flaring nostrils, full lips, a short and squatty 35 neck, heavy shoulders, and a short-legged, stocky torso.

In a farce such as this, then, Molidre is an almost per­ fect reincarnation of the best of Gros-Guillaume and

Tabarin, especially when one reminisces with respect to their rapport with the op^rateurs, orvi^tans, and other assorted quacks of the Pont Neuf.

Du Croisy probably played old Gdronte, who in spite of some semblance of dignity, has much of the Italian

Pantalone in his occasional lapses into burlesque. La

Grange, who often was given the part of the young suitor, very likely played L§andre, and Armande B^jart, Lucinde.

Lucinde's costume included a fire-red satin dress with point lace and flounces, and a silver and green corps de toile, a rather stunning costume for such a short role.

Mademoiselle de Brie probably played the role of Martine, and it has been suggested that Madeleine and Louis B^jart 36 played the roles of Jacqueline and Lucas.

Apparently, in the seventeenth century, not much emphasis was placed on providing a realistic decor for the 80 farces other than perhaps a few painted backdrops suggest­ ing a change of scene. A few props are indicated: some wood, a large bottle, two sticks, three chairs, a piece of cheese, and a purse with a few jetons to simulate money.

But in any event, in Le Medecin malgr£ lui, spectacle and performance in a theatrical sense are much more dependent on the interplay of dialogue and gesture as the verbal and visual images. Before exploring the "theatricality" of the theatrum mundi as well as these very conventions of dialogue and gesture, let us turn to the question of "sources." We shall examine two examples of Molidre's "theatricalization" of possible literary sources as well as several examples of the manner in which he reworks his own material for Le

Medecin malgr6 lui.

B. The Question of "Sources"

1. Parody: Literary Sources and Their Use

Pre-19 50 Molidre scholarship is perhaps best exempli­ fied by the critical methods established by Despois and

Mesnard in their edition of the works of Molidre: the slightest evidence that suggested that the playwright may have borrowed a word, phrase, scene, plot, or character from a contemporary or previous literary source was heralded as a great advancement in Molidre scholarship for the very reason that he was viewed as a literary, rather than a theatrical phenomenon. While this approach can be useful, 81 the path blazed by Despois-Mesnard and associates eventually became a rut. Rend Bray in Molidre, homme de thdatre was among the first to suggest that a study of sources H la

Despois-Mesnard was of limited value, for Molidre was first and foremost an actor and director for whom playwriting and publishing were only secondary concerns. A plethora of good material around 1666 was simply unavailable. Racine was not to be depended upon, as the Alexandre affair of

166 5 and his subsequent defection to the Hdtel de Bourgogne were to prove. Contributions from comic contemporary authors

(Corneille, Donneau de Visd, Brdcourt, Subligny) were simply insufficient. Bray then suggests that Molidre used whatever sources were available to him because he needed theatrical material to keep his theatrical troupe together. He then goes on to claim that Molidre was forced to have his plays published to protect them from being pirated in unauthor­ ized editions. ^

The "Notice" on Le Mddecin malgre lui in the Despois-

Mesnard edition of the complete works remains an excellent 3 8 source of reference for possible literary borrowings.

Keeping with my intention to explore in detail only those borrowings which can elucidate Moliere's process of theatricalization, however, I shall limit my present dis­ cussion to two possible sources: the fabliau of Le Vilain mire and Rabelais's La Femme muette. Thus, I hope to draw some conclusions regarding Moliere's use of parody, and 82 more specifically, the burlesque in its seventeenth-century

context.

a. Le Vilain mire

Robert Harrison, in Gallic Salt, reminds us of

B^dier's classic description that a fabliau is, loosely

defined, a "conte h. rire en vers," rooted in the tradition of

the esprit gaulois and . . in a good-natured, uncomplain­

ing worldiness that enables them [the fabliaux] to moralize without being priggish and to mock with amused irony rather

than acerbity. They are rarely satirical, for satire pre­ supposes a longing for better conditions, while the spirit of the fabliaux, fundamentally optimistic, assumes that life

is fun, that the world is about as good as it need be, and

that should God ever want to make it a better place, He will 39 have to people it with a species other than man." This is basically the same spirit of the medieval French farce, and

for the most part, the spirit of Le Medecin malgr6 lui as well.

Owing to a certain flair and sophistication, the

fabliaux were in all likelihood intended for an aristocratic

audience and are often parodies of courtly literature. When

later presented elsewhere, they were somewhat revised for a

less urbane public. Since it is the style and not so much

the subject matter that sets the niveau of a work, if we examine the fabliaux closely, it seems that only an audience

familiar with courtly literature could appreciate the full 83 parody, and it is now generally acknowledged that the fabliaux contained elements of "courtly burlesques.

The jongleur, however, would not risk offending or insult­ ing his aristocratic audience, for to a large extent, his next meal depended on them (as Molidre's in fact did).

My brief synopsis of Le Vilain mire will be followed by a discussion of the manner in which Moli^re dramatizes certain episodes while completely neglecting others. To an extent, there is a sense of theatricality in the fabliau itself, but a theatricality that remains imagined in the mind is not the same as dramatized, staged theatricality that depends on the exigencies of a certain stage and public.

The events recounted in Le Vilain mire are very similar to those of Le Medecin. (The reader will also find traces and snatches of the story of Dandin, but I shall return to those in the following chapter.) The tale is as follows: A rich peasant is persuaded by some friends that it is high time he marries. An aging, widowed chevalier with a young and pretty daughter is also persuaded by these mutual friends that a marriage between his daughter and the peasant would be advantageous to all. All the parties are willing, and at first, all is well. But not long after the marriage is celebrated, the peasant has second thoughts. What if the sacristan (parish priest) were to come round and persuade 41 his wife to dally? He invents a way to prevent any possi­ bility of cuckoldry. He will beat her every morning. He 84

thus convinces himself that since she will be so busy crying

about her bruises, the monks and priests will not be coming

about. He can then peacefully plow his fields all the day

long with nary a worry about the home front.

Understandably, the young wife is quite distressed and

laments the fact that she allowed her father to persuade her

to marry such a rustic. Did her father think that she would

starve if left all on her own? The wife decides that the brute finds it easy to beat her because he himself has never 4 2 been beaten and thus does not understand pain.

While she is whimpering to herself, two royal officers pass by and ask for some food. They are on their way to

England to find a physician for the King's daughter who has swallowed a fishbone and gotten it caught in her throat.

The King now fears for her life.

The wife tells the officers that her husband is a great physician, but of such balky temperment, that he must be well buffeted to admit that he is indeed a doctor. The two emissaries quickly find the peasant and proceed to beat him until he agrees that he is a physician. Upon arriving at the King's palace, the churl again denies that he is a physician, and is again soundly thrashed.

When the girl is brought in, the peasant realizes that he must find a cure or it will cost him his life. He in­ forms the King that a good laugh should dislodge the bone.

He asks that a great fire be built, and that he be left 85

alone with the girl. The peasant then proceeds to take off

all his clothes. Stark naked before the roaring fire, he

scratches himself furiously here and there with long, dirty

nails while the fire toasts his scraggly torso. The girl

finds this so amusing and laughs so hard that the fishbone

flies out of her throat.

The peasant wants to be off for home, but again, by means of a thrashing, is quickly "persuaded" to stay in

the King's service. Soon, word gets round about the marvel­ ous physician and some thirty-odd sick folk arrive at the

castle demanding a cure. Upon seeing this multitude, the peasant takes fright and claims that there are too many to

cure. The King's men each pick up a slat, and the peasant

is all too well aware of what awaits him should he refuse.

The peasant then has another great fire built in the hall and requests that only the ill remain; the King and

the others leave. He then explains the cure. He will single out the sickest one and toss him in the fire. Then,

all the others will eat the ashes and be cured. Naturally, no one will admit to being the sickest. In fact, they all quickly run off, informing the King on the way that they

are now sound in body and mind and have indeed been

"cured." The King was so pleased with this marvelous physician, that he allowed him to return home and vowed to beat him no more. The tale ends with the comment that the peasant, having been amply rewarded by the King, has no 86 more need to plow, and never again struck his wife but loved and cherished her instead, for it was through wife and wile that he had become a fine physician sans degree.

The external differences are of course obvious: the fabliau is a rhymed narrative in octosyllabic couplets most probably recited by a single jongleur. We have no conclu­ sive evidence that Moli&re ever had in his possession a written manuscript, or that he heard the fabliau in oral 4 3 form. But it would not be too farfetched to imagine that

Molidre was at least familiar with the oral traditions upon which the Vilain mire is based, and has, subsequently, expanded the tale itself into a three-act farce by rework­ ing some of his own previous material using devices and theatrical conventions common to the French farce and the

Italian commedia.

One of the most obvious similarities between the

Medecin and the Vilain is an inherent streak of cruelty, sometimes directed at the guilty, sometimes at the inno­ cent. In Le Medecin malgrg lui, III, 2, Thibaut and

Perrin come to enlist the aid of Sganarelle in finding a cure for the wife and mother, who for all practical appear­ ances is truly dying from a case of dropsy. They are ignorant, but they come in good faith, and even offer deux

6cus for the treatment. Sganarelle takes the matter quite lightly and prescribes a hunk of cheese. In the fabliau, the thirty-odd sick people who came to the castle for a 87 cure were, we can probably assume, truly ill as well. The peasant would have thrown one in the fire and have the others eat the ashes. Although Sganarelle's and the peas­ ant's actual methods are dissimilar, the effects are the same: cruelty without a cure. But these episodes have to do with prevailing social conditions (theatrum mundi) as well as aesthetic devices.

First, both these pieces were parodies that could best be enjoyed by the aristocracy. Anything that had to do with the peasant would be played for broad laughs, for the aristocracy simply did not take the plight of the peasant seriously. But Moli^re renders this episode theatrical with the accent of Thibaut and Perrin as well as with the plays on words (i.e., hypocrisie/hydropisie) which are comic and aesthetic devices. But why then, is this particu­ lar scene almost always cut in performances of the play?

The answer is again perhaps found in the notion of theatrum mundi. Empathy for the deformed, the insane, and the ill is more of a nineteenth and twentieth-century notion. In earlier times, in a carnivalesque spirit, people simply laughed at deformity and cruelty, finding it excruciatingly funny.^ The Thibaut/Perrin episode was perhaps a disturb­ ing element for later audiences who expected a rollicking, fun-filled farce.

But even if we do assume that Moli^re's aristocratic and contemporary audiences found this acceptable, one might ask if, aesthetically, it is really necessary? The answer is yes because it is this very scene that Moli&re uses as the vehicle by which he suggests that Sganarelle is playing his part so well that he is truly becoming a medecin, play­ ing his role so well that he himself believes it. The peasant doctor, however, even at this stage was forced to continue the charade, lest he suffer the consequences of another hard pummeling or perhaps even a worse fate if he refused. But, as in the farce, the episode with the peas­ ant and the thirty sick people also serves aesthetic pur­ poses for it shows the process by which "others" as well as the character himself concretize his new role. If, for example, Sganarelle merely "cured" Lucinde, we could say that it was all a trick in a single event into which

Sganarelle was unwittingly and unwillingly drawn. He did cure Lucinde, but then again, Lucinde was not really sick.

The scene with Thibaut and Perrin serves to concretize the notion that Sganarelle really is a doctor. Likewise, had the peasant doctor merely managed to dislodge the fishbone in the girl's throat, we would have called it a happy acci­ dent and left it at that. The fabliau would have been a simple anecdote about a peasant who uses his wits. But the episode with the thirty people also serves an aesthetic purpose, for it too consolidates the hero's role,as a true doctor, but not without a twist, for there is an element of magic and unreality in both the farce and the fabliau with 89 the woodcutter/peasant cast as the doctor/magician. In both the farce and the fabliau, however, some of these ele­ ments are grounded in reality. Sganarelle prescribes a hunk of cheese, but it is not just any cheese, it is magi­ cal cheese:

SGANARELLE: Tenez, voilci un morceau de formage [sic] qu'il faut que vous lui fassiez prendre.

PERRIN; Du fromage, Monsieu?

SGANARELLE: Oui, c'est un formage pr£par£, oh il entre de l'or, du coral, et des perles, et quantity d'autres choses pr^cieuses.

This magical cheese is composed of various sorts of precious minerals. However, in the seventeenth century, there actually were pharmaceutical compositions that in­ cluded emeralds,sapphires, gold and silver leaf, pearls, as well as red and white coral. In 1665, Vallot notes in the Journal de la Sant§ du Roi (p. 46): "Je me suis servie d'autres tablettes, que j'ai fait preparer avec mon or diaphor^tique, les perles pr6par€es et mon specificum 4 5 stomachicum." Since the spectator presumably knows that the cheese is a hoax, perhaps he will be persuaded to laugh at the ingredients which really are not in the cheese at all, as well as the fact that Sganarelle's "prescrip­ tion" is also a parody of contemporary medicine.

In the fabliau, when questioned upon how he managed to cure the sick with such speed, the peasant replies:

"Sire,” dist il, "jes ai charnez: je sai un charne qui mieus vaut Que gengibre ne citouaut." 90 ("Milord," he said, "I cast a spell; I know a charm more salutary than ginger root or zedoary.")

Here too, one can note a reference to medieval medicine, but the total effect is not so much parodical as ironical for the peasant doctor really does have"un charne qui mieus vaut"; the listener is "in" on the hoax, but the King is excluded. Moli&re's Thibaut/Perrin scene, however, has more the flavor of a commedia gag or lazzi, a brief, theatrical sketch, for obviously, he could not squeeze thirty people on the Palais Royal stage, nor did he have anywhere near that many actors in his troupe anyway.

With regard to the lazzi, a very common routine in­ volved a slapping or a beating of some sort with a stick or 47 a board. Such beatings were not confined to the commedia, but were commonplace in the early French farces as well as some of Moliere's own earlier works. But in Le Medecin, there seems to be a much more conscious control, balance, and symmetry in the design of the beating scenes. For example, Martine is beaten as the result of a marital quarrel which in turn leads to her scheme of having

Sganarelle beaten. Since Sganarelle was beaten into admit­ ting that he is a doctor, it is logical for him to assume that he is to deal with G^ronte in the same way when he thinks that the latter is also a doctor. Poor Monsieur

Robert is first smacked by the wife, then by the husband. 91

Lucas's pummeling of Geronte can be accepted as the humor­ ous result of his expression of emotion. While this is not to imply that the Medecin beatings are to be taken by the spectator as realistic examples of everyday life, they seem by contrast to the Vilain mire much more "artistic."

For example, the daily wife thrashings administered by the peasant of Le Vilain mire are cruel and unwarranted by comparison. When the peasant himself is thrashed or threatened, this in itself is the impetus for continuing the story. By contrast, Le Mddecin seems to carry itself along with the various beatings serving as comic aesthetic devices,, . gags, or lazzi. , . 48

With regard to the Italian influences, it was pointed out in my "Introduction" that Moli^re did not neglect the

"amorous young couple," or the presence of the inamorati as part of the necessary complications of the plot. Duchartre tells us that, "The lovers and wooers of the commedia dell'arte were always dapper and engaging and just a trifle 49 ridiculous." In Le M d d e c m , the characters of Lucinde and Leiandre are merely sketched, and while the plot centers around their amorous affair, they themselves have rather short roles which are quite bland by comparison to the rest of the cast. By contrast, in the fabliau, there was no amorous complication; the King's daughter was truly ill.

While it is possible to assume a direct Italian commedia influence on the plot, there might be an even 92

simpler reason for the expansions and complications. In his troupe, Moli&re had a certain number of actors and actresses who had to be included in the production, so he built and/or expanded his roles and plots to fit the make-up of his troupe. That Molidre composed with his troupe's physical characteristics in mind as well as providing each with a choice role is a fairly well known practice on the part of the playwright.

In summary, then, of the points made regarding the possible influence of Le Vilain mire on Le Mgdecin malgr£ lui, although we cannot say for certain that MoliSre was personally acquainted with the fabliau, there are neverthe­ less certain affinities which may or may not have been the result of an oral tradition. In any event, Moli&re used comic aesthetic devices for a theatrical end, expanded the plot with an amorous complication, and composed a farce which would put on stage just about all of the principal actors and actresses of his troupe in a tale that his con­ temporary audiences would find extremely amusing, owing to the mockery of both peasants and certain medical practices.

Lucien Goldmann would probably call this process "... destructuration de structurations anciennes et structura­ tion de totalit^s nouvelles aptes h crger des £quilibres qui sauraient satisfaire aux nouvelles exigences des groupes sociaux qui les £laborent."^ 93

b. La Femme muette

In contrast to the uncertainty surrounding the Vilain mire and Molidre's familiarity with the fabliau, many

scholars are fairly certain that MoliSre, who was fond of

Rabelais, was familiar with the Tiers Livre and Pantagruel.

In chapter XXXIV, Pantagruel tells his maitre Ponocrates

that in Montpellier he and several of his friends (includ­

ing Rabelais himself) played in the comedy la Morale

Comoedie de celluy qui avoit espouse une femme mute.

Epistemon recounts the story. The husband wanted to have

his wife speak, so he sent for the doctor and the surgeon who cut a growth from under her tongue. The woman spoke so much after the operation that the husband came to implore

the doctor to make her mute again. The doctor replied that

that was impossible, but he offered to render the husband

deaf, which he did. When the doctor came to collect his

fees, the deaf husband claimed that he did not know what

the doctor was saying, and in that manner avoided payment.

This so enraged the doctor that he threw a special kind of

powder on the man's back which rendered him mad. The wife was already rabid for she realized that when she talked,

her husband neither listened nor heard. The fol mary and

the "femme enrag^e se raslierent ensemble, et tant

bastirent les M6dicin et Chirurgien qu'il les laisserent & 51 demy mors." 94

In III, 6 of Le Mgdecin malgr£ lui, Lucinde unleashes such a torrent of words when refusing her father's wishes that the latter requests a relapse for his daughter:

GERONTE: Monsieur, je vous prie de la faire redevenir muette,

SGANARELLE: C'est une chose qui m'est impossible. Tout ce que je puis faire pour votre service est de vous rendre sourd, si vous voulez.

This dialogue nearly parallels that of Rabelais:

Sa parole recouverte, elle parla tant et tant que son mary retourna au m£dicin pour remade de la faire taire. Le m^dicin respondit en son art bien avoir rem^des propres pour faire parler les femmes, n'en avoir pour les faire taire, remSde unicque estre surdite du mary, contre cestuy interminable parlement de femme.

It is entirely possible that Moli&re used this particular passage in his M^decin. But although the words of the two passages are quite similar, the tone and intent of each are very different.

A burlesque continuation in the long tradition of the battle of the sexes aided and abetted by the author himself,

Rabelais's passage is quite decidedly misogynist. Molidre's rendition of this passage is more of a verbal expression of the exasperation of a parent raising rebellious offspring, more in keeping with the tradition of the commedia than with misogyny. Based on this remark alone, Lucinde could just as easily have been a boy. But nevertheless, this comic quip worked, and like other "borrowings" from literary tra­ ditions, it was used by Molidre at the right moment. In summary then, regarding a possible "borrowing" from

Le Vilain mire, Molidre continues a burlesque tradition, but with an extremely conscious control of theatrical ele­ ments. Regarding Rabelais's La Femme muette, MoliSre may well have borrowed from the anecdote, but again, with an extremely conscious control of a theatrical exigency more in keeping with the Italian theatrical tradition. Let us now turn to a discussion of the materials that Moli^re reworked from his own theatrical repertoire.

2. Self-Parody: Alceste and the Sganarelles

The fagotier-medecin of Le Mddecin malgr€ lui was the seventh and last of Moli&re's Sganarelles, that is to say, the last to actually bear this name. As we know, Moli&re usually reserved the major role in his plays for himself.

Quite possibly, it is this practice which prompted J.-M.

Pelous, in "Les Metamorphoses de Sganarelle: la permanence d'un type comique," to suggest that elements of the

Sganarelles emerge in several of the roles played by

Moli&re in diverse plays: Arnolphe, Dandin, Harpagon,

Jourdain, Chrysale, possibly even Alceste. Seen in this light, Moli&re's repertoire of Sganarelles begins with a 52 "cocu imaginaire" and ends with a "malade imaginaire."

For the "Sganarelles," then, illusion and illusionism seem to be a common trait, beside the fact that all of them are quite quick to anger.^ 96

Was it perhaps the Sganarelle element in Alceste that gave rise to the latter's own choleric temperament? We know that in August of 1666 Moli&re had replaced his "homme aux rubans verts" on the boards with one wearing "un habit jaune et vart [sic].” We also know that Le Misanthrope was not very successful when first presented by Moli&re to his contemporary audiences. It has even been suggested that

Le Mddecin malgr§ lui was produced in order to bring larger audiences to Le Misanthrope. Voltaire was among those who held this view:

Molidre, ayant suspendu son chef-d'oeuvre du Misanthrope, le rendit quelques temps aprSs au public accompagnd du Mddecin malgrg lui, farce tr&s-gaie et tr&s-bouffonne, et dont le peuple grossier avait besoin. . . Le M6decin malgr£ lui soutint Le Misanthrope; c'est peut-§tre A la honte de la nature humaine, mais c'est ainsi qu'elle est faite; on va plus A la comddie pour rire que pour etre instruit. Le Misanthrope gtait l'ouvrage d'un sage qui gcrivait pour les hommes £clair6s; et il fallut que le sage se deguiscit en farceur pour plaire & la multitude.^4

Voltaire and his followers are not quite correct on several accounts. The assumption that "Le M^decin malgrd lui soutint Le Misanthrope" is not born out by the facts.

First, we recall that Le M^decin debuted on 6 August 1666.

The last performance of the first series of Le Misanthrope had been played 1 August. Between 1 August and 3 Septem­ ber, Le M^decin played eleven times, and it was on this day of 3 September the Le Misanthrope and Le M^decin first ran together. This arrangement was repeated for 97 performances on 5, 7, 10, and 12 September, but between 15 55 October and 21 November, Le Misanthrope ran alone.

But some qualifications are necessary. Although it is incorrect to state, as did Voltaire, that Le M^decin was played to attract audiences to Le Misanthrope, this does not automatically exclude the possibility that Le Mgdecin was written as a result of Le Misanthrope's low receipts.

As previously mentioned, the farce gives the overall im­ pression of having been written in haste; would not

Moli&re the metteur-en-sc^ne quickly need a play which would be a financial as well as artistic success to pay his theatrical company and remain in business if Le Misanthrope was obviously not bringing in the receipts? If so, then

Le Mddecin malgr6 lui would stand on its own, and the fact that it was later accompanied by Le Misanthrope would be incidental.

Secondly, Voltaire assumes, as do many literary critics in general, that "farce" is for "le peuple grossier," and that Molidre needs to "disguise" himself as a farceur. How interesting, then, that we recall that in the beginning pages of this chapter, it was Subligny who wrote in the Muse Dauphine that "... Cette bagatelle est d'un esprit si fin. . ./ Qui fait que dans Paris tout court au m^decin." Robinet the diarist writes on 15 August 1666 an extremely enthusiastic review of Le M^decin to none 56 other than Madame herself. Furthermore, Le Misanthrope debuted and played at the Palais Royal (4 June 1666) as did

the flgdecin debut and play at this very same theatre (6

August 1666). Are we to assume that the audience was made up entirely at the Palais Royal of "le peuple grossier"?

This is hardly likely, given the economic and social condi­ tions of the theatre-going public of this period. John

Lough, for example, informs us that "It is true that the word peuple when applied to seventeenth-century theatre audiences can be highly ambiguous as in certain contexts it can mean simply 'audience, public,' and sometimes, as in

'la cour et le peuple,' it is used in a sense which obvious­ ly includes people who were very far from plebian in the 57 modern sense of the term." Lough also informs us that between about 1660 and 1760, the cheapest part of the vari­ ous Paris theatres, the parterre, was largely a middle-class 58 preservei * French noblemen did not disdain to stand in the parterre when they attended the theatre alone or in male company, although unfortunately, we chiefly learn of such 59 presence when they were drunk and created a disturbance.

(Presumably, noblemen also frequented the parterre when sober.) Given the above facts, it seems quite prejudicial to relegate a low status to Le M&decin, a smash hit with the public at the time of MoliSre, as well as his all-time third most popular play.

How then, is it, that Le Mgdecin malgrg lui was imme­ diately successful, while it took some time for Le Misanthrope to be recognized as a masterpiece? I would like to propose a theory based on the concept of parody in

Moli^re's theatre. Gilbert Highet in The Anatomy of Satire defines certain terms for us: "A mock heroic parody takes a theme which is usually trivial or repellent, and treats it with elaboration, grandeur, and feigned solemnity. A burlesque treats its subject with ridicule, vulgarity, dis- 6 0 tortion, and contempt." Alceste, in his self-deluding quest for Truth, Beauty, and C^limfene, was at first mis­ taken for a mock hero, for the play does, in a sense, treat the themes of hubris and jealousy in what is at times a very amusing fashion. But this is to assume that' parody is con­ fined to a conscious literary process which always results in a work which is on a lower level or register. Molidre's theatrical parodies are not confined to literature, and in his process of self-parody (as was pointed out in the

"Introduction"), he is working toward a more complex and sophisticated comedy, which, while it may appear to be a parody, is really in effect a "new" kind of comedy. G. D.

Kiremidjian in "The Aesthetics of Parody" reminds us that it is generally at the end of a tradition when the old forms are exhausted that what originally appeared to be a parody 61 makes an appearance as a work in its own right. Again, one is reminded of Goldmann's characterization, quoted in relation to Le Vilain mire and Le M^decin, of ". . . destruc­ turation de structurations anciennes et structuration de totalit^s nouvelles aptes & crder des 6quilibres qui

sauraient satisfaire aux nouvelles exigences des groupes 6 2 sociaux qui les Slaborent." We are also reminded of

Bdnichou's theory in Morales du grand si£cle, in which he

supposes that literary and theatrical forms are a cultural 6 3 mirror which reflect the society from which they spring.

The society and theatre-going public of the Palais Royal

in 1666 is a sophisticated society in the process of change, a fact which even they themselves may not have

fully recognized, but of which they surely had some sense.

When they attended the theatre to witness Le Misanthrope,

they got neither farce nor tragedy, but rather an entirely

"new" kind of comedy, one which was, in a sense, a parody of the old heroic formsf but not quite. The subtle change was not immediately evident, but once recognized, propelled

Le Misanthrope to its success as Moli&re's sixth most popu­ lar play from 1666 to 1680, and his fourth all-time most popular play.64

The theatre going public of 1666, however, had no difficulty recognizing Le M^decin malgr6 lui as a burlesque,

for its accompanying wit, humor, fun, and atmosphere of festive laughter is not nearly so dependent for its success on the sensitivities of a sophisticated society (as might be argued for Le Misanthrope) as on the elements of farce which appeal to human nature for their pure entertainment value rather than their intellectual or instructive value. 101

Le M^decin (like Le Misanthrope) is a more complex and sophisticated kind of reworking of earlier plays, at least

from a technical point of view. Taken in this sense, then,

Moli&re's process of self-parody is a heightening, rather

than a lowering, of the comic registers. But Moli&re the author is also in a sense playing with and deluding his public to think that the emphasis is on, in Highet's terms, a "ridicule, vulgarity, distortion, and contempt" in respect to doctors. The true emphasis is, however, more on the gullibility of human nature, for not once do any of the characters question that Martine is telling the truth, that it is possible to trust a zany doctor who likes to cut wood and dress oddly in the middle of a forest, that his

Latin gibberish is authentic, and that his prescriptions are worthwhile. For that matter, neither do the spectators, once the play is in progress, question this ability. As

Gutwirth in Moli^re, ou 1'invention comique suggests, "Le fagotier promu un instant & la gloire de nous divertir a renvers6 les roles et se divertit de nous comme de lui- meme."65 Sganarelle in this absurd world gone topsy-turvy beats G6ronte and fondles Jacqueline right in front of her husband. But it is his conscious knowledge of the neces­ sity of putting on an act, of playing the role, of creating theatricality in life, all the while aware of the absurd­ ness of his role, which allows him to defy social conven­ tions and release himself from their bondage. It is 102

Sganarelle who is in control of this absurd world for he is the one who seems to have the controls on the differ­ ence between appearance and sham, recognizing man's need to be gullible (G^ronte, Thibaut, Perrin) to trust even a manipulator. In a theatrum mundi where imposture reigns,

Sgnarelle is a master imposter.

Alceste, in Le Misanthrope, also tried to control an absurd world because he thought he too was aware of the difference between appearance and reality especially with relation to social conventions. But he deluded himself, for he did not have two of the powers of the farce charac­ ter Sganarelle. Alceste may have been aware of the neces­ sity of putting on an act, of playing the role, of the theatricality of life, but in his awareness of the absurd nature of the world, he refused to play along, and thought that this was the way to best defy social convention. How wrong he was, for in doing so, he was forced to use the power of words to argue, defy, and contradict, rather than to lead. Alceste and Sganarelle are both in their respective ways megalomaniacs, but only Sganarelle, because of his use of words, is a meneur-de-jeu. ^

With this thought in mind, let us return to Pelous's theory, that the Sganarelle character can be deduced in many of Molidre's major roles, in order that we might make a summary statement. The first to be actually called

"Sganarelle" was Valdre's valet, the "flying doctor" of 10 3

Le M^decin volant (1659). The next to be so named was the

ridiculous husband in Le Cocu imaginaire (1660), then the brother of Ariste and the "tutor" Of Isabelle in L'Ecole

des maris (1661). "Sganarelle's" next appearance was as

Dorimdne's fiancd/amant in Le Mariage forc£ (1664). Valet

to a gentilhomme libertin, "Sganarelle" next played in Dorn

Juan (166 5), followed by his role as the father in

L 1Amour m^decin (1665). By 1665, the habitues of the

Palais Royal would speak of Moli&re as "Sganarelle" much

as Tiberio Fiorelli was known as Scaramouche, or twentieth-

century audiences refer to Charlie Chaplin as "Chariot" or 6 7 "the little tramp." But Sganarelle's transformations were much greater than those of Scaramouche or Chaplin.

The Sganarelle of Le M^decin malgrd lui was the last to be

actually called "Sganarelle" and it was for a specific 6 8 reason. I would like to propose, as does Alfred Simon,

that with Le M^decin, Moli&re had completed the cycle; the

last of the Sganarelles, because of his power and control

as meneur-de-jeu, returns to the Mascarilles and announces

the Scapins.

As Pelous suggests;

De Mascarille & Sganarelle, il n'y a aucune commune mesure. Le premier n'est que mouvement: il d^ploie sur la scdne une activity incessante, invente tant6t pour servir ses maitres, tantdt pour son propre plaisir, une foule de machinations dont il est & la fois metteur-en- sc&ne, l'acteur, et le spectateur. Que ce soit pour secourir les jeunes premiers dans leurs amours . . . Mascarille-Scapin ordonne et domine le spectacle.69 104

What Pelous suggests seems to be true, that the Mascarille/

Scapin character is different from the Sganarelles— both those which actually bear the name as well as those which bear certain traits of the character. But there is one exception: the Sganarelle of Le M^decin inherits many of the traits of his Sganarelle forefathers, but because of his ability to become the meneur-de-jeu, is just as much the adopted son of the family of Mascarille and the adop­ tive father of Scapin.

Nevertheless, it was not only the family of Mascarille which led to Molifere's early successes such as L'Etourdi,

Le Dgpit amoureux, Les Pr^cieuses ridicules. The first

Sganarelle was one of Molifere's first doctors, and in the following section, we will examine Molifere's reworking of his own material, his craft of farce in the "medical plays."

C. Theatrum Mundi

1. Moli^re and "the Doctors": the Craft of Farce in the "Medical Plays" and "imple en medecihe"

In an overview of Molidre's "medical plays" throughout his career, it is evident that none of the patients in

MoliSre's theatre . is really sick. But the characters before Le Mgdecin malgr§ lui feign illness in order to achieve some end, whereas those in the plays that follow are made ill because of others or are hypochondriacs.

Furthermore, the fairly happy and "all for fun" tone of 105

Le M6decin malgrg lui is in some other "medical plays" by

MoliSre often quite bitter.

The reasons for this obvious change and contrast give

rise to speculation. Could it have been due to Moli&re's own health problems which grew serious right around this 70 period? In addition, we know that his first-born child

Louis had died not long after birth in 1664, and if we are

to assume that certain medical precautions were taken, he was probably "helped along" to the next world with the aid 71 of the doctors. Or can we perhaps speculate that this change in tone was due at least in part to the end of the

"Sganarelle cycle," whereby Moli&re needed to find new directions, as well as a personal bitterness or disappoint­ ment perhaps at the lack of a warmer response to his

Misanthrope? In other words, might we not consider this change to be an artistic response to a "dramatic impasse," 72 a theory favored by several literary scholars. Then

again, could it not be mere coincidence?

In any event, although the emphasis on a mockery or

satire of doctors and the current medical practices is

subordinate in Le Medecin malgr6 lui to the love plot,

the mal-mari£ peasants, and even the out-and-out lechery directed toward the Nurse, there are, nevertheless, certain

facts which should be examined if we are to have an under­

standing of the medical profession in the theatrum mundi of

1666. But not limiting the argument to 1666 alone, the 106 idea of the mockery of doctors is a most human one, given their very important place in life from birth until death.

With theatricality in view, it is well to remember that the public prefers to laugh at what it fears. The mockery of the doctors and the medical profession on the part of the actors and the playwright can then ritualize these fears in 73 order to control them.

It was in effect with a medical play that the world of the Parisian theatre was opened to Moli&re. It was the custom, even in the provinces, to finish a grand spectacle 74 with a petit divertissement. Moli&re too practiced this custom with the Le Docteur amoureux presented on 24 October in 16 58 before "leurs majest^s et toute la cour." The King was enthralled, and Moli&re had begun to make his fortune.

Le M^decin volant was presented 17 May 16 59, and is thought to be an imitation of an Italian buffoonery, Arle- 75 cchino medico volante. Sganarelle, at the request of his master, pretends to be a m^decin in order to help the latter obtain the girl he loves. To avoid being unmasked by the father of the girl, Sganarelle must pretend not only to be the doctor, but the ignorant brother of the doctor as well.

He appears first as one, then as the other through a window, and at certain points in the play, the valet

Sganarelle must change appearances, voice, costume and character so fast both inside and outside of the house that he appears to be "flying." 107

Sganarelle, requested by his master Val^re to play

doctor, is at first reluctant, but for dix pistoles, he

relents almost automatically:

SGANARELLE: Ah! pour dix pistoles, je ne dis pas que je ne sois m^decin. . . je vous rSponds que je ferai aussi bien mourir une personne qu'aucun m^decin qui soit dans la ville. On dit un proverbe, d'ordinaire: Apr&s la mort, le mSdecin; mais vous verrez que si je m'en m§le, on dira: AprSs le m^decin, garela mort! (scene 2)

Val&re presents Gorgibus, the father, to Sganarelle as

. . un homme simple, grossier, qui se laissera 6tourdir de ton discours, pourvu que tu paries d'Hippocrate et de

Galien, et que tu sois un peu effront£" (scene 2). In

II, 2, of Le M6decin malgr# lui Sganarelle enters the scene 76 babbling about "Hippocrate."

At first, Sganarelle of Le M6decin volant wants to examine Gorgibus; who protests that he is not the patient:

Il n'importe: le sang du p§re et de la fille ne sont qu' une m§me chose, et par l 1alteration de celui du pSre, je puis connoltre la maladie de la fille. (scene 4)

This transformation of the true patient is reworked in Le

M§decin malgre lui into the out-and-out lechery of Sganarelle who wishes to examine the Nurse. The Sganarelle of Le

Mfedecin volant hardly sees the fausse malade and only cares 77 to examine her urine, going so far as to even taste it:

GORGIBUS: Eh quoi? Monsieur, vous l'avalez?

SGANARELLE: Ne vous gtonnez pas de cela; les m£decins, d'ordinaire, se contentent de la 108

regarder; mais moi, qui suis un medecin hors du commun, je l'avale, parce qu'avec le gout je discerne bien mieux la cause et les suites de la maladie. . . . (scene 4)

One would suppose that it is wine rather than urine

which is really brought in to Sganarelle, for he enjoys

it so much he asks for more. This drinking and playing

with urine, and even deluding the spectator thinking that

he was witnessing the "real thing," was a common commedia

lazzi, although it may seem, to a more refined audience,

more disgusting than comical. MoliSre refined this scene

in Le Medecin malgrg lui to inquire regarding Lucinde,

"La matiere, est-elle louable?(II, 4), to which the father

replied that he did not know. But the out-and-out scatol-

ogy of Le Medecin volant is transformed in Le Mfedecin malgrg lui into Sganarelle's flirtation with the Nurse. He wishes to drink milk from her breasts and cure her with

several clyst^res of an illness she does not have (II, 3

& 4) .

Both the fathers in the two plays fear for their

daughters'lives. In Le Medecin volant, the father claims:

GORGIBUS: . . . Monsieur le medecin, j'ai grand peur qu'elle ne meure.

SGANARELLE: Ah! qu'elle s'en garde bien! il ne faut pas qu'elle s'amuse A se laisser mourir sans l'ordonnance du medecin. (scene 4)

These are almost the exact words exchanged by

Sganarelle and GSronte in Le Medecin malqrg lui: 109

GERONTE: Je n 'ai qu'elle de fille, et j'aurois tous les regrets du monde si elle venoit a mourir.

SGANARELLE: Qu'elle s'en garde bien. II ne faut pas qu'elle meure sans l'ordonnance du medecin. (11,4)

But the truth is that both girls are feigning illness to avoid a marriage arranged by the fathers. Both prefer the young galant of their choice.In Le Medecin volant, it is Gros-Ren£ who attempts to reason with the father:

GROS-RENE: Que diable aussi! pourquoi vouloir donner votre fille & un vieillard? Croyez-vous que ce ne soit pas le d^sir qu'elle a d'avoir un jeune homme qui la travaille? (scene 3)

Jacqueline of Le Medecin malgrg lui has a similar reflexion to make to G^ronte:

JACQUELINE: . . . tous ces m^decins n'y feront rian que de l'iau claire; que votre fille a besoin d'autre chose que de ribarbe et de senS, et qu'un mari est une emplttre qui garit tous les maux des filles. . . Je le crois bian: vous li vouilliez bailler cun homme qu'alle n'aime point. Que ne preniais-vous ce Monsieu Liandre, qui li touchoit au coeur? . . . (II, 1) There is also a "pedant" character in Le Medecin

Volant, an avocat. The latter's use of macaronic Latin is obviously burlesque parody of both pedantic aphorisms as well as an admixture of Church Latin thrown in for good measure: Vita brevis, ars vero longa. . . (scene 8 ); Per omnia saecula saeculorum. . . (scene 4). The Sganarelle of Le Medecin malgr§ lui also uses Latin to give credence 110 to his performance as a doctor, and since no one else knows any Latin, the gullibility of the other characters is evident. The denouement of both plays is very similar.

It is finally a servant who unmasks the false doctor to the father. Each father then threatens to hang the Sganarelle who had contrived escape for the young lovers by prescrib­ ing a long period together in the country/a garden. At the end, however, both sets of young couples return. Gorgibus relents simply on the suggestion of Sganarelle and permits the marriage of Valdre and Lucile, while Gdronte is perhaps much more strongly motivated to consent to the Lucinde/

L^andre match upon hearing the news of Ldandre's inherit­ ance. In summary, then, Moli&re has borrowed several ele­ ments from Le Medecin volant in composing Le Medecin malgrd lui, although he quite obviously refined several of the theatrical conventions as well as certain aspects of the plot in his transformation of a simple sixteen-scene farce into a full length three-act comedy.

In Le M§decin volant, the pedant character was re­ ferred to as an avocat. In another early farce of this period commonly attributed to Moli&re, La Jalousie du

Barbouilld, there is a character simply called le docteur although he is more an out-and-out pedant than a man of medicine. Moli&re implies that even medical doctors are 7 8 mere pedants who prefer to "raisonner" while the patient dies, either through neglect or the doctor's own bungling. Ill

Such doctors and pedants, often presented as stupid and as

objects of ridicule, permeate a vast amount of MoliSre's

theatrical production. Although the satire of physicians

and medicine were often portrayed by Moli&re d'aprfes la

nature, from a purely theatrical point of view there were

also Italian borrowings. Two stock characters, a docteur

(dottore) and the pedant, though they may have similar

traits and vices, were for the Italians, distinct charac- 79 ters. The loquacious dottore may claxm to learning of any

kind, but the pedant is more the self-wise schoolmaster or

tutor of the commedia erudita.

By the tine of Le Medecin malgr£ lui, Moli^re was in

complete control of all these characters, and the portraits

of the ignorant satirical physician, a "mock" doctor, the

dottore, the avocat, and the pedant had been fused and metamorphosed into one, the character of Sganarelle, but with an interesting twist. While the early physicians and

pedants were all eventually unmasked or discarded by the

other characters, Sganarelle of Le Medecin malgr§ lui never

ceases being a doctor. The reason is again, a shift in

emphasis in Le Medecin malgrg lui. Although the vein of mockery of doctors and pedants is quite evident, Sganarelle

is thrust into power by the willingness and insistence of

gullible characters who see exactly what they want to see

despite all evidence to the contrary. 112

On 15 February 166 5 the spectators at the Palais

Royal witnessed the famous "impie en mAdecine" scene of

Dorn Juan: (III, 1). Master and valet are in a forest with

Dom Juan "en habit de campagne" and Sganarelle disguised

as a doctor. The doctor's robes had been expensive for

Sganarelle, formerly belonging to an old doctor who had pawned them. While Sganarelle was thus disguised, five or

six peasants had come to ask his opinion about several

different maladies, and when questioned by his libertine master whether he had told the truth, that he knows nothing

about medicine, Sganarelle replies:

SGANARELLE: Moi? Point du tout. J 'ai voulu soutenir l'honneur de mon habit: j'ai raisonnA sur le mal, et leur ai fait des ordonnances A chacun.

DOM JUAN: Et quels remAdes encore leur as-tu ordonnAs?

SGANARELLE: Ma foil Monsieur, j 'en ai pris par oh j'en ai pu attraper; j'ai fait mes ordonnances A l'aventure, et ce seroit une chose plaisante si les malades guArissoient, et qu'on m'en vlnt remercier.

DOM JUAN: Et pourquoi non? Par quelle raison n'aurois-tu pas les mAmes privileges qu'ont tous les autres mAdecins? Ils n'ont pas plus de part que toi aux guArisons des malades, et tout leur art est pure grimace. Ils ne font rien que recevoir la gloire des heureux succAs, et tu peux profiter comme eux du bonheur du malade, et voir attribuer A tes remAdes tout ce qui peut venir des faveurs du hasard et des forces de la nature.

SGANARELLE: Comment, Monsieur, vous etes aussi impie en mAdecine? (Ill, 1) 113

This is bitter sarcasm on the part of Moli&re for he suggests that members of the medical profession conceal their own ignorance under a cloak of learned and Latin phrases, while taking advantage of the ignorance of the patients. Laymen were divided on the subject of doctors and medicine. Furthermore, those who believed in doctors were critical of those who did not. But even the most impious were, when wracked with pain and terror, apt to change their minds and deliver themselves to the doctor.

The King (and later Mme de Maintenon) was rigidly pious in medicine and exceedingly miffed at courtiers who did not 8 0 submit themselves to the doctors when they were ill. But

Molifere is treading dangerous ground, for "impie en m£decine" can also be extrapolated to imply "impie en religion." Later, in Le Medecin malgrd lui, Sganarelle's ordonnance for Lucinde is ". . . quantity de pain tremp§ dans du vin." (11,4). Although the latter is a common peasant rem­ edy, one might be tempted to interpret this as a mockery of the Eucharist. In addition, many of the macaronic Latin say­ ings of Molidre's mock doctors are borrowed from Church

Latin, and by implication, suggest that the cant employed in religion is as false as that employed by the doctors.

Sganarelle then cries to Dorn Juan:

SGANARELLE: Quoi? vous ne croyez pas au sen6 , ni a la casse, ni au vin em^tique?

DOM JUAN: Et pourquoi veux-tu que j'y croie? 114

SGANARELLE: Vous avez 1' ame bien m^crdante. Cependant vous voyez, depuis un temps, que le vin £m6 tique fait bruire sesfuseaux. Ses miracles ont converti les plus incrddules esprits, et il n'y a pas trois semaines que j'en ai vu, moi qui vous parle, un effet merveilleux.

DOM JUAN: Et quel?

SGANARELLE: II y avoit un homme qui, depuis six jours, £toit & l'agonie: on ne savoit plus que lui ordonner, et tous les rem&des ne faisoient rien: on s'avisa & la fin de lui donner de l'€m£tique.

DOM JUAN: II r^chappa, n'est-ce pas?

SGANARELLE: Non, il mourut.

DOM JUAN: L'effet en est admirable.

SGANARELLE: Comment? il a y avoit six jours entiers qu'il ne pouvoit mourir, et cela le fit mourir tout d'un coup. Voulez-vous rien de plus efficace? (hi 1 ) The vin £m£tique or the antimoine had been debated by the Faculty for years. It had been condemned by the Paris

Faculty in 1566, again in 1615, and then put on the Codex in 16 38. The debate was renewed in 1658 when the King was 81 allegedly cured with a dose of antimoine. But MoliSre's own friend Le Vayer had died after being given the vin

6 m6 tigue three times. Finally by a decree of Parliament on

29 March 1666, the antimoine was added to the list of medi- 82 cines officially sanctioned.

Molidre renews the question of the £m§tique ("vin am£tile") in the Thibaut/Perrin scene of Le Medecin rttalgrg lui: 115

THIBAUT: . . . J 'avons dans notte village un apothicaire, rSv^rence parler, qui li a donnS je ne sai combien d'histoires; et il m'en codte plus d ’eune douzaine de bons £cus en lavements, ne v's en d^plaise, en apostumes qu'on li a fait prendre, en infections de jacinthe, et en p o r - . tions cordales. Mais tout 5 a, comme dit 1'autre, n'a 6 t£ que de l'onguent miton mitaine. II veloit li bailler d'eune certaine drogue que l'on appelle du vin amdtile; mais j'ai-s-eu peur, franchement, que ga l'envoyit & patres; et l'an dit que ces gros m^decins tuont je ne sai combien de monde avec cette invention-l&. (Ill, 2)

Thus, one could conclude that there is a second reason

for the importance of the Thibaut/Perrin scene besides the

aesthetic necessity discussed in the section of this

chapter regarding the Vilain mire. It is that, as we have

already noted several times, Le Mddecin malgrg lui is much

less an attack on doctors than many of Molidre's other

"medical plays," for the emphasis here is on fun and farce.

However, the inclusion of the Thibaut/Perrin scene affords

Molidre an excellent opportunity for a scathing review of

the medical profession without rendering the tone and 8 3 intent of the entire play into a biting and bitter attack.

Thus, the emphasis in this particular scene is not so much

on the ignorance and buffoonery of the peasant but rather

on the quackery and pecuniary interests of doctors,

apothecaries, and other members of the medical profession.

Indeed, in 1,5, Sganarelle's conversion to the medi­

cal profession is much speeded by Valdre's mention of the

monetary advantages. In 11,5, Sganarelle agrees to help 116 the two lovers make their escape. Here his participation also speeded by L^andre's offer of money. At first,

Sganarelle had seemed indignant as in 11,4, the scene imme­ diately preceding where he made a great show of refusing the father's money unless pressed. But medical students at the Faculty de Paris were taught to display this false 84 humility as part of their preparation to be a doctor, and it is perhaps this element that MoliSre is mocking. At any rate in 111,1, Sganarelle remarks to L^andre about the lucrative nature of the "business" of medicine:

SGANARELLE: . . . Je trouve que c'est le metier le meilleur de tous; car, soit qu'on fasse bien ou soit qu'on fasse mal, on est toujours pay6 de m§me sorte. . .un cordonnier, en faisant des souliers, ne sauroit gSter un morceau de cuir qu'il n'en paye les pots cassis; mais ici l'on peut gSter un homme sans qu'il en coCite rien. . . c'est toujours la faute de celui qui meurt. Enfin le bon de cette profession est qu'il y a parmi les morts une honn§tet§, une discretion la plus grande du monde; et jamais on n'en voit se plaindre du mddecin qui 1 'a tu£. (111,1)

After Dorn Juan, Molidre's next play, L'Amour medecin

(first acted at Versailles on 14 September 166 5, then later, on 22 September at the Palais Royal) was again a strong attack on the medical profession. Lucinde, Sganarelle's daughter, is ill, and he summons the physicians to tell him what ails her. They speak of everything under the sun except the condition of the sick girl. But in this play, the "mock doctor" is none other than the daughter's suitor himself. Clitandre, the galant of Lucinde, arrives and 117 much impresses the father when he takes the father1s

pulse to determine that the daughter is ill, due to the

sympathy which exists between father and daughter. Lisette

the servant girl explains that this "new physician" treats

illness by means of words and mental suggestions. Clitandre

tells Sganarelle that his daughter is afflicted with the

disease of love, and to cure it, Sganarelle suggests that

Lucinde be humored by making out a marriage contract be­

tween her and the "physician." Both the young people quickly agree and depart soon after the contract is drawn

leaving the astonished father to fume about the baseness

and foibles of mankind.

For L'Amour medecin, it was said that Molidre was

aided by Boileau in forging Greek names for the caricature of five well-known doctors: Tom&s, "bloodletter"; Des

Fonandrds, "assassin"; Bahys, "stutterer"; Macroton, "slow- speaker"; and Filerin, "quarreler." These doctors were said to be caricatures of Daquin, Louis XIV's doctor and

landlord of the house where Molifere once lived; Des

Fougerais; Gu^naut, the Queen's doctor; Esprit, Monsieur's 8 5 doctor; and Yvelin, Madame's doctor.

In 11,2, Lisette the servant girl recognizes Tomds.

"How is her coachman feeling?" asks the physician." He is dead," replies Lisette. "Impossible," say Tomds, "for

Hippocrates says that such a malady does not terminate for

two or three weeks, but the coachman has been sick for only 118 six days." "Hippocrates can say what he wants, but the coachman is dead," replies Lisette.

In Le M^decin malgr£ lui, there is also reference to the teachings of Hippocrates. In the seventeenth century, if one were liberal, one could admit that perhaps Galen had perfected Hippocrates and thus carried medical science as far as human "reason" could stretch. But medical stu­ dents were expected to commit to memory the teachings of the masters and to shun "discoveries," for how could there be any discoveries in a science that had been perfected more than twelve hundred years earlier? The Faculty chose to slumber around their council tables in red gowns and square caps, "disputing medieval syllogisms and compliment­ ing each other in flowing Ciceronian periods on the profundity of their own erudition." 86 They could be roused from their slumber only by hate, and hate they did. It is hard to say whom they hated most: did they hate chemistry and abhor chemical medicines, "discoveries," surgeons, royal physicians and apothecaries? Or did they merely loath and contempt each other?

MoliSre perhaps suggests the latter possibility in

L 1Amour m^decin, for the physicians continue to dispute among each other. Tomds finally observes that a dead man is only a dead man, but that a neglected formality carries an injury throughout the entire body of physicians.

Sganarelle in Le Midecin malgr6 lui echoes this feeling, 119

for he states, "II ne faut pas qu'elle meurte sans

l'ordonnance du m§decin" (II, 4).

When in L 1Amour m^decin, the physicians finally get

around to Lucinde, they suggest everything from blood­

letting to emetics, but they just can't seem to agree on

the nature of her problem, and this hopeless confusion is

quite apparent to her exasperated father Sganarelle, who

then turns to an orvi^tan. It was these same feelings of

exasperation with the medical profession that prompted

G^ronte in Le Mgdecin malgrd lui to send Lucas and ValSre

to search for a physician. Although he is referring to

L*Amour m^decin, Paisley Livingston's remark is just as

applicable to Le M^decin malgrg lui: . .if medicine is

a farce, in making a farce of medicine, real medicine is

provided."^

The "real medicine" which is provided, however, is

one of play and game, which give, at least temporarily,

remedy and relief to the audience from their everyday con­

cerns. In my next section, I will demonstrate how this is

effected through Sganarelle's childish "play" and his

scatological humor.

2. Play as Game: A Freudian Interpretation

In Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud

claims that man and society are paradoxically partners as well as foes, but man's fundamental antisocial hostility 120 can be eased by the arts, which as substitute gratification, allow him a return to a lost psychic freedom. Morton

Gurevitch, in Comedy, The Irrational Vision, extrapolating from Freud's idea claims that . . i t would in truth have been appropriate for him [Freud] to declare that the comic art in its most irrational form (farce) is the best single aesthetic counterpart to man's culturally submissive con­ duct. . . By rejecting the emasculating forces of propriety and conformity, it purges the impacted cravings and 88 poisonous resentments that debilitate the psyche." Seen in this light, Sganarelle's offer of a gentle little enema

(clystdre) to the Nurse might well be interpretated as a cultural purgation about to take place in a highly sophisticated audience. But is this a valid conclusion, and is this the only one we might draw?

On closer evaluation, Sganarelle's true wishes are based not only on a desire for "cultural purgations" or even copulatory sex, but rather on an overwhelming desire simply to play. In this happy drunken world, even his inebriation is a form of play, even though his wife chides him:

MARTINE: Et qui du matin jusqu'au soir ne fait que jouer et que boire. . . . et tu pretends, ivrogne...... sac h vin. . . (1,1) This marital quarrel, which opens Le M^decin malqr£ lui, is sometimes difficult to distinguish in tone from the 121 stance a parent would take when reprimanding a naughty child. But on the other hand, Martine seems to have a valid complaint, that Sganarelle's imbibing and irresponsibility are robbing her of her rights as wife and mother of his children. She also seems somewhat jealous that Sganarelle seems to find greater pleasure in drinking than in being with her. But is Martine accusing Sganarelle of committing adultery with the bottle? Indeed, the lyrics of the air

Sganarelle sings in I, 5 could easily be fitting or mis­ taken for the praise of feminine pulchritude:

Qu'ils sont doux, Bouteille jolie, Qu'ils sont doux Vos petits glou-gloux! Mais mon sort feroit bien des jaloux, Si vous §tiez toujours remplie. Ah! bouteille ma mie, Pourquoi vous vuidez-vous? 89

Mamie is an archaic expression which means ma petite amie, girlfriend, or mistress. But the verbal play of ma mie and mamie is not far from maman, either. Thus, the image of both mother and drinking present together a pic­ ture of infantile pleasures, perhaps even breast feeding.

"Qu'ils sont doux, vos petits glou-gloux" might also represent the female breasts (often referred to in litera­ ture as doux), and the mimic of suckling. One might con­ clude that Sganarelle's poeticized praises of the bottle point to a regression to an infantile, oral stage of development (or perhaps merely Sganarelle's arrested stage of development). 122

Sganarelle's uncontrollable desire for the female breast breaks loose in undisguised form in II, 2, when he first catches sight of the Nurse:

SGANARELLE: Ah! Nourrice, charmante Nourrice, ma m^decine est la tr&s-humble esclave de votre nourricerie, et je voudrois bien etre le petit poupon fortune qui tetSt le lait (il lui porte la main sur le sein) de vos bonnes graces. Tous mes rem^des, toute ma science, toute ma capacity est h votre service, et . . . (II, 2) Under the guise of medical services, Sganarelle is offering his sexual services to Jacqueline in what constitutes a play within a play within a play, or perhaps it should be termed a dupe within a dupe within a dupe. Sganarelle succeeds in duping Jacqueline that his services are medi­ cal, but not her husband Lucas whose sexual jealousy is immediately aroused. Actually, however, it is Moli^re who is duping the audience. For although the audience believes it is "in on the joke," believing it to be none other than a sexual overture on the part of a lusty, sexually uncon­ trollable megalomaniac, Sganarelle's pass at Jacqueline is again much less sexual than puerile. Sganarelle is not really offering his sexual services. Rather, he wants to

"play doctor" while amusing himself with childish, scatological humor, hence his offer to Jacqueline of bloodletting culminating in the enema:

SGANARELLE: Tant pis, Nourrice, tant pis. Cette grande sante est & craindre, et il ne sera mauvais de vous faire quelque petite 123

saign^e aimable, de vous dormer guelgue petit clystSre dulcifiant. (Hr 4)

Sganarelle is "playing doctor" guite well, for while

the stage characters Jacgueline and G£ronte may guestion the ethics or efficacy of certain of his practices, they never guestion whether or not he is truly a doctor. G^ronte,

for example, asks:

GERONTE: Mais Monsieur, voil& une mode gue je ne comprends point. Pourguoi s'aller faire saigner guand on n'a point de maladie? (II, 4) The father completely ignores the titillating sug­ gestion of the enema. Jacgueline's retort to Sganarelle's offer indicates a disdain for certain medical practices:

JACQUELINE: Ma fie I je me mogue de ga, et je ne veux point faire de mon corps une boutigue d 'apothicaire. (II, 4)

Jacgueline does not want her body to become an apothecary shop, but ironically, she does not seem to mind that her body has already become a dairy.

However, it is again Moli&re the author-manipulator who "permits" the audience to think that they are "in on the joke," to feel superior to the stage characters

GSronte and Jacgueline who are not clever enough to see through Sganarelle's trickeries and machinations. Actu­ ally, Moli^re is manipulating the audience just as much, for the spectators allow themselves to be amused by such 124 humor. Similar mechanisms are at work in two additional scenes involving scatological humor.

In II, Sganarelle inquires about Lucinde's elimina­ tion. It is difficult to determine whether this refers to urination (as depicted in Le M^decin volant, scene 4), or defecation, for Sganarelle's query, "La mati^re, est- elle louable?" is similar to the expression used in the

Journal de la sant£ du Roi; "Le Roi prit k son reveil un bouillon purgatif . . ., duquel il fut purgd . . . jusqu'S 90 neuf fois, de mati&re trSs louable." A later scene with

Jacqueline III, 3, permits an even greater regression to puerile bathroom humor:

SGANARELLE: . . . Ah! que j'en sais, belle Nourrice, et qui ne sont pas loin d'ici, qui se tiendroient heureux de baiser seulement les petits bouts de vos petons . . . (Ill, 3)

Since children tend to react with intense laughter to flatus or its imitation, such a remark once again points to the childish but also to the playful nature of

Sganarelle's remarks. He has played doctor so well that the stage characters never question his right to inquire about normally private matters. Even Jacqueline is not offended by his puerile suggestions several scenes later.

Nor is the audience, in all likelihood, offended for by laughing at Sganarelle's puerile "play-doctor," they can remain suspended in the magical theatrical space where one laughs at and feels superior to doctors. Outside 125

theatrical time and space, in the real world, the doctor has the power of life and death and is not to be laughed at.

Sganarelle, by convincing the stage characters of his role as doctor and by manipulating the audience to allow

itself to laugh at puerile humor, has affirmed himself as the meneur-de-jeu and created an all-for-fun game atmos­ phere. But it is nevertheless a theatrical game atmos­ phere. If, as Freud and Gurevitch have indicated, the

audience has been "purged" through the comic art and aesthetic of farce, this purgation has been a thorough­ ly enjoyable one. Let us now turn to those theatrical con­ ventions which allow all such games to take place.

D. Conventions

1. The "Theatricality” of Speech and Gesture: A Game Theory

"Play within a play" is here taken to mean the various

theatrical mechanisms that allow game strategies to be set up in order to advance as a player, to win points, or per­ haps merely to stay in the game. One of several game

strategies possible is the manipulation of marriage. Le

Mddecin malgr6 lui presents three variations: Martine/

Sganarelle, Lucas/Jacqueline/Sganarelle, and Lucinde/

L^andre/GSronte.

Sganarelle and Martine set the tone and plot the

strategies as players in their marital squabble during the

opening lines of the farce: 126

SGANARELLE: Non, je te dis que je n'en veux rien faire et que c'est A moi de parler et d'etre le maitre.

MARTINE: Et je te dis, moi, que je veux que tu vives & ma fantaisie, et que je ne me suis point marine avec toi pour souffrir tes fredaines. (I, 1) Sganarelle here affirms himself "master" as in the tradi­ tional male role in marriage. Martine, in spite of years of marriage to a churlish husband, still dreams a tradi­ tional female fantasy that his behavior will be her dream come true as they live happily ever after.

With Martine and Sganarelle as players, the object of their marital game is to show that Sganarelle is in fact the master of the household, and as such, in his own way is fulfilling Martine's expectation that he will care for her and the family. The rules of the game as well as the reasons for playing are simple: each player is to reaffirm his or her original contention. Thus, there will be no "losers," only "winners."

The entire first scene is a parody of an actual game taking place. This game parody constitutes the comic rhythm, each character taking his turn (or move) in speaking, which culminates in the stichomythic crescendo that results in the beating Martine receives at the hands of her husband. However, Sganarelle has twenty-six lines

(or moves) to Martine's twenty five, with Sganarelle's lines both beginning and ending the whole exchange. 12 7

Sganarelle is at an advantage, for not only does he have

the first move, but his terminating the exchange can be

interpreted as an extra move. In this manner, Sganarelle

is provided with an opportunity to "cheat," but he is

penalized for attempting to cheat. He cannot win the game,

nor even terminate it, for this round is interrupted by

Monsieur Robert. Later, Sganarelle's beating at the hands

of Lucas and Valdre (1,5) serves to equalize the advantage

that he had over Martine.

Sganarelle and Martine are distressed and refuse to

tolerate any interruption of their marital game. There­

fore, Monsieur Robert must be quickly dealt with and dis­ posed of. However, Martine's riposte, "Et je veux qu'il me batte, moi" later coupled with Sganarelle's "0 c§i,

faisons la paix, nous deux. Touche IS" (I, 2) points to an

object of this marital game somewhat below the surface. The

fact that Martine can goad Sganarelle into the beating proves at least to her that he cares, and later it affords him the opportunity to apologize and to suggest marital

relations so that they may "kiss and make up."

The withholding of sexual privileges is perhaps the basis for Martine's "Je sais bien qu'une femme a toujours

dans les mains de quoi se venger d'un mari. . ." (1,3).

Yet, such a withholding would render both of them "losers."

Thus, Martine must find a way to even the score, to keep

the game going in order to insure that the end of the game 128 will provide for winners only. It is for this reason that she sets him up for his own beating.

Sganarelle and Martine's game is suspended for the rest of the play, and they do not again meet to exchange words until the final scenes of Le M§decin malgr£ lu i.

In III, 9 Martine, who has just learned that Sganarelle is to be hanged, again reaffirms her marital expectations, that Sganarelle take care of her and the family:

MARTINE: Encore, si tu avois acheve de couper notre bois, je prendrois quelque consolation. (Ill,9)

Then, when Sganarelle escapes execution, he reaffirms his role in the marital game as master and head of household:

SGANARELLE: Soit; je te pardonne ces coups de bciton en faveur de la dignity oil tu m'as dlevS; mais pr^pare-toi desormais A vivre dans un grand respect avec un homme de ma consequence. . . (111,11)

Sganarelle and Martine are now free to start another marital game, if they wish, for having reaffirmed their traditional roles and expectations, the scores are now even.

The marital relationship and any consequent game rapport between Lucas and Jacqueline remains on a super­ ficial and somewhat insignificant level. The only ex­ change of any importance occurs in II, 3 when Jacqueline chides Lucas for his jealousy, caused by Sganarelle's leers, lunges, and fondling of her breasts. 129 JACQUELINE: Ote-toi de IS. aussi; est-ce que je ne sis pas assez grande pour me d^fendre moi- mSme, s'il me fait quelque chose qui ne soit pas k faire? (11,3)

If there is a marital game in progress, it is merely that of Lucas who feels obliged to play the role of the jealous husband. Yet it is questionable at this point in the play whether Jacqueline is actively participating, for she has done nothing of her own volition to arouse his jealousy. Her pendulous breasts which arouse Sganarelle are merely bodily appendages which happen to be the tools of her trade as a nourrice. She herself did not seek to engage in the game of extra-marital flirting suggested by

Sganarelle, who in II, 4, tries to tempt her with the private friendly bout of bloodletting accompanied by the gentle little enema. Her down-to-earth attitude is evi­ dent, although there is much irony in the verbal play of the "dairy" that refuses to become a "pharmacy."

In later scenes, however, there might be some question raised as to whether Jacqueline changes her mind about engaging in the game of flirtation, to "play around” as the suggestive modern term puts it. In III, 3, Sganarelle proposes the strategem that Jacqueline engage in some form of sexual activity with him (presented in terms of his

"medical skill") in order to punish Lucas for his jealousy.

On the surface, Jacqueline does not seem to comply with the suggested game: 130

JACQUELINE: Il est bien vrai que si je n'avois devant les yeux que son int£ret, il pourroit m'obliger A queque Strange chose. (1 1 1 ,3 )

It again appears that Jacqueline's interests are much less in the realm of the sexual than prompted by impulses to play the rational, down-to-earth wife fettered with a suspicious, unreasonable husband. The spectators are never allowed to determine this with any certainty, for

Lucas's appearance at the end of the scene puts a damper on the conversation, and Sganarelle and Jacqueline separate.

The only game that has really taken place is that

Jacqueline has "played along" with Lucas's jealousy and

Sganarelle's suggestions, but this game has remained at a superficial level and as a side interest. The sole purpose is merely from a theatrical point of view to titillate and to "play with" the audience by means of some earthy and easy humor. Sganarelle thus is portrayed not as an adult­ erer, but rather as a buffoon with an exuberant id that he 91 has no particular desire to control.

The game of love between Lucinde and L^andre has for its object the outwitting of the father which will lead to their intended marriage. Should they succeed, however, the father would be rendered a "loser," which is, according to the "rules of the game," to be avoided.

Molidre, the original meneur-de-jeu and play and game creator has arranged for the obstacles to this marriage to 131 be removed. L^andre's uncle dies in the nick of time, conveniently leaving him his money. Thus, the playwright, in a careful manipulation of the plot and the convenient addition of the mors ex machina at the denouement, inter­ venes to prevent any "losers."

The intertwining of these marital games therefore constitutes one of the devices of the "play within a play."

The Lucinde/Lgandre relationship provides the framework; the Jacqueline/Sganarelle/Lucas relationship the side interest and additional "stage business"; the Sganarelle/

Martine relationship the original impetus for the comic play with Sganarelle as meneur-de-jeu, or perhaps even as meneur-de-mariage. Sganarelle also plays the role of meneur-de-mort, which allows yet another game to be simultaneously in progress.

Three instances directly involving death are to be found in Le M^decin malgr§ lui. The first is the Thibaut/

Perrin scene of III, 2 which I have already discussed from several points of view: theatrical, artistic, aesthetic, and historical. It can also be examined by means of a

Freudian-tinged game theory.

Freud, in Totem and Taboo, and later, Civilization and Its Discontents, held that reality as well as cultural and human progress are based on the replacement of the pleasure principle with the reality principle. In keeping with the Freudian notion of psychic release, the whole 132

aesthetic thesis of farce is that nothing is taken seri­

ously while spectators allow themselves to regress to

primal childhood pleasures (the pleasure as well as game

principle) suspending at least for the theatrical time and

space, an external reality. Such a suspension of reality

is a convention agreed upon by author and spectators.

Molifere is here the true meneur-de-jeu (or meneur-de-

mort) in his function as play creator. He knows that his

audience, which he has already manipulated for two acts,

will not react to this scene beginning Act III as a trans­

gression of the "death as reality" taboo. Rather, this

scene will impress as irresistible, uninhibited, theatrical

enjoyment that is triumph and strength over death. As

Martin Grotjahn puts it, "The ego, usually forced to submit

or to modify the pleasure seeking drives to the demands of

reality, resolutely turns away from reality and enjoys

uninhibited and guilt-free narcissistic existence. This

uninhibited narcissism, this triumph over reality, this

victory of the seemingly invulnerable ego, gives a feeling

of strength.

A second instance involving death occurs at the

announced passing of Leandre's uncle, leaving him heir to

the fortune that will legitimately allow him to request

Lucinde's hand in marriage. This particular death is met with rejoicing on the part of all. However, the uncle was

never "one of the players" or actors to appear on stage. 133

He was merely a contrivance of the plot, an object that can easily be dispensed with. Therefore the death of the uncle was not so much a true death but rather a stroke of luck

for the players in the game.

The final instance involving death is Sganarelle's narrow escape from execution in the last scene of the play.

This "stage death" is of no more serious consequence than the other two. Could it be suggested, however, that

Sganarelle "cheated" death, and is therefore "breaking" the rules of the game? The answer is "no" for Sganarelle1s death would effect several "losers." More significantly,

Sganarelle is not so much "cheating" as "outwitting" death, with the result that the players can now start a new game besides the ones already in progress. Sganarelle has become on stage victim, victor, and benefactor of his group of players/actors. Winning, moreover, confers superiority.

As Huizinga in Homo Ludens remarks, a winner "has won esteem, obtained honour; and this honour and esteem at once accrue to the benefit of the group to which the victor belongs." 9 3 Sganarelle, then, as meneur-de-jeu and as the final victor is the true protagonist; it is he who effects the fact that all the players in Le M^decin malgr<3 lui at the end of the game are winners. Sganarelle has all this power because it is he who also manipulates the theatrical conventions of speech and gesture, as we shall examine them in the following section. 134

2. From Rite and Ritual to Fantaisie verbale

With respect to theatrical conventions, language and

verbal techniques play as important a role as gesture,

though gesture is perhaps the sine qua non of farce. Let

us examine some of the verbal techniques of MoliSre's

theatricality, beginning with a few remarks on linguistic

transubstantiation followed by a discussion of fantaisie verbale as it relates to the burlesque.

To play is to pretend. Playing is also a deadly

serious matter. As Huizinga theorizes:

. . . we should remember that this precarious balance between seriousness and pretense is an unmistakable and integral part of culture as such, and that the play factor lies at the heart of all ritual and religion.94

That which is specifically religious or points to ritual

about Le M^decin malgrg lui is the affinity between medicine and religion. We are made to see that both medical and religious rituals employ special costumes or robes. They have a "secret" language which is Latin and/or medical

jargon. They also present life or death threats to the

uninitiated: if you do not obey the doctor/priest you will die/burn in hell. That which is particularly "play"

about Le Mgdecin malgr§ lui in this particular sense is

the accepted convention between author, actor and audience

that the medical barbs are meant in the spirit of fun, of

farce. That which is serious or alarming about Le Mfedecin malgrg lui is that the mockery and barbs aimed at medicine, 135 in all probability, have some basis in fact and reality.

But as previously noted, the function of theatrical con­ vention is to suspend true reality during the "play­ time," and while doing so, reality is presented or ritualized on stage. Ritual itself becomes "a system of 9 5 communication, a 'language' of convention."

There is a point, however, at which ritual becomes either consubstantial, in which the performers of such a ritual admit that the ritual is a representation of reality, or transubstantial, in which the performers or participants in the ritual perform so well and to such a degree that the ritual actually becomes, actually is reality.

For all the characters (with the exception of Martine),

Sganarelle's medical rituals, such as his costume, his diagnoses, his prescriptions and recommendations, and his general manipulation of language render him a true doctor, hence transubstantial. The other characters belief in

Sganarelle as a true doctor is due in part to Sganarelle's ruse as well as their own betise.

These medical rituals are, however, ludicrous to the audience. If anything, the audience would merely accept

Sganarelle as a doctor in a consubstantial fashion, in other words, still a woodcutter pretending to be a doctor. At the end of the play, the spectators are left thinking that they are very clever, since they have been 136

"in on the joke" all along. But although Sganarelle was

not really a doctor, neither was Lucinde really mute. But

it was Sganarelle, who by aiding her elopement, caused

her to speak. He did cure her. So on this particular

level, during the stage time he really is a doctor, and the

audience is thus "fooled in spite of themselves" by the

manipulation of the author— MoliSre.

Thus, Molifere achieves a marvelous interplay of author,

actor, and audience through theatrical conventions related

to rite and ritual. What is consubstantial to the audience

outside the theatrical metaphor becomes transubstantial

during the actual play. Let us first examine some of the

linguistic techniques by which this takes place. In the

course of this chapter, we already discussed several

instances of the theoretical use of language. Let us now examine several techniques which are termed fantaisie

verbale, or the use of language as a comic device for its own sake.i 96 In Le Mddecin malgr£ lui, the use of Latin is some­

times more of an excuse to engage in physical posturing.

In II, 4, for example, Sganarelle's Latin jargon is

accompanied by the stage directions, "en faisant diverses plaisantes postures." Garapon also notes out that the doctors do not speak in true Latin until Monsieur de 97 Pourceaugnac. Hence, this would lend credence to the

theory that Latin is used, in Le Mfedecin, as a theatrical 137 convention. Garapon also points out that the"patois"used by the peasants (j 1avons, je disons) is merely a stylistic, theatrical patois invented only for the ears of Molidre's

Parisian public, and that the patois is artificial. The sophisticated and polished audience has been verbally manipulated to laugh at what they think is provincial.

Operating from similar methods and means, MoliSre also per­ mits his characters to deform language, such as the verbal play on hypocrisie/hydropisie(III, 2). But not only do the characters deform words, they invent them. Sganarelle in

II, 2, for example, tells the Nurse that he would like to partake of her nourricerie.

Francis Bar in Le Genre Burlesque en France au XVIIe sidcle studies verbal techniques, as does Garapon, 9 8 although Bar does not limit his research to Moli&re. He tends to agree that certain stylistic devices, such as the use of macaronic Latin (or other languages), peasants' patois, and verbal inventions are farce traditions. But he too emphasizes the rapports with the burlesque because of the nature of their artificial creation.

And what could be more artificial than the theatrical metaphor of the dance? Garapon discusses another extremely interesting stylistic device. This is the ballet de paroles, whereby the characters, usually two, but sometimes three or more, engage in verbal exchanges which are verbal manifestations or excuses for physical 138

posturing. Sganarelle's and Martine's stichomythic ex­

change that opens the farce, seen in this light, becomes, with the beating, a burlesque take-off on a pas de deux.

Monsieur Robert's interruption, and consequent stichomythic

exchanges, first with Martine, then Sganarelle, becomes

another burlesque take-off on a pas de trois. Subsequently,

the movements performed by Sganarelle, Jacqueline, and

Lucas throughout Act II continue the burlesque ballet which

can, at any moment, become a burlesque masked ball. And it

is with the idea of "mask" that I would like to summarize my discussion on Le Mgdecin malgr£ lui.

3. Mask

In Le M^decin malgr£ lui, the most obvious instances

of mask or masking occur when the characters pretend to be

apothecaries, doctors and mutes. The structure of the

play, with respect to the unfolding or unmasking of events

and characters is effected by several stylistic devices and

theatrical conventions, including a verbal "strip" and

"tease" that hints at the truth underneath, but never quite 99 reveals. This "strip-tease" is repeated several times with various characters which gives it in addition to the

game structure upon which Le M^decin malgr£ lui is so

heavily dependent, a kind of dream structure in its repe­

tition, or as Grotjahn explains: 139

Wit work, taking place in the person who con­ ceives the wit, is almost identical with dream work in its essential parts: A foreconscious thought, usually of aggressive nature, perhaps an intended injury, is repressed into the un­ conscious and left for a moment to uncon­ scious elaboration; symbolically disguised it will reappear in consciousness . . . During this disguise by the primary process old childhood pleasures attach themselves to the witty^hought. This work is similar to dream

In Le M^decin malgr6 lui, the mask of happy megalo­ mania remains without overstepping the bounds of pure joy.

Not so in George Dandin, where megalomania is shattered, the act of unmasking occurs through treachery, and the repetitive "dreamworld" becomes nightmare. NOTES

Quoted from Sylvie Chevalley, Molifere en son temps (Geneve: Minkoff, 1973), p. 239. See also Ren£ Bray and Jacques Scherer, "Notice sur Le Mgdecin malgr£ lui," in Molidre's Oeuvres completes (Paris: Club du Meilleur Livre, 1955) , TT~, 436-37. 2 Statistxcs on the performances are from Bray and Scherer, II, 429. 3 Scholars such as Barbara Bowen often note the "marital dominance quarrel" as a typical medieval farce convention. 4 Bray and Scherer (II, 4 35-36) point out that since Val£re carries a sword and wears a plumed hat in the engraving of the frontispiece, he is not a peasant such as Lucas. When his participation is no longer needed after II, 1, he simply disappears. 5 Edithe Potter's excellent article, "Faith and the Absurd in Le M^decin malgrg lui," Neophilologus, 58 (1974) , 361-71, points out the irony that the two men take Martine's story at face value: "Confidence without a basis in fact establishes the reality of Sganarelle's medical genius" (p. 36 8). Potter also remarks that theatrical "verbal glitter" carries over into the mind of the spectator to create another reality bound by the time and space of the play (p. 370). g The scene is repetitively comical in the Bergsonian sense, for Val£re and Lucas repeat almost verbatim the "inventions" of Martine regarding the "physician's" mar­ velous power. Lucas and Valdre are also mechanical in the sense that they never question the validity of Martine's statements, but merely act on them. 7 Jacqueline's role as wet-nurse to G£ronte's other child (apparently a boy, since the father will later remark that Lucinde is his only daughter) justifies her presence in the play. Sganarelle's rudimentary knowledge of medi­ cine is justified by his six year apprenticeship to a "fameux m^decin." As LebeSgue pointed out (see my Chapter One, Introduction) these justifications constitute a con­ scious control on the part of the playwright, especially with regard to metier, as opposed to the more gratuitous characters and situations in medieval farces.

140 141 g The same malady as the daughter in L'Amour m^decin, with the same cure as suggested by the servant. 9 The "rudiment par coeur" of I, 1.

possible parody of religious practices.

"^It is widely known that medical students at the Faculty in Paris were actually instructed to make a great show of refusing the fees at first. 12 Financial gain and pecuniary interest is central not only for the avaricious"doctor," but also for the father, G^ronte, who wishes to marry his daughter to a wealthy suitor. This theme had already been used in Le M^decin volant. It is also central to L'Avare. 13 A common farce technique of the medieval theatre. See my Chapter One, Introduction, especially Bowen and Lewicka. 14 A parody of current medical practices. Elizabeth Maxfield-Miller recounts the anecdote that one day Louis XIV asked Moli^re, "Vous avez un m^decin, que vous fait- il?" "Sire," r^pond Moli^re, "nous raisonnons ensemble, il m'ordonne des rem^des; je ne les fais pas et je gu^ris." The friendship between Molidre's doctor Mauvillain and the playwright dates from about 16 59. See "Le Mddecin de Molidre: Jean Armand de Mauvillain (1618-1685)," RHT, 4 (1950), 456-60. 15 Le Mgdecin malgrg lui, hereafter abbreviated to Le Mgdecin. 16 For his earlier L 1Amour m£decin (1665), Molidre informed the public that his play was "un simple crayon," completed in five days at the request of the King. He also remarks that "Les comedies ne sont faites que pour §tre joules; et je ne conseille de lire celle-ci qu'aux personnes qui ont des yeux pour ddcouvrir dans la lecture tout le jeu du theatre." (See Despois and Mesnard, V, 29 3-96. The above, in contrast to the large body of theatrical polemics left by Corneille, is one of the very few theoretical works every written by Moli&re. 17 For example, Paul Saintonge in "Thirty Years of MoliSre Studies: A Bibliography, 1942-1971," in Moli&re and the Commonwealth of Letters, p. 795, lists only four entries for Le Mddecin malgr^ lui. 142 18 See chart by Laurence Romero, Molidre, Traditions in Criticism, p. 158. In the eighteenth century, Le M6decin and Tartuffe were favorites with the public. Le Mddecin played every year without exception between 1680 and 179 3 for a total of 894 performances (260 between 1680 and 1715; 369 between 1715 and 1750; 256 between 1750 and 1790). Further statistics from the ComSdie-Frangaise indicate about 1,600 performances between 16 80 and 1900, outdis­ tanced only by the approximately 2,000 performances of Tartuffe.

19Chevalley, p. 267.

20 Statistics on performances from Bray and Scherer, II, 437, 21 See Jacqueline Cartier, Le Petit Molifere (Paris: Guy Authier, 1973), p. 268.

22Chevalley, p. 339. 23 Cartier, p. 268. 24 See Riki^ Suzuki, "Molidre au Japon," CAIEF, no. 16 (1967), 259-67. See also Saintonge, pp. 808-14,. Le Mddecin has also been translated into two less-common languages: See Gaston Bouatchidze, "Le Rire georgien de MoliSre," Europe, 523-24 (1972), 189-99, and also Uys Krige, "MoliSre's Le M^decin malgrd lui in Afrikaans," Theoria, 34 (1970)7 1-19. The latter contains a transla­ tion. Mihai de Brancovan in "Les Concerts," RDM, 11 (197 8), 720-21, reviews the Op£ra Comique production which presented Gounod's Le Mgdecin malgr£ lui with a prologue that included texts from MoliSre and airs by Lully.

2^Chevalley, p. 26 7. 2 6 Jacques Guicharnaud, ed., Moli^re, A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, N . J.: Prentice Hall, 196717 p'. 180. 27 Pierre Lifevre, "Le Mfedecin malgrg lui & la Com6die- Frangaise," Mercure de France, 169 (1936), 37 5. 28 Romero, p . 158. 29 See Jacques Le Marchand, "Au Festival d'Avignon. Le M^decin malgrg lui de Moli&re," La France Littgraire, 1 August 19 53,p. T2. The review by Elsa Triolet, "Spectacle continu-II," Les Lettres frangaises, 31 (July, 1953), 10, includes photographs of the production. 143

30Photo by Lipnitzki as found in Fernand Angud, ed., Molidre, Le Mddecin malgrd lui (Paris: Bordas, 197 3), p. 70. The cover of this edition also depicts Sganarelle dressed in a large white fraise and a short jacket, yellow on one side, green on the other. His leotard-like pants repeat the yellow/green pattern, only on opposite sides as in the jacket. (No photo credit given for cover.) 31 Norman R. Savoie, "Molidre and French Television," in Molidre and the Commonwealth of Letters, p. 648: "Whether one looks at statistics of dramatic productions produced for French television between 19 50 and 1970. . . whether or not one includes all genres of works or limits oneself to those taken from the repertory of the theatre, the number of productions based on Molidre's works out­ numbers by far those of any other author, French or foreign, with one exception, Eugdne Labiche."

■^Cartier, p. 270. 33 Bray and Scherer as well as Despois and Mesnard m their respective editions of the complete works give ac­ counts of various performances. The frontispieces of the seventeenth-century editions give some idea of early per­ formances .

^Sylvia Chevalley in Les Dossiers Molidre: Molidre (Geneva: Editions Minkoff, 1973), p. 24, presents an engraving of Molidre "en habit de Sganarelle," although this is the Sganarelle of the Ecole des maris. Molidre is said to have varied the costume of Saganarelle according to the role. We can also have an idea of the costumes from the "Inventaire apres-ddcds" edited by E. Soulid, Recherches sur Molidre (Paris: Hachette, 186 3). See es- picTaTIy ppT TTB^TS'.— 35 Many contemporary reports indicate Molidre's talent for mimicry and the physiology of his gestures. Du Croisy's daughter, Mile Poisson's description of Molidre is legendary: "II n'dtait ni trop gras, ni trop maigre. II avait la taille plus grande que petite, le port noble, la jambe belle? il marchait gravement, avait l'air trds sdrieux, le nez gros, la bouche grande, les ldvres dpaisses, le teint brun, les sourcils noirs et forts et les divers mouvements qu'il leur donnait lui rendait la physionomie entidrement comique." Cited by Pierre Gaxotte, Molidre (Paris: Flammarion, 1977), p. 114. 36 Bray and Scherer, II, 4 34-36. Thus, the female roles were played by Molidre's wife and two of his ex­ mistresses,, which may have added to the comic effects. 144 37 See Ren£ Bray, Moli&re, homme de theatre (Pans: Mercure de France, 1953). See especially p. 274 and p. 27 8 . This view is seconded by John Lough in his various sociohistorical writings on the seventeenth century. 38 These possible sources include the "Dixi&me" and "Trentidme" Serr^e of Guillaume Bouchet; one of the "Fac^ties" of Poggio; The Tale of Till Eulenspiegal; the Irishman Thibaut Anguibert's sixteenth-century Mensa Philosophica; a fifteenth-century manuscript entitled Compilatio singularis exemplorum (folio 174) now in the BibliothSque of Tours; and the sermons of the thirteenth- century pr^dicateur, Jacques de Vitry. See Despois and Mesnard, VI, especially pp. 11-13 for these as well as other suggestions. 39 Robert Harrison, Gallic Salt (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1974), pp. 1-2.

^ F o r example, Harrison, pp. 9, 10.

^The priest was often depicted as the villain or the evil-doer in many farces and fabliaux of the medieval period. See Bowen, pp. 53-54, and Harrison, pp. 20-24. 42 In Le Mddecin, Martine's primary motive is revenge, but she also mentions that Sganarelle does not know what it feels like to be beaten.

^ L . C. Porter in "La Farce et la sottie," ZRPh, 75 (1959), 89-129, notes that a farce is only a fabliau in dialogue form. But no farce has ever been proven to be a direct derivation from a fabliau, although Porter claims that the difference are exterior with respect to the two genres, and that both spring from the same tradition. 44 / Martin Grotjahn, M.D. Beyond Laughter (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), p. 91: ". . . With the uninhibited cruelty of former times, people laughed freely at cripples, paralytics, amputees, midgets, monsters, the deaf, the mute, the blind, the poor, and the crazy. . ." Grotjahn draws many of his theories from Freud's Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Similar ideas are expounded by Mikhail Bakhtin in Rabelais and His World. 4 5 See Despois and Mesnard, VI, 104n. The or potable was a common prescription. Liquid gold will do no one harm, but mercury, another common remedy, will. 145 46 Harrison, pp. 84, 85. The entire fabliau and translation appear on pp. 62-85.

4 7It is said that the slapping sound of the stick is the onomotopeia that forms the English word: "slap" - "stick." In French, "bciton" is related to "battre." 48 This is true of other comic gestures as well: Sganarelle caresses his bottle (I, 5, 1734 edition); he caresses Jacqueline in front of her husband (III, 3); the refusal of the father's money (II, 4); the multiple jeux- de-sc^ne to keep G^ronte from observing L^andre and Lucinde. No gesture is gratuitous, and all focus on es­ tablishing Sganarelle's megalomania. 49 Pierre Louis Duchartre, The Italian Comedy (1929; rpt. New York: Dover, 1966), p. 286. 50 Lucien Goldmann, "Le Structuralisme g£n6 tique en histoire de la litt£rature," MLN, 79, no. 3 (1964), 226. 51 Rabelais, Oeuvres completes, ed. P. Jourda (Paris: Garnier, 1962), I, 547-48. 52 J. M. Pelous, "Les Metamorphoses de Sganarelle: la permanence d'un type comique," RHL, 72 (1972), 843. Some of Pelous's remarks are tenuous. He claims, for example, that Le M^decin volant, of which we have the text, was actually a later version of an early piece, and that Le Medecin volant was published after Le Mgdecin malgr6 lui, with the "medecift volant" of the extant piece renamed "Sganarelle." Pelous Is thus able to make the statement quoted, since the Cocu imaginaire would now pre-date the Medecin volant. 53 Pelous, p. 829. 54 . Quoted m Despois and Mesnard, VI, 32. 55 See chart in Despois and Mesnard, V, 363-64.

Despois and Mesnard, VI, 4-5 for Robinet's text. Despois and Mesnard also quote Subligny, VI, 5-6. 57 John Lough, Seventeenth-Century French Drama: The Background (Oxford: The Clarendon Pres?, 1979), p. 83. C Q Lough, p. 8 6 : "There is also in the literature of the time an extraordinary number of references to the presence in the parterre of groups of marchands de la rue St. Denis; these were not small shopkeepers, but prosperous retailers of luxury goods." 146 59 There are documented incidents involving "quantity de gens d'epde": On Sunday, 9 October 16 72, for example, during a performance of La Comptesse d'Escarbagnas and L*Amour medecin, disorders broke out in Molidre's theatre. On 13 January 167 3, further disorders occurred during Psychd at the Palais Royal. See Lough, pp. 87-88.

60Gilbert Highet, The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 105. /* *i G. D. Kiremidjian, "The Aesthetics of Parody," JAAC, 28 (1969), 240. 6 2 Goldmann, p. 226.

See Paul Bdnichou, Morales du grande sidcle (Paris: Gallimard, 1948), especially pp. 157-62.

/ r a Romero, p. 158. Seen in this light, one might speculate on the reasons for the poor reception given Pom Garcie de Navarre. I am proposing here my own theory for the "dramatic impasse" discussed in my Chapter One, Introduction. ®^Marcel Gutwirth, Molidre, ou l 1invention comique (Paris: Minard, 1966), pp. 49-50. r c Reminiscent of the power of words as discussed by Rastier, Magne, Doubrovsky, and Relyea. See my Chapter One, Introduction. c n See Jacques Audiberti on Poquelin and Chapin Molidre dramaturge (Paris: L'Arche, 1954), pp. 63-66. 6 Q See Alfred Simon, Molidre par lui-meme (Paris: Seuil - Collection Ecriva'ins de Toujours, 1957) , pp. 57-62. 69 Pelous, p. 283. 70 In 166 5, Molidre suffered a serious breakdown m health, becoming more or less an invalid. Then under the care of Mauvillain, he was never really out of medical care thereafter, though at the time of the composition of Le Mddecin malgre lui, he was fairly well recuperated. See also Martin Turneil, The Classical Moment (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1947), p. 125, and Rend Thuillier, La Vie maladive de Molidre (Paris: Jouve et Cie, 1932), p. 22. 71 Among many other descriptions, see Nancy Mitford, The Sun King (New York: Harper and Row, 1966, p. 151, 147 for a description of the appalling infant mortality of the period. 72 For example, Guicharnaud in Molidre une aventure thd&trale. See my Chapter One, Introduction.

73Francois Millepierre, for example, m La Vie quotidienne des mddecins au temps de Molidre (Paris: Hachette, 1964), pT 67, speaks of substitution and expul­ sion which are at the heart of the scapegoat ritual. For example, in the treatment of jaundice, the patient was to stare into the eyes of a yellow bird in order to pass the disease back. 74 Several other early sketches are mentioned m theatrical records such as La Grange's Registre. They include, for example, Les Trois Mddecins rivaux (1661) and Le Docteur pddant. None are extant, and attribution to Molidre is open to question. 75 Hence, again the Italian influence from a theatrical point of view, whereas the satire of medicine springs from the French cultural tradition. Regarding Arlecchino medico volante, see Thuillier, p. 37. 76 The "doctrines" of Hippocrates and Galen, the humors, were accepted with closed eyes, with no attempt at dis­ cerning the meanings of the texts. See H. Folet, M. D., Molidre et la medecine de son temps (Lille: L. Danel, 1894), p. 57. 77 This is also in the tradition of Rabelais as well as the fabliaux. But even today, there exist folk remedies that involve urine, as in the case of Mme de Sevignd. See Mariane and Gdrard Milhaud, "Molidre face d la mddecine," Europe, 441-46 (Jan.-June, 1966), 126. Laura Makarius, in "Ritual Clowns and Symbolic Behavior," Diogenes, 69 (1970), 44-73 suggests that archaic doctors are the "medi­ cine men" of primitive cultures. The "clown-doctor" can transgress sacred taboos by touching or drinking dangerous substances: blood and urine. 7 8 Again, we note that doctors attempt to "reason" the cause of the malady. With their misguided attempt at nominalism, they seemed to think that by giving a malady a name, and by trying to "understand," "debate," and "rea­ son," they could then control the disease. Despite their attempt to "raisonner," their efforts were none other than "une grande folie k l'dge de la raison" (terms mine). This problem of "reason" for the seventeenth-century mind is discussed passim by R$lyea in Signs, System^, and Meanings. 148

(See my Chapter One, Introduction.) Relyea does not, how­ ever, specifically discuss medicine. 79 See A. Gill, "The Doctor in the Farce and Molidre," FS, 2 (1948), 103-16.

^^Mitford, p. 150.

^■*"Angu£, p. 7 3n.

®^Thuillier, p. 71. p O W. H. Lewis, The Splendid Century (19 53; rpt. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1957), p. 177: "Throughout the seventeenth century, the French medical profession had what we should call a thoroughly bad press; Molifere had con­ ferred upon its members an inglorious immortality . . . and in private correspondence, the physician is almost always presented as a cross between a murderer and a buffoon." 84 Lewis, p. 186 Sganarelle is offered money three times: by GSronte, by Thibaut and Perrin, by LSandre. p C Cartier, pp. 147-4 8 .

^Lewis, p. 178. 87 Paisley L. Livingston, "Comic Treatment. Molidre and the Farce of Medicine," MLN, 94 (19 79), 677. 88 Morton Gurevitch, Comedy, The Irrational Vision (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), pp. 129 and 130. 89 The Clef des chansonniers and the Manuscrit de la Sorbonne both indicate that the lines were originally, "Qu'ils sont doux, Bouteille Mamie." The air is by Lully. See Despois-Mesnard, VI, 55 and 121. See also the "Appen­ dix" at the end of Vol. Ill of Bray and Scherer. 90 The Journal de la sant£ du Roi first published by M. A. le Roy in 1862. See Despois and Mesnard, VI, 83. 91 J. D. Hubert, Molidre and the Comedy of Intellect (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), p. 156: "Sganarelle, in whom even the most painstaking disciple of Freud would have a hard time discerning even the faintest trace of a super-ego, behaves like an uninhibited force of nature, an undiluted Id who simply revels in all the creature comforts." 92 Grotjahn, pp. 20-21. 9 3Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950), p. 50. 94 Huizinga, p. 191.

9 5Burns, Theatricality, p. 208. 96 For much of this section, I am indebted to Robert Garapon, La Fantaisie verbale (Paris: Armand Colin, 1957) See especially pp. 221-76. Fausta Garavini's "La Fantaisie verbale et le mim^tisme dialectical dans le th^ttre de Moli&re: A propos de Monsieur de Pourceaugnac, RHL, 72 (1972), 806-20, is also a valuable contribution. Garavini points out that jargon is a "jeu sur le signifi- ant," a source of pleasure in and of itself. (Parody or satire normally have a specific signifies.) Garavini also agrees that the peasant "patois" is an "artifice comique. 97 For discussion,i see Garapon, 221-24. 9 8 Francis Bar, Le Genre burlesque en France au XVII6 sifecle: gtude de style (Paris: Artrey, 1960). See especially p. 285. 9 9 Francis L. Lawrence, Molidre, The Comedy of Un­ reason (New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1968) , pp. 62-67, uses the terms "strip" and "tease" when discussing Les Precieuses ridicules. 100„ , . , n _ Grotjahn, p. 15. CHAPTER III

GEORGE DANDIN, OR, MEGALOMANIA SHATTERED

A. The "Farceur," His Art in 166 8 , and Spectacle and Performance

A bedazzlement for the eye and verbal glitter for the ear: this was the Fete de Versailles during which on 18

July 1668 Molidre's Troupe du Roi staged George Dandin ou le mari confondu, a debut performance presented as a pastorale-ballet. After four additional performances at

Court, Molidre removed his play to Paris, but with the striking absence of song and dance. Here it was played as a straight farce, and such has been the fate of the

"paysan mal-marid" ever since.^ In my first section, I would like to demonstrate that George Dandin with and with­ out the pastorale-ballet sequences presents us with two entirely different kinds of theatricality. Within the framework of the pastorale-ballet, George Dandin is a masterpiece of baroque parody that functions both aesthetically and politically toward a double end. As a

"theatricality" within a "theatricality," it becomes a

"microcosme comique" in the grand "macrocosme solaire" which is none other than the celebration of the reign of 2 Louis XIV. Without the pastorale-ballet sequences,

150 151

George Dandin remains a highly entertaining, though cruel comedy, but which "unframed," risks misunderstanding and misinterpretation. In 1969, for example, after three hundred and one years, Roger Planchon, in a production by the Theatre de la Citd, attempted to replace the framework of the ballet with original mime sequences. Joan Crow reports that "The effect of these studied and overlapping sequences of mime was to abolish the intervals, knit to­ gether the threads of the action, and at the same time, successfully to introduce an element of fantasy into this 3 brutal farce." Crow, however, admits that the overall effects of the production "would not be to the taste of every molieriste," for the "sociological implications of this tale of misalliance were stressed . . . and a quasi-

Marxist restatement of the comedy tended to relegate the

Sotenvilles to the background while focusing attention on the clash between the arrogant Clitandre and the cowardly 4 George Dandin." But the question remains. Were per­ formances of George Dandin subsequent to 18 July 166 8 a reinterpretation, a fresh interpretation, or a "mis"- interpretation?

To formulate a response to the above question, it is necessary to examine George Dandin in the context of the settings of the original performance at Versailles, fol­ lowed by a synopsis of the accompanying ballet, Les Amours de Venus et de Bacchus. This will allow me to present an 152

interpretation of George Dandin as a pastoral parody, and

a burlesque parody of the baroque traits inherent in both the ballet as well as the Fete itself.

The Gazette of 21 July describes the Fete de

Versailles accompanying the first production of George

Dandin;

Elle commenca, sur les sept heures du soir, ensuite de la collation qui £toit d^licieuse- ment prdparde en une des allies du pare de ce chateau, par une comedie des mieux concert^es que repr^senta la troupe du Roi sur un superbe thdlitre, dress£ dans une vaste salle de verdure. Cette comedie, qui 6toit mel§e dans les entr'­ actes d'une espdee d'autre comddie en musique et de ballets, ne laissa rien 3. souhaiter en ce premier divertissement, auquel une seconde collation de fruits et de confitures en pyramides fut servie aux deux c6 t6 s de ce theatre et pr6 sent6e & Leurs Majest^s par les seigneurs qui £toient places dessus; ce qui £tant accompagn^ de quantity de jets d'eau, fut trouv£ tout 3. fait galant par 1 'assistance de pr6 s de trois mille personnes. . .5

George Dandin was a charming accompaniment to festiv­ ities prepared by a young King hosting his friends much as would a country gentleman in his hunting lodge. Though in

1668, this "hunting lodge" was still, in some ways,

"rustic," it was destined to become the great "theatre" of

Versailles, and a true backdrop for the Court of Louis XIV.

The spectacle was meant to charm, to delight the senses, and to 6blouir the young Court. Despite the fact that

Versailles was not even at the peak of its glory, the magnificence, sumptuousness, and sheer magnitude of the

F^te de Versailles are difficult for the modern reader to 153

imagine. The festivities and the course of events were re­

corded by several other contemporary sources.^

The music master Lully was Molidre's collaborator in 7 8 this Fete. Vigarani was to prepare the theatre. Colbert himself, as Surintendant des batiments was to oversee the

construction of the buildings and the various areas of the park of Versailles where the activities were to take place.

The King arrived at Versailles the afternoon of 18

July and dined with the Queen, Monsieur le Dauphin,

Monseigneur le Dauphin, Monsieur and Madame, and several other members of the Court. The banquet was held in the chateau itself, and after the dinner, the gates leading to

the gardens were thrown open. Thus, the three thousand or so guests were free to stroll in the park of the palace.

During the late afternoon stroll, the members of the Court came upon additional tables of food magnificently prepared in an open-air buffet.

The theatre in which George Dandin was to be played was set up at the intersection of three allies in the park of Versailles, the allde du Roi, the allde des Prds, and a third which intersected the first two. FSlibien reports that the stage area took up about ten toises of the all£e due Roi, while a space of approximately thirteen by nine toises was left for the salle, the area where the specta- 9 tors were to sit, or some to stand. Vigarani had designed the building so that the outside was covered with branches and other greenery, while the

Sieur du mets, Intendant des Meubles de la Couronne, had been charged with procuring a number of tapestries to cover the inside. The presence of a couvert de feuilld suggests the rustic campagne, whereas the artifice of the tapestries suggests the nobleman attempting to recreate the lifestyle of the chateau in the middle of the forest. But on closer examination, especially of the stage settings, one notes that the d£cor de theatre is much more in keeping with the artifice of the pastorale than a true farce played h la campagne. Louis's courtly audience was to feel almost hypnotized, that upon entering this theatre of tapestry and greenery, they too were part of a gigantic courtly pastorale.

Felibien reports that the salle contained a number of

"sidges disposes en amphitheatre, remplis de douze cents personnes; et dans le parterre, il y avait encore sur des bancs une plus grande quantity de monde."^"^ From the ceiling, a height of thirty feet, hung thirty-two crystal chandeliers, each with ten white wax candles. Thus, once again, the d6cor de theatre would compliment the stage action, this time the farce rather than the pastorale. The play was put on at dusk, hence the candles were a neces­ sity. So too, the third act of George Dandin takes place in the dark or by candlelight. 155

Two arcades or walkways were constructed for the

spectators, one facing the stage, another on the side of

the grande all£e. The entrance to the theatre suggested

allegorically the magnificence of the King, whose recent

conquest of the Franche-Comt6 (Condi's victory) is

celebrated in lieu of the carnival which was cancelled in

1668. On either side of the thirty-six foot entrance stood

two columns of bronze and lapis-lazuli encircled with

branches and golden leaves. The columns stood on marble pedestals and sported ionic marble cornices on which were

represented, along with trophies, the gilded arms of the

King. Between each of these two columns stood a figure:

Peace on the right and Victory on the left. Now that the

cause of peace had been served, the people were to enjoy

themselves at the F§te, to eat and to drink, as would be

exemplified in the pastorale celebrating Venus and Bacchus

that the royal spectators and their guests were soon to observe.

When the King and his closest companions had arrived

and seated themselves, the spectacle began with the opening of the curtain which revealed a sumptuous garden, a small miniature of the park of Versailles. The entrance to the

garden was flanked by two pallisades, of which the

cornices were supported by four termes (armless statues)

representing four satyrs sporting large vases of flowers.

Further in the background appeared terraces of white 156 marble surrounding a type of canal. Along the edges of the terraces were golden masks spewing jets of water into this canal, and on top of the masks were bronze and gilded vases from which also came actual streams of water. Along the same line of vision as the termes, one could see a long row of large trees, between which were rustic style cabinets, each covering a large marble basin from which also came jets of water. The closer end of the canal was bordered by twelve similar water jets, and at the other end of the canal, a large dome was visible. From beyond the three porticals of the dome, one could see a vast expanse of countryside.^

While the spectators were being seated and waiting for the performance to begin, thirty-six baskets of oranges and other fruits were passed out by the Mar£chal de

Bellefond and several other seigneurs, while the Sieur de

Launay, Intendant des Menus Plaisirs et Affaires de la 12 Chambre, gave out programs. Thus, even the act of seat­ ing oneself becomes a theatrical event and an extension of the Fete.

From the description of this theatre, it is quite evident that Louis XIV had succeeded in his attempt to recreate another miniature Versailles represented onstage and reflected in the audience, suggesting theatre within a theatre, where royal guests retreat from the outside world into their own artificially created world, a 157

pastorale within a pastorale. It is into this artificial world that tumbles the farce of George Dandin.

In George Dandin, basically the same action occurs

three times, once in each of the three acts. The wealthy

peasant, George Dandin, has married into the aristocracy.

Ang^lique, the noble young wife, is far from the "angel"

that her name suggests, for she is trysting with Clitandre,

a young nobleman vacationing in the country. The pair are

aided by Ang^lique's ruseful maid Claudine, and Clitandre"s

bungling valet, the oaf Lubin. Each time Dandin attempts

to expose Ang§lique to her snobbish parents the Soten-

villes, "sots de quality" if ever there were such a pair,

Angdlique turns the tables and makes it appear that it is

Dandin who has wronged her.

The final blow to Dandin occurs during scenes played

at night, scenes which display a marvelous sense of

theatrical stage business. Dandin has discovered

Ang^lique trysting with Clitandre, locked her out of the

house, and sent for her parents. Ang^lique begs Dandin"s

pity and g^ndrositd, but to no avail. Despairing,

Angdlique threatens suicide, and then feigns stabbing her­

self. Fearing reprisal, Dandin rushes out to investigate;

AngSlique slips into the house. Dandin, locked out, must

face the ridicule and wrath of her parents.

Before approaching the question of whether the farce

and the ballet are to be considered a true unified whole— 158 with the farce as the burlesque parody of the baroque elements of the ballet— let us examine the actual integra­ tion of the two. The spectacle begins with a prose introduction with reference to the conquest of the Franche-

Comtd, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, and to Louis, the greatest of the "demi-dieux," whose sense of splendid magnificence and unparalleled aesthetic has created

Versailles. 13 Hence, Versailles as "theatre" comments upon itself: Louis is the principal actor, and Versailles his setting. Molidre and Lully too are praised and glorified, although ironically, it is thought that

Molidre himself wrote the introduction.

The overture begins with a chansonette, a short love poem sung by two shepherdesses, Climdne and Cloris, fol­ lowed by the entry of two shepherds, Tircis and Phildne, their lovers. Molidre had already used the name Climdne for the prude-prdcieuse in La Critique de l'Ecole des femmes. But here, the spectator may have found a more recent and amusing reminiscence, for the names Phildne and Climdne are similar to Cdlimdne and Philinte, charac­ ters in Molidre's recent production of Le Misantrhope, in which there was also a pairing off of the couples in the pastoral tradition. Although the couples seem to pair off as Climdne/Tircis, and Cloris/Phildne, it is the names of the alternate couples which rhyme: Climdne/Phildne and

Cloris/Tircis. This verbal play with the sounds of the 159 names lends a tone of artifice to the scene, but an arti­ fice that this sophisticated and courtly audience would find immensely pleasurable.

Tircis and Phildne then sing of their undying love, adoration, and devotion to the two shepherdesses. But true to the tradition of the pastorale, Climdne and Cloris scorn the young men. The scene is presented with great artificial delicacy.

From the allegorical world of shepherds and shepher­ desses, the spectators are rudely shifted to the opening monologue of the actual farce, with Dandin bemoaning his marital folly at having wed a gentlewoman. The first act of the farce also closes with Dandin in a monologue, bewailing his bad marriage. His complaint is interrupted by the arrival of a shepherdess who proceeds to recite her sorrow over the suicide of her lover. The lament infuri­ ates Dandin, who goes off in a huff. Molidre had, of course, successfully exploited the theme of interruption in an earlier comedy ballet, Les Facheux, but as we shall soon see, with a different purpose.

The second act of the farce follows this pastoral interlude. At the end of Act II, the same shepherdess returns to annoy Dandin who is again reciting his marital woes. Though in the presence of the Sotenvilles, Dandin appears to be talking to himself but for the interruption of the shepherdess. The shepherdess recounts that Tircis 160 and Phildne are not dead as reported, but were saved by six boatmen. These six then appear sur scdne and dance happily with their boatmen's canes. Dandin wishes to have 14 nothing to do with any of them. In which body of water

Tircis and Phildne tried to drown themselves, how the boatmen chanced to arrive at precisely the right moment

(unless they were escapees from the Carte du Tendre), and how it happens coincidentally that Dandin, the shepherdess, and the six boatmen all come to meet at precisely the same moment at precisely the same spot is merely accepted. All these "coincidences" again merely heighten the artificial tone of the pastorale. Death here is not only a theatri­ cal convention, but a theatrical illusion.

"Coincidences" serve, in addition, two theatrical functions of paramount importance with regard to this

Versailles audience. As Rend Bray reminds us, one must create in his mind what Molidre called the "jeu du thddtre," and what D'Aubignac called "la rdalitd du spectacle." The main ingredient of theatrical reality, then, is not vraisemblance but biensdance. It is what Bray calls "la biensdance interne" or "la cohdsion dtablie entre les dldments entrant en jeu," and "la biensdance externe," that is, "l'accord cherchd entre le spectacle et le 15 spectateur." In other words, certain events are merely accepted and never questioned as part of the theatrical jeu, and the degree of acceptance is to a large extent 161 dependent on the social and spiritual make-up as well as the aesthetic awareness of that particular group of spectateurs. What is significant here then is the accept­ ance of the lyricism, the music, the dance, and the re­ newed hope of "courtly" love continued between the shepherd couples in the pastoral tradition.

It seems that Tircis and Phildne had attempted suicide out of depairing love, but were saved. Deaths do occur in

Molidre's theatre, but only as a variation of the deus ex machina, which one might term the mors ex machina. As noted in Le Mddecin malgrd lui, Ldandre's uncle conven­ iently dies in the nick of time leaving him the money which will allow him to marry Lucinde honorably. In addition, the ruse of a lover's suicide is a stock-in-trade of the commedia, a device which Molidre had already borrowed early in his career. In Act II, scene 6 of L'Etourdi, Ldlie asks his valet Mascarille to kill him and threatens suicide when the latter refuses. This early play (1653P-1655?), however, already displayed Molidre's capacity for exploit­ ing a theatrical convention as well as his capacity for parody of the lover's despair, as Mascarille's closing remarks clearly indicate:

Savois-je pas qu'enfin, cen'dtoit que grimace, Et quoi que ces esprits jurent d'effectuer, Qu'on n'est point aujourd'hui si prompt d se tuer? (Mascarille, L*Etourdi, 11,6) 162

Molidre will exhibit his capacity for self-parody in

George Dandin when Dandin reminds Angdlique after her

suicide threat that such threats are no longer fashion- 16 able (III, 6). But in the pastorale, death is never

anything other than allegory and convention.

At the end of Act III, the now totally defeated Dandin

engages in a final monologue:

Ah! je le quitte maintenant, et je n'y vois plus de remdde: lorsqu'on a, comme moi, dpousd une mdchante femme, le meilleur parti qu'on puisse prendre, c'est de s'aller jeter dans l'eau la tdte la premidre. (Ill, 8)

The question of whether Dandin's threat is real, feigned,

or mere theatrical convention has occupied Molidre 17 scholars for the past three centuries. But when the pastorale follows the farce, the spectator is left with

an entirely different sense of ending, for after Dandin's

lament, a friend arrives and suggests that Dandin drown his

sorrows in drink. Dandin accepts his suggestion, and the

two apparently mingle together with the troupe of shepherds

and shepherdesses.

The chant-ballet which ends the spectacle begins with

solo songs by each of the shepherds and shepherdesses who had appeared earlier: Climdne, Cloris, Tircis, and Phildne.

These songs are followed by a musical debat between the

choruses of Bacchus and Amour: 16 3

LE PARTY DE L'AMOUR: Ah! quel plaisir d'aimer. LE PARTY DE BACCHUS: Ah! quel plaisir de boire. LE PARTY DE L'AMOUR: A qui vit sans amour, la vie est sans appas. LE PARTY DE BACCHUS: C'est mourir que de vivre et de ne boire pas.

Un berger se jette au millieu de cette dispute et chante ces vers au deux partis.

C'est trop, c'est trop, Bergers, h§ pourquoi ces ddbats? Souffrons qu'en un parti la raison nous assemble, L'Amour a des douceurs,Bacchus a des appas. Ce sont deux deites qui sont fort bien ensemble, Ne les s^parons pas.

LES DEUX CHOEURS ENSEMBLE: Melons done leurs douceurs aimables . . . Qu'il n'est rien de plus doux que Bacchuset L'Amour.

The spectacle ends in a great dance of shepherds and shepherdesses together with the choruses of Bacchus and

Amour. Allegorically, then, the spiritual and ephemeral delights of Venus are pleasures to be shared together with physical pleasures, as symbolized by drink and Bacchus.

It is important to note, however, that the stage decor for the third act has been changed. In place of the foun­ tains, canals, jets of water, and bassins were rocks and trees upon which the singers and musicians of the final entree de ballet were to perch during the dance numbers.

The change of decor also has bearing on the farce of

Dandin. We should recall that the third act was to be played at night. Although the seventeenth-century theatre did put less stock on realistic decor than on sumptuous 164

costumes, the boulders and trees would be somewhat more

appropriate for the stumbling about and mistaken identi­

ties of the night scenes than the sound of rushing water.

In addition, since the waterworks were replaced out of

necessity, to make room for the large number of dancers

and singers and musicians who were to be onstage for the

final entree, Dandin has no place to go to drown himself

"literally." Thus, he has been "theatrically" saved from

suicide.

G. D. Kiremidjian, in "The Aesthetics of Parody,"

notes that "... parody . . . holds the mirror not up to nature, but to another work of art, and thus becomes a X8 reflection of the character of art itself." In baroque

terms, then, parody in Molidre's theatre can be described

as an illusion comique, a jeu de metamorphoses, with the

theatre as a mirror reflecting upon itself. With this in mind, it is my contention that George Dandin, as an inte­ gral part of the comddie-ballet presented at Versailles on

18 July, functions as a parody of the baroque elements inherent in both the Fete as well as the pastorale. It is not at all important that this be a conscious effort, a

conscious parody on the part of Molidre, for the farce is

to offset by contrast "le vertige des apparences, le 19 kaleidoscope de 1'illusion." At Versailles, reality

itself was becoming theatrical. The guests in attendance

at the Fete were in an enchanted labyrinth going from 165

surprise to surprise during the festivities prepared by

the young King in his effort to dblouir. George Dandin, written at the request of the King, had one function and one goal: plaire. And for the debut it had only one

audience: Louis's courtly retinue and guests. Removed

from Versailles, George Dandin is a different play.

For my discussion and demonstration, I will take five

common baroque traits and demonstrate how in each case,

George Dandin functions as parody. These are prolonged metaphors, intensive redundancy (repetition), excessive 20 contrasts, great exaggerations, and also love of paradox.

The baroque spirit seemed to have a particular

fascination for water and water metaphors as for example, the decor of the first two acts. Tircis and Phildne were both reported drowned. Dandin's threat of drowning him­ self then becomes a parody of the pastorale's water metaphors, which are themselves artifice and convention.

In addition, the final entrde de ballet was, as we saw, an

allegorically refined debate between the proponents of love versus drink, as presented by the dancers, singers, and musicians. In the farce itself, the treatment of drink

and love becomes a burlesque which borrows from the his­ tory and tradition of the French farce. In the pastorale, wine is the source not only of physical but spiritual, ethereal pleasure in the tradition of Rabelais's Dive

Bouteille. In the farce, Dandin's mother-in-law accuses 166 him of polluting the air with his drunken foul breath, although there is no indication that he had actually been drinking (III, 7). The final line of the pastorale is

". . . il n'est rien de plus doux que Bacchuset L'Amour

. . . Ne les sdparons pas." Love and drink represent spiritual and ethereal joy for the chorus. Love, if it exists at all in the farce is ridiculed, if not debased.

There is no emotional attachment between Dandin and

Ang£lique, nor between Ang£lique and her parents who have

"sold" her to Dandin. Thus, the allegorical treatment of

Venus and Bacchus is parodied in the farce itself.

The baroque elements of the poetry of the pastorale favor a good deal of repetition and internal redundancy.

The most evident is the repetition of certain themes and verses which are not only in the pastorale tradition (i.e., the conventional scorn of the lover, the feigned suicide) but also certain expressions, words, or phrases.

For example, the word "Ah," as well as the expression

"Ah, mortelles douleurs," begins to function almost as a leitmotif in this particular pastorale. But just as the tradition of baroque works favors repetition, so too does the tradition of farce. Baroque works use this repetition as a stylistic device, as well as a convention. Farce uses repetition for these same purposes, but also because it is a sure-fire proven method of getting a laugh. In Molidre1s entire repertoire, in no other play does he use repetition 167 and redundancy to quite the extent that he does in George

Dandin. For example, Lubin is indiscreet with Dandin three times, once in each of the three acts (I, 2; II, 5;

III, 3). Dandin accuses Ang£lique of infidelity three times (I, 4; II, 7; III, 7). His accusation against the guilty parties result in a reversal: it is he who is pun­ ished in their stead by the parents three times (I, 6 ;

II, 8 ; III, 7). Dandin's monologues end each of the three acts (I, 7; II, 8 ; III, 8 ). The Sotenville couple arrive too late three times (I, 4; II, 7; III, 7). Clitandre attempts a rendez-vous with Ang^lique three times (I, 5;

II, 2; III, 1). Not only do many of the actual events of the play repeat themselves three times, but the characters as well split themselves into three groups, each group in opposition to Dandin: Angelique/Clitandre; the Sotenvilles;

Claudine/Lubin. Thus, while admitting that repetition and redundancy are farce conventions, but noting the excep­ tional extent of their use in this particular play, I would like to suggest that they may also be taken as an internal parody of the baroque elements. This is especially true regarding the contrast between the farce and the pastorale, with contrast itself as another baroque characteristic.

I have already touched on the verbal play with the names of the pastorale characters, noting that the rhyming of the names Climfene/Phil&ne and Cloris/Tircis suggests redundancy within the pastorale. But the very use of these poetic, allegorical and rhyming names heightens the con­

trast between these characters and those in the farce

itself. "Dandin" suggests the vision of a bell (din, dan,

don), or perhaps a tottering goose or turkey (dinde). In

addition, the name "George," while perfectly ordinary in

our own time, would have closer affinities with "Guillot-

Gorju" or "Guillot-Gorjeu" than a "tragic hero." The name

"Ang£lique" does not fit the character, although the name

"Sotenville" fits the parent couple only too well. It

suggests "fool" (sot, sotte) in the town or city, and they

are indeed sots (although Moli^re might just have easily

chosen to name them "Sotencampagnac"). But if Angdlique

is not "angelic," neither is Clitandre "tendre" as are the

shepherds and shepherdesses. It is interesting to note

that the names given the "young lovers" are suggestive of

the opposite of the characters' true personalities, whereas

those given the figures of authority (the parents) or those

technically in the right (Dandin) are plain mockery. But

it is my contention that Molidre was not at all laughing in

the face of authority or justice. He chose these names

first and foremost because they are funny. And the reason

that they are so funny is that they contrast with the mythological tone of the pastorale sequences. Furthermore,

the importance of the choice of names cannot be under­

estimated, for it is these very names that prevent the play

from spilling over into tragedy or the realm of grave 169 injustice. Could anyone imagine a tragic hero with the 21 silly and buffoonish name of Monsieur de la DandiniSre?

Thus, although one can admit that the play has disturbing elements, such arguments can only hold when the farce is detached from the pastorale. In the framework of the whole spectacle, the whole com§die-ballet, George Dandin is the parody that, again using Kiremidjian's terms, holds the mir­ ror not up to nature but to another work of art. This mir­ ror, though distorts (as does the amusement-parlor mirror), in its creation of burlesque parody.

It is not only the choice of the names that suggests a parody of the baroque and courtly elements of the pastorale.

The two shepherds were scorned by the shepherdesses in a manner that was not only a pastoral convention, but also a convention of the tradition of courtly love. In the pastorale, the shepherdess pretends to scorn her admirer.

The harder her heart, the harder his ardor. The lover is ready to die for the love of his lady. Ironically, it will not be Clitandre who is dying for the love of Ang^lique, but rather Dandin himself, driven to thoughts of suicide because 22 of the lack of her love and "estime."

It seems ridiculous at this point, however, to imagine

Dandin as the heroic lover. But Ang^lique— who rejects

Dandin in part because he does not attempt to win her love through the courtly tradition— cannot recognize two blatantly obvious ironies inherent in the situation. First 170 if she herself were a true courtly heroine, or even a pastorale heroine, she should not be so eager to tryst with

Clitandre. Secondly, the man she rejects is the one who contemplates death on her account. The one she accepts as her lover lies to her parents and bribes the servants. In addition, Clitandre's and Ang^lique's exchanges are in them- 23 selves parodies of the courtly tradition. Thus, using contrast to underscore both the banal and the comic,

Moli^re creates an ironic or parodic comedy of courtli- 24 ness.

It is not only the conventional exchanges and rela­ tionships between lovers (or shepherds and shepherdesses) which are parodied, but death as a convention as well. In the pastorale, the attempted suicides were conventional and allegorical. In the third act of the farce, there are two evocations of possible deaths. The first is Ang€lique's attempt at blackmail, which borders on a parody of the tragic heroine. But her threat is obviously a ruse.

Dandin, however, threatens death out of frustration and desperation. In addition, Ang^lique's suicide threat was carried out in the presence of Dandin, and presumably

Claudine. Dandin"s, however, is stated only in the pres­ ence of the "other," but this "other" is Dandin himself, for he has addressed himself in the third person ("George

Dandin, George Dandin, vous avez fait une sottise la plus grande du monde" [I, 1]), at several points in the play. 171

In the theatrical sense, Dandin's threat is posed in the presence of the audience, perhaps as a request for sympathy, perhaps mere convention. But if the threat in­ deed be "convention," addressing himself while alone on the stage serves to dramatize his alienation. But the "aliena­ tion of the hero" is in itself a theatrical convention, and when the "alienated hero" is a bumpkin like Monsieur de la Dandini&re," and when his complaint is that he has been cuckolded, the soliloquy becomes a parody of the heroic soliloquy.

It is this parody of the heroic soliloquy that leads to another baroque characteristic which is also parodied in the farce. This is the idea of exaggeration. In the pastorale, Tircis and Phil&ne desire to die because of despairing love. Love is their whole existence. Nothing else in the world exists, there is no other reality.

Their very existence is only rendered "real" if ClimSne and Cloris acknowledge them with their "estime," by acknowledging them as their lovers and returning this love.

In the farce, Dandin must have been an astute busi­ nessman before his marriage in order to be able to rise to a position where he could ask for the hand of a noble­ woman. But now, all business is forgotten, and even servants such as Claudine or Lubin have no respect for him. For Dandin, "love" has become his whole existence, albeit a perversion of "love" and "estime." He informs 172

Angelique that her responsibilities are "... des noeuds

aussi v6n§rables que le sont ceux du mariage" and that

". . . le mariage est une chaine £ laquelle on doit porter 25 toute sorte de respect. . ." (II, 2). Thus, rather than the ephemeral joys of Venus, Dandin sees love and marriage

as "knots" and "chains."

Dandin in his "soliloquies" desires to die. But he has not raped, robbed, pillaged or plundered. Nor for that matter has he been raped, robbed, pillaged or plun­ dered. He has merely been "cuckolded." And for the

"astute businessman," this certainly seems a silly reason for suicide, in other words, an exaggeration. Dandin's exaggerated response to his situation is funny in itself, but the effect is doubly funny by contrast to the exag­ gerated "worship" of love in the pastorale. Dandin even 2 6 kneels in his ironic worship/apology (III, 7).

The Dandin/Angglique relationship in their marriage leads to another baroque characteristic which finds it­ self parodied in the farce. This is the love of paradox.

In the farce, Angelique gives a quick retort to Dandin who has just reminded her of her public vows:

ANGELIQUE: Moi? Je ne vous 1'ai point donnee [marriage vows] de bon coeur, et vous me l'avez arrSch^e. M'avez-vous, avant le mariage, demand^ mon consentement, et si je voulois bien de vous? Vous n'avez consult&, pour cela, que mon pfere et ma m&re; ce sont eux proprement qui vous ont 6pous£, et c'est pourquoi vous ferez bien de vous plaindre toujours A eux des torts que l'on pourra vous faire. Pour moi, qui ne vous ai point 173

dit de vous marier avec moi, et que vous avez prise sans consulter mes sentiments, je pretends n'§tre point obligee & me soumettre en esclave & vos volont^s. . . Pr6parez-vous pour votre punition.

(II, 2) Angelique is informing Dandin that it is not her but the parents whom Dandin has married. It is not her but the parents whom he desires. It is not her but the parents whom he "loves." Finally, it is not her but the parents by whom he wishes to be "recognized," to be given "estime," to 27 be treated as an equal, and to be respected.

Thus, if Dandin can convince the Sotenvilles that their daughter Angelique has wronged him, they will be forced to acknowledge him as her husband rather than merely "Monsieur Moneybags." 28 This is why, as opposed to all other cuckolds, he wants his condition to be known rather than hidden, and furthermore, he wants it to be known and acknowledged by the parents. But for Dandin, this situation also borders on paradox, for somehow, per­ haps dimly and intuitively, he must realize that by exposing Angelique, he will destroy not only her honor but also the entire aristocratic Sotenville claim to honor.

If Dandin is to win recognition by his superiors, he can 29 only do it by destroying that very superlorxty.

But his paradox must have some sort of solution, or compromise at best. The solution then is to have the

Dandin/Ang61ique/Sotenville situation continue. In other 174 words, to leave the spectator with the feeling that no,

Dandin will not commit suicide, and now that he has attempt­ ed to expose Angelique three times, there is nothing to prevent him from trying again and again and again, now that a certain pattern of circularity has been set in motion.

So too, in the pastorale, the shepherdesses define themselves as amantes courtoises only if they continue to reject the lovers, because this rejection is the very heart of the courtly tradition. The shepherds must con­ tinue to feign or attempt suicide, for that is what makes them courtly lovers in the pastorale tradition. The solution to this paradox in the pastorale is none other than the doubly shared joys of Amour and Bacchus, which may appear to be in opposition, but which are brought together symbolically in the final entree de ballet.

Thus, the promise of continuation is parodied in the promise of continuation in the farce. The celebration of love and drink becomes then the epilogue for both the pastorale and the farce, for as Francis L. Lawrence reminds us, "The Religion of Love has a perfectly conventional triumph in George Dandin where Humility, Courtesy, and 30 Adultery reign." Lawrence also notes that the mock- sacrifice of Angelique is as effective as the pseudo- drowning of the shepherd, and that Dandin's final remarks,

"Le meilleur parti qu'on puisse prendre c'est de s'aller jeter dans l'eau la tete la premiere" (III, 8 ), is merely 175 a mock bow to the suicide convention. For Dandin then

joins the festive crowd of shepherds to drown himself in 31 none other than wine as his comic entity demands.

Thus, it has been my contention that by examining the baroque characteristics of prolonged metaphors, redundancy, contrast, exaggeration, and paradox, George Dandin can be interpreted as a parodic accompaniment to a pastorale. The two are then meant to be presented together to a courtly audience, in this case, to Louis's guests at the Fete de

Versailles. I shall not, at this point, examine the history of performance post-F^te de Versailles in a manner similar to the treatment I gave Le M^decin malgrg lui. It will suffice at this point to repeat my contention that many of Moli&re's plays, and George Dandin in particular, were written for a certain audience, and in terms of theatricality, the thrust and impact of the play upon the audience as well as the theatrical conventions employed depend primarily on two factors: first, the make-up of the audience itself and secondly, whether or not, as was pointed out in the chapter on Le M^decin malgrg lui, the metteur-en-sc6ne is "un homme capable d'interroger un 32 texte et de le conunenter."

However, to avoid any assumptions that it is impossi­ ble to "modernize Moli^re," I would like to end my first section by commenting on what are perhaps the three most important modern trends in interpreting Moli^re, 176 specifically the play George Dandin. These are "Molifere the Marxist," Planchon's Dandin, and Hirsch's Dandin. In particular, these mises-en-sc&ne have been accomplished by men who have known how to "interroger un texte et de le commenter."

Of all of Molidre's plays, perhaps it is George

Dandin that can be most easily interpreted as the "class struggle" central to the hearts of Marxist critics, for the "class struggle" between Dandin, the Sotenvilles, and

Clitandre is blatantly obvious. Anna Katona, in "Molidre in Hungary: His Reputation," reports on two Moli^re per­ formances that are of special importance, for the free interpretation prepared the way for the post-194 5 perform­ ances and interpretations in predominantly Marxist- socialist countries. The Theatre du Peuple in 1937 invited the radically minded Kulturfront to Paris where they presented Dandin as a peasant in revolt who broke his bonds, thus suggesting to the audience his political resistance. In 1941, the play was performed in the open for the masses by communist actors in Budapest. It pre­ sented the title hero as a true Hungarian peasant, but such performances were then banned for political reasons.

After World War II, the first Molidre play in Hungary was

George Dandin, performed by workers as amateur performers at the J6kai Szinkdr. (An early performance at the

National Theatre, however, returned George Dandin to his 177 33 native seventeenth-century soil. )

Moli£re plays like Dandin, performed by minstrel groups wandering from village to village, came to be used as an agent in the class struggle. Katona concludes that it is this very use of MoliSre as a political tool that prevents him from achieving the cultural status of 34 Shakespeare in Marxist-socialist countries.

Thus, as Louis had used George Dandin as part of the

Fete de Versailles to eblouir, one might conclude that the

Marxist interpretations will use Dandin to convertir the people. Roger Planchon's George Dandin (Villeurbanne,

Theatre de la Cite, 1958) also emphasized the profoundly abject condition of the peasant class in France, but the condition of the seventeenth-century peasant rather than the modern one. Verbal dialogue was quite slowed, and at times reinforced by mute scenes in which large reproduc- 35 tions of paintings by Le Nain and Bourdon appeared.

Dandin's barn occupied a good deal of the stage, with extras in peasant costumes milling around. The "cote drame" of Dandin's dilemma is emphasized, especially since the music and dance divertissements have been cut. Dandin has betrayed his peasant origins by attempting to join the gentilhommerie through a mesalliance. Romero notes that critics have called this production an "admixture of the 36 styles of Antoine, Brecht, and Visconti." 178

Bernard Dortin also commented on the Planchon produc­

tion, noting that Planchon has not inherently changed the

personnages but has "typed" them theatrically by means of

costume and setting. The characters wear the seventeenth-

century costumes of their class: valet, aristocrat, or

servant girl. The farmhands come and go with their tools.

The setting consists of a court flanked by two houses.

One is Dandin's old farm-house, the other the gentil- hommerie. Dandin, torn between his old universe and the 37 universe where Angelique reigns, belongs in neither.

Jean-Paul Rousillon's production (Comedie-Frangaise,

19 70) has been called a theatrical mastery. Jacques

Le Marquet's rendering of the costumes and decor are

superb. Dandin's house is a sort of grange en biseau with an old armchair the balcony. In the background and higher up is a small blue-roofed house. The decor is

thus representative of the years that the gentilhommerie 38 watched over the peasantry.

Robert Hirsch interprets Dandin as tense, potentially violent, angry, seething with frustration, and close to a 39 nervous breakdown, quite a change from the traditional

interpretations we have come to expect from Comgdie-

Frangaise productions, and also quite a change from the

Planchon production where George Dandin was interpreted

almost as a passive victim of the class struggle. This

seething tension, as well as the missing divertissement, 179

tends to give credence to Dandin's final suicide threat.

However, the interpretation of the Sotenville couple is

interesting "comic relief." They appear stiff, over­

dressed, just like stylized marionettes walking one behind 40 the other, tapping their canes in cadence.

Returning then to the question with which I began my

section, are these interpretations "reinterpretations,"

"fresh interpretations," or "misinterpretations"? I would

again like to suggest that the "theatricality" of the

interpretations depends on both the metteur-en-sc^ne and 41 the response of the audience. Although the basic ele­ ments such as plot and theme may remain the same, other elements change with, to borrow Goldmann's terminology again, a ". . . destructuration de structurations

anciennes et structuration de totalit£s nouvelles aptes

& cr^er des £quilibres qui sauraient satisfaire aux 42 nouvelles exigences des groupes sociaux qui les Slaborent."

With this statement in mind, I would now like to turn to a discussion of the possible literary and/or dramatic sources that Molifere may have had access to for the com­ position of George Dandin. I will attempt to show that he restructured certain plots and themes for a theatrical effect as well as in a manner to best reflect the theatri­ cal exigencies of the public at the time. In the follow­ ing section, I shall not be assuming that the farce is presented together with the pastorale. 180

B. The Question of "Sources"

1. Parody: Dramatico-literary Sources and Their Use

For the theatrical elements of George Dandin, Moli&re was able to draw upon a rich heritage of the tradition of

French farce as well as the Italian theatre. Since those sources which are primarily literary have been extensively 4 3 discussed in other works, and also since it is my inten­ tion to stress the theatrical elements, I shall limit my discussion to two possible areas of literary borrowings or parodies. These will be the French medieval farce tradi­ tion and a discussion and analysis of Calmo's Rhodiana, an

Italian farce in the tradition of the commedia erudita.

a. Medieval Farce, "Lessons," and the Theme of Cuckoldry In my earlier discussion, I noted that farce, in par­ ticular medieval farce, has two sure-fire basic themes:

"le jeune paysan envoye aux Scoles" and "le mari jaloux."^

These two themes unite in George Dandin. However, as noted in my introductory chapter, both Lanson and Lebdgue, in their respective studies on Moli£re and farce, point out that the playwright in his theatrical reportoire is careful to observe both metier as well as social rapport.

This is very evident in George Dandin, where the mesalliance based on the unbreachable gulf in social rapport between the peasant and the noblewoman "justi­ fies" the "lessons" and the cuckoldry. In the first section of this chapter, I noted that

Molidre in all likelihood chose the names of the farce characters in Dandin for a comic effect, especially in relation to the contrast with the lofty and conventional names given the characters in the accompanying pastorale.

But the name "Dandin" has rapport with the farce tradition as well. Lewicka notes that the name given the young villageois sent off to school or otherwise instructed in many extant farces of the sixteenth century was tradition- 4 5 ally "Colin," which rhymes not only with "Dandin" but with "Lubin" as well. Once again, Molidre is engaging in verbal play with the names. But this time, instead of a parody of the courtly or pastoral tradition, it is a parody of early French farces. In addition, as noted in my introductory chapter, "Dandin" or "Dando" was the tra­ ditional name given the cuckolded character of the medieval and renaissance farces, a generic name. So in

"Dandin," Moliere combines not only the verbal reminis­ cences of the "villagois envoys & l'£cole," but the idea of "cuckold" as well.

Molidre's choice of the name "George Dandin" is also perhaps evocative of an early farce, M Jehan Jenin

(c. 1515), a tale of two imbeciles (one "Colinet") who believe that they are destined for the Church. They think that all they need are "mittrez" and "croces" (mitre and croix), and to scurry to "Romme," for "II ne reste 182 46 plus que le tiltre." Although Jehan Jenin in this farce is the maistre, the name is traditional and the similarity in sound serves to make "Dandin" appear even more rustic or villageois by association. Dandin, like the imbeciles, thinks that all he needs are the symbols of a station in life to give him that position: money, fine clothes, an elongated name, and a noble young wife. And just as the imbeciles aspired to the Church, Dandin aspires to a metamorphosed symbol of the Church which is none other than the aristocracy.

Thus, George Dandin is descended from the medieval farce tradition of the silly villageois as well as the cocu. After some preliminary remarks on repetition and symmetry, I shall examine the manner in which Moli&re com­ bines the four elements of lessons, cuckoldry, repetition and symmetry, four elements borrowed and expanded from the medieval farce tradition, for a theatrically comic effect in his own play.

Ren§ Bray studies the processes of structural compo­ sition, repetition, and symmetry from several theatrical viewpoints:

Les farceurs en tiraient de grandes facilit^s pour 1 1 improvisation. La construction sym^trique de deux ou plusieurs scdnes, de deux ou plusieurs parties de sc£ne, soutient ia m£moire et guide 1"invention verbale. Elle a aussi l'avantage de susciter ou de renforcer le comique, dont on sait qu'il a souvent pour ressort la rgpdtition. Enfin, elle donne un charme particulier au spectacle en flattant le sens des correspondances.47 183

With respect to the spectator, and, in Bray's terras, with respect to his "sens des correspondences," the repetitions may well remind the spectator of his own childhood experiences with tutors. Dandin is made to appear as a naughty child, thus diminishing even more any power, credibility, or authority he might have, despite the fact that it is his own wealth, astutely earned, that has saved the entire Sotenville clan from ruin.

From a purely verbal standpoint, repetitions are comical in the sense that Bergson has given it: man becomes an automaton, a machine. For after all, the Sotenvilles see Dandin not as a man but as a source of income, an object, a machine for material gain. With respect to the actors, symmetry and repetitions are of course aides- memoires, but the stichomythic possibilities afford the comgdiens an immense amount of leeway in the interpretation of the manner in which the lines are to be delivered, along with the gestures that accompany them.

Hubert suggests that MoliSre might well have entitled 48 George Dandin "L'Ecole des cocus," for Dandin obediently recites his "lessons" after Monsieur de Sotenville. But like a naughty schoolboy, he mutters asides under his breath (III, 7). Already in the opening monologue of the farce, Dandin had spoken of his dilemma as "une legon bien pariante": 184

GEORGE DANDIN: Ah! qu'une femme Demoiselle est une Strange affaire, et que mon mariage est une legon bien parlante k tous les paysans qui veulent s'Clever au-dessus de leur condition, et s'allier, comme j 'ai fait, k la maison d'un gentilhomme! (I, 1) By means of "lessons" delivered all throughout the

play, the parents hold all the power because of their

linguistic supremacy. In addition, these "lessons," which constantly interrupt the action and prevent Dandin

from making his points, present the parents as linguistic

obstacles which are for Dandin impossible to overcome 49 because of their immense verbal power. Dandin will even

be "whipped" as a naughty schoolboy by his wife while the

servant encourages her with "Apprenez k qui vous jouez"

(Claudine, II, 8 ). This "whipping" was ostensibly meant

for Clitandre, but Dandin, unable to express the truth to

the parents, becomes even the "whipping boy" of "school­

room" misbehavior.

From the moment of their arrival on stage, the

Sotenville couple begin with "lessons":

MADAME DE SOTENVILLE: Encore! Est-il possible, notre gendre, que vous sachiez si peu de votre monde, et qu'il n'y ait pas moyen de vous instruire de la manidre qu'il faut vivre parmi les personnes de quality? (I, 4) Dandin, bewildered, then asks her why if she can call him

her son-in-law, he in turn has been "reprimanded" for

calling her his mother-in-law. Madame de Sotenville

replies with another "lesson": 185

MADAME DE SOTENVILLE: II y a fort & dire, et les choses ne sont pas dgales. Apprenez, s'il vous plait, que ce n'est pas & vous & vous servir de ce mot-lk avec une personne de ma condition; que tout notre gendre que voux soyez, il y a grande difference de vous k nous, et que vous devez vous connoitre. (I, 4)

Madame de Sotenville will also instruct her husband

on proper behavior when he attempts to mitigate her

harangues to Dandin. But Sotenville is just as capable a

"lesson-giver" as his wife. Dandin has committed a breach

of etiquette in referring to his father-in-law as

"Monsieur de Sotenville" rather than the proper "Monsieur"

alone:

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Doucement, mon gendre. Apprenez qu'il n'est pas respectueux d'appeler les gens par leur nom, et qu'& ceux qui sont au-dessus de nous il faut dire "Monsieur" tout court. (I, 4)

It is exceedingly comical to observe the financially

shrewd Dandin reduced to silly schoolboy. But he accepts

the Sotenvilles' lessons on social etiquette because he

also accepts the fact that they are his social superiors.

But the next exchange plunges him into a nightmarish lin­

guistic variant of "J'enrage de bon coeur d'avoir tort,

lorsque j'ai raison" (I, 6 ). Dandin is told that his wife,

although she is indeed his wife, cannot be called "his wife":

GEORGE DANDIN: h£ bien! Monsieur tout court, et non plus Monsieur de Sotenville, j'ai k vous dire que ma femme me donne. . . 186

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Tout beau! Apprenez aussi que vous ne devez pas dire "ma femme" quand vous parlez de notre fille.

GEORGE DANDIN: Comment? ma femme n'est pas ma femme?

MADAME DE SOTENVILLE: Ou, notre gendre, elle est votre femme; mais il ne vous est pas permis de l'appeler ainsi, c'est tout ce que vous pourriez faire, si vous aviez 6pous£ une de nos pareilles. (I, 4)

This particular exchange is exceedingly comical from the purely verbal point of view as well as because of the fact that it parodies and continues the farce tradition of the "lesson." But it is also nightmarish, for it repre­ sents nominalism in reverse: it is not only that things are not what they seem, but they cannot even be given a name, posing a dilemma for the seventeenth-century platonic mind and. reason. 50

But in any event, Dandin is thwarted in verbalizing his complaints because he is constantly being instructed in how to say anything. Ironically, in the same scene that Dandin has been informed that he cannot call his mother-in-law his mother-in-law, his father-in-law by name, and he cannot call his wife his wife, he is reminded of the advantages that he has reaped by marrying into the noble family that he cannot even address. His own name is no longer "George Dandin," but "Monsieur de la Dandini&re."

But Dandin does "learn" something from the Soten- villes. He learns to flaunt his own family heritage when 187 he confronts Angelique with her marital lacunae;

GEORGE DANDIN: Je le sais fort bien, moi, et vos m^pris me sont connus. Si je ne suis pas n£ noble, au moins suis-je d'une race 0 C1 il n'y a point de reproche; et la famille des Dandin . . . (II, 2) But Dandin is no lesson-giver. Angelique refuses to be taught, and curtly informs him that the Dandin family will just have to "learn" to get used to the new state of affairs. Angelique even turns the confrontation into a lesson of her own and instructs Dandin that he should learn to play the part of an "honnete homme qui est bien aise de voir sa femme considdrde" (II, 2).

In the first act, Dandin had been made to learn the lessons of social behavior by the Sotenvilles. In this same act, he will be made to "recite." Not only must he recite after Monsieur de Sotenville an apology to the poseur Clitandre, but a series of humiliating gestures must accompany this "recitation." He must remove his hat.

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Votre bonnet k la main, le premier: Monsieur est gentilhomme, et vous ne l'§tes pas. GEORGE DANDIN: J'enrage. MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: RdpStez aprSs moi: "Monsieur." GEORGE DANDIN: "Monsieur." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: (Il voit que son gendre fait difficult^ de lui obdir.) "Je vous demande pardon." Ah! GEORGE DANDIN: "Je vous demande pardon." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "Des mauvaises pens^es que j 'ai eues de vous." GEORGE DANDIN: "Des mauvaises pens^es que j'ai eues de vous." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "C'est que je n'avois pas l'honneur de vous connoitre." 188

GEORGE DANDIN: "C'est que je n'avois pas l'honneur de vous connoltre." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "Et je vous prie de croire." GEORGE DANDIN: "Et je vous prie de croire." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "Que se suis votre serviteur."

At this point, Dandin the naughty schoolboy misbehaves and demands:

GEORGE DANDIN: Voulez-vous que je sois serviteur d'un homme qui me veut faire cocu? MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: (II le menace encore.) Ah! (I, 6 )

Then Sotenville the schoolmaster threatens to "whip" the naughty schoolboy.

In Act II, the Sotenvilles have again been summoned by Dandin. He has apparently "learned" that he himself cannot instruct by way of speech, so he will attempt to give them a "lesson by demonstration," for he wishes them to observe that Clitandre is in his very own house. But from the moment of their arrival, the Sotenvilles are again more interested in continuing their own "speech lessons":

. GEORGE DANDIN: Non, Madame; mais je voudrois bien me d§faire d'une femme qui me deshonore. MADAME DE SOTENVILLE: Jour de Dieu! notre gendre, apprenez h parler. MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Corbleu! Cherchez des termes moins offensants que ceux-l&. GEORGE DANDIN: Marchand qui perd ne peut rire. (II, 7) It is evident from Dandin's remark that he cannot

"learn" the language of the nobility that his in-laws are trying to hammer into him, for he continues in terms of the marchand. The flavor of his speech will always 189 render him not only the "bad boy" but a lower-class bumpkin-merchant intent upon returning "damaged goods."

The final confrontation and "lessons" take place in the final scenes of the farce. During the first act,

Dandin had been forced to remove his bonnet (dunce cap?) while apologizing to Clitandre. But now the ultimate in­ jury is that he is forced to kneel at the feet of the perfidious Angelique and repeat another forced and unjust apology:

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Nous y donnerons ordre. Allons, mettez-vous A genoux. GEORGE DANDIN: A genoux? MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Oui, & genoux, et sans tarder. GEORGE DANDIN: (II se met A genoux.) 0 Ciel! Que faut-il dire? MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "Madame, je vous prie de me pardonner." GEORGE DANDIN: "Madame, je vous prie de me pardonner." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "L 'extravagance que j'ai faite." GEORGE DANDIN: "L'extravagance que j'ai faite" (& part) de vous gpouser. MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: "Et je vous promets de mieux vivre A l'avenir." GEORGE DANDIN: "Et je vous promets de mieux vivre A l'avenir." MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Prenez-y garde, et sachez que c'est ici la derniAre de vos impertinences que nous souffrirons. MADAME DE SOTENVILLE: Jour de Dieu! si vous y retournez, on vous apprendra le respect que vous devez A votre femme, et A ceux de qui elle sort. (Ill, 7)

Dandin at the end of the farce is reduced to the reprimanded and defeated dunce. But nonetheless, Dandin is a married schoolboy. In one of the most well-known 190 51 medieval farces, Le Cuvier, the wife is the character who gives the "lessons" to the husband, lessons which are seconded upon the arrival of the mother-in-law, and which the husband is, as in George Dandin, forced to repeat.

These "lessons" all have to do with "household chores" that the wife assigns the husband. As he repeats them, he must also note them in his little book, his r6let. During the course of the day, the wife bends too far over the washtub and tumbles in. The tub is so deep, and the weight of the wife's wet clothes so great that she cannot extri­ cate herself from the tub, even with the help of her mother. She demands that her husband pull her out. He refuses, because he claims that it is not among the list of chores that he has been assigned. To each insistence of mother or daughter, the husband replies, "Ce n'est pas & mon rolet." Finally, when the wife is on the verge of drowning in the tub, it is he who makes her recite and promise to do all the chores that she originally made him promise to do. He then pulls her out of the tub, but only now that she has recognized him as head of the household.

While the techniques of "lesson-giving" and repetition are similar to those employed in George Dandin, there is an essential difference in the motive. In Le Cuvier, as well as many other medieval farces that had marital rela­ tionships for themes, the repetition and symmetry serve as a dramatization of the "tit-for-tat" power struggle in a 191 marriage. Moli&re used this "tit-for-tat" technique in Le

Mddecin malgrd lui: Martine was beaten by Sganarelle, so

now she will arrange to have him beaten in turn. But in

Dandin, although the marital power struggle remains, not

only can Dandin never win, he can never even get ahead.

Dandin will never get ahead because he has contracted

a mesalliance, and thus has become a parody of the mal- marie, a theme common in medieval farces. One of the best known was De deux hommes et leurs deux femmes dont l'une a 52 malle teste, et l 1autre est tendre de cul. In this

farce, two men are debating: is it better to have a faith­

ful but shrewish wife or a sweet but unfaithful one? Since

they cannot come to any agreement, they decide that each will visit the other's house, hide under the table, and observe what goes on. At the first house, the shrewish wife beats her husband and is nasty with him in every way.

The two men then go over to the other household. As they are approaching the front of the house, already a lover is slipping out the back. But the wife greets her husband warmly, and is kind and sweet with him in every way. The men conclude that since women are all either faithful shrews or sweet wenches, it is still preferable to have the wayward wench, for even if one is cuckolded, one will not be beaten.

But Angelique is both wives in one. Not only is she very curt and unpleasant with Dandin, she is unfaithful 192 53 as well. And not only that, she even beats him.

Ironically, then, despite all the Sotenville family's noble pretensions, Ang^lique is acting exactly like a

character from a farce or fabliau.

But although some of the comic techniques in medieval

farces and Moli&re's farces are similar, the decidedly misogynistic thrust of many medieval works has been (par­

ticularly in Dandin) transformed into a class struggle,

thereby giving some basis for the recent Marxist inter­ pretations discussed earlier. In addition, the lover in many early farces (as well as in many fabliaux, as noted

in the discussion on Le Vilain mire) was often a priest.

In Dandin, it is a nobleman. But in any event, it gives

a farceur license to mock a symbol of authority without

too much fear of reprisal.

But the fact remains that we have no conclusive evi­ dence that Moli&re was directly influenced by any particular farces, although scholars such as Lancaster, as well as

Lebdgue in "Moli&re et la farce," enumerate several possi­ ble sources. Like his predecessors, Lanson and Bray, and as I noted in my introductory chapter, Leb&gue found similarities in structures, subjects, characters, and sketches, but tended toward the theory that Molidre was more influenced by the commedia and the Italian theatrical tradition. 193

b. Calmo's Rhodiana and the Influence of Boccaccio

Keeping in mind that MoliSre was first and foremost

an "homme de th^ttre" and not so much an "homme de

litt^rature," it would be fruitless in a study of theatri­

cality to attempt to research obscure points of bibliog­

raphy in order to assert that Molidre had such and such

literary work in his library, and this literary work was

in turn the probable source of such and such a scene. We

can, however, work intertextually and determine the extent

to which Molidre may have reworked certain elements, or

even entire plays in his own repertoire. La Jalousie du

Barbouill£^ for example, is commonly accepted as the pre- 54 liminary sketch for George Dandin. I will examine this

play in more detail in my section on self-parody.

But at this point, it is necessary to establish that

La Jalousie du Barbouilld has many elements borrowed from

the commedia de 11' ar te. It is almost impossible, however,

to work intertextually with extant copies of commedia

dell1 arte works, as these plays were, for the most part, merely sketched. The commedia dell'arte, however, took many of its sketches from the commedia erudita. In gen­ eral, these were more literary comedies, and there are

several hundred such plays still extant. These "literary"

comedies, in turn, often borrowed plots or scenes or various other elements from purely literary works, such as

Boccaccio's tales. 55 194

The above discussion demonstrates the difficulty in

asserting that a particular work, especially one that may

have had roots in the Italian dramatico-literary tradi­

tion, was a source for a play by Molidre. Alfred Mortier,

in "Un Ancetre italien de George Dandin," suggests that

Andr£ Calmo's Rhodiana, Act IV, scene 8, was a source and

inspiration for the locking out and reversal Angdlique/

Dandin scene in George Dandin but he more or less tends to

assume a possible indirect inspiration. Mortier suggests

that Dandin was inspired by Barbouill6, which was in turn

inspired by pieces from the commedia dell'arte which, in

turn often borrowed from the commedia erudita, which may 56 have borrowed from the Italian literary tradition.

Nevertheless, let us examine the Rhodiana (IV, 8) so

that we may contrast and compare the manner in which

Molifere, if indeed he was inspired by this scene, reworked

the elements for his own theatre. The Rhodiana is a five-

act comedy with a very complex plot. It dates from about

1540. The locked out husband scene is an accessory, not the culmination of the plot as in George Dandin. The

character of the husband is also quite different.

Dandin's sin seems to be vain social climbing that came

to an imprudent end. The husband in La Rhodiana is an elderly Venetian lawyer, rather repugnant, who has wed the young and pretty F6licit£. 195

Act IV, scene 8, like its counterpart in Dandin, is

also played at night. Like Dandin, there also seems to be

a verbal play with the names: "Cornelio" suggests "horns"

(cornes). "F§licit6" suggests "happiness." Both Dandin

and Cornelio are awarded the cuckold's horns. Neither

Ang^lique (who has very little of the "heavenly spirit" in

her character) nor F61icit£ are experiencing (or offering )

marital bliss.

Cornelio has contacted a procuress to obtain for him

the favors of the young and pretty Beatrice. While he is

singing a grotesque ballad beneath Beatrice's window, a cat

jumps from the balcony and lands on his head. Cornelio is

so frightened that he drops his guitar and scurries home.

F^licitd, too, has been trysting, but she was unable

to meet her lover. Returning home early, she finds that

Cornelio has gotten there first and locked her out. She

begs to be let in, but he only retorts with obscene name- calling and vicious and brutal threats. When Cornelio

remains obdurate, F61icit£ pretends to throw herself in

the river. Cornelio then calls to the servant girl for a net and runs out to save her. F6licit6 meanwhile slips back in and locks him out. Cornelio, who has not noticed her, is cursing that F6licit£, whom he cannot find in the

river, has defied him even in death. But soon his anger

turns to fear, for when F£licit£'s death is made public, everyone will think that he drowned her so that he would be 196 free to pursue Beatrice. He soon realizes that it is now he who is the one locked out, and he begins to curse again.

By the end of the play, several other persons have entered the story and convinced F6licit6 to forgive her old husband. She finally relents, but warns her husband that if he persists in his jealousy, she will punish him in the way that he deserves to be punished. Cornelio agrees that if he is ever again jealous, F61icit6 may have his permission to put him up for auction so that his limbs may be confiscated by the community. The play ends with the comment that F^licitd can now cuckold her old husband in peace.

Mortier in his article suggests that MoliSre did not directly imitate or borrow any language or dialogue. For one, Calmo's comedies, as well as many comedies of the commedia dell'arte, are pluridialectal. Cornelio's part, for example, is in a Venetian dialect. But Mortier does claim that the general theme and tone as well as the verve displayed in the acting was a source of inspiration 57 for Molidre.

This theme and tone is really closer to Barbouillfe than Dandin, especially with regard to the cursing. By the time of Dandin, MoliSre has refined his comedy which is no longer meant for the campagne but for la cour.

Dandin wants to smash his wife's face "S la compote" and calls her a "crocodile" several times, but there is not 197 more. Dandin's language is not polished and sophisticated for it is the language of the marchand. But completely gone is the cursing for cursing's sake which functions almost as a fantaisie verbale both in the commedia (al­ though in general the French audience understood neither the Italian nor the dialects) and Molidre's early works.

A final important point with regard to the language will again demonstrate the importance of the rapport be­ tween writer (or metteur-en-sc^ne) and public. Calmo was writing a commedia erudita for a more or less reasonably educated and sophisticated public. But we must remember that the public of 1540 lived in a much more brutal age than that of Moli&re's 1668, hence, Molidre's more polished language.

Mortier asserts that the Rhodiana was directly inspired by Boccaccio's Decameron, specifically the fourth 58 tale of the seventh day, the story of Ghita and Tofano. 59 In this tale, Tofano is very jealous of his beautiful wife Ghita, and to punish him for his jealousy, she takes 6 0 a lover. So that Tofano will not notice her nocturnal adventures, she makes sure that he is drunk every night, but soon Tofano begins to get suspicious, and one night he only pretends to be drunk. When Ghita returns from a visit with her lover, she finds herself locked out. When

Tofano is adamant about letting her in, she threatens suicide but throws a rock in the well. When Tofano comes 198

out to investigate (for fear that Ghita has thrown herself

in the well), she slips back in the house. A loud argu­ ment ensues, Ghita's enraged relatives overhear, hurry

over, beat Tofano, and take her home with them. But

Tofano is so lonely for his wife that he begs her to return,

informing her that she is free to do as she pleased, so

long as he does not know about it.

On closer examination, however, it seems that the

elements common to all, the Rhodiana, Boccaccio's tale,

George Dandin (and as we shall see, La Jalousie du

Barbouill£) are the marital discord, the wife's lover, the

reversal in the person locked out, and the feigned suicide.

But it seems that of all the husbands, Dandin least merits

C. "I his predicament. His sin of social climbing is not the same as the infidelity of Cornelio of the Rhodiana.

Although he is accused of drunkenness by his mother-in-

law, he is not at all the habitual drunkard of Boccaccio's

tale. Other then insensitivity, a fault which he apparent­

ly cannot help, he did not deliberately harm Ang§lique.

If indeed Molidre was inspired by any such Italian sources, he very much refined them in terms of biens^ances, while

at the same time he simplified the plots. But by doing so, his character Dandin takes on elements of the passive vic­ tim (albeit a buffoonish victim) and it is perhaps this element that a modern metteur-en-scene such as Planchon has

exploited. 199

In summary, regarding Molidre's possible Italian borrowings from the literary standpoint for George Dandin, we can theorize that the borrowings were probably closer to his preliminary sketch, La Jalousie du Barbouill6 in theme, tone, and style. Molidre then probably reworked not the Italian source itself, but rather his own early play. Let us now examine this early farce.

2. Self-parody

a. Molidre's Preliminary Sketch; La Jalousie du Barbouill^

Throughout his career, Moli^re engaged in self-parody.

As I noted in my introductory chapter, Alvin Eustis in particular in Molifere as Ironic Contemplator stresses that the playwright's entire theatrical repertoire was parodic. Regarding the theatrical convention of mono­ logues, Eustis remarks, "After certain denouements parody is most readily apparent in the monologues with which

Molidre has sprinkled his plays. Essentially a device of the serious theatre whereby an author can reveal a char­ acter's dilemma or the depths of his despair, the mono­ logue in Molifere serves as a parody of those purposes and shows at the same time a character's unconscious absurdity or selfishness." Specifically regarding Barbouill6,

Eustis continues: "The first scene of Moliere's earliest play, Barbouilld's monologue with its mock tragic tone, is already a striking example because of its combination of 200 6 2 pathos, unconscious egotism, and obscenity."

Although I feel Eustis is correct in assuming that

there are parodic elements in all of Moli£re's theatre,

the mock heroic is not nearly so strong an element in 6 3 Barbouillg as it is in Dandin. Barbouillg's opening monologue could just as easily be labeled a case of crude reasoning mixed with the theatrical necessity of informing the spectators of the plot of the play. Let us begin by contrasting the two opening monologues:

LE BARBOUILLE: II faut avouer que je suis le plus malheureux de tous les hommes. J'ai une femme qui me fait enrager: au lieu de me donner du soulagement et de faire les choses h mon souhait, elle me fait donner au diable vingt fois le jour; au lieu de se tenir A la maison, elle aime la promenade, la bonne ch£re, et frequente je ne sais quelle sorte de gens. Ah! pauvre Barbouille, que tu es miserable. 11 faut pourtant la punir. Si je la tuois. . . . L'invention ne vaut rien, car tu serois pendu. Si tu la faisois mettre en prison. . . . La carogne en sortiroit avec son passe-partout. Que diable faire, done? Mais voilS Monsieur le Docteur qui passe par ici: II faut que je lui demande un bon conseil sur ce que je dois faire. (scene 1)

Let us contrast this with Dandin:

GEORGE DANDIN: Ah! qu'une femme Demoiselle est une Strange affaire, et que mon mariage est une legon bien parlante A tous les paysans qui veulent s'Clever au-dessus de leur condition, et s'allier, comme j'ai fait, A la maison d'un gentilhomme! La noblesse de soi est bonne. C'est une chose conside­ rable assurgment. . . j'aurois bien mieux fait, tout riche que je suis, de m'allier en bonne et franche paysannerie, que de prendre une femme qui se tient au-dessus de moi, s'offense de porter mon nom, et pense qu'avec tout mon bien je n'ai pas assez achetg la qualitg de son mari. George Dandin, 201

George Dandin, vous avez fait une sottise la plus grande du xnonde. Ma maison m'est effroyable maintenant, et je n'y rentre point sans y trouver quelque chagrin. (I, 1)

Rather than having a true mock-tragic tone,

Barbouille's monologue tends to impress as merely the vehicle by which the spectators are introduced to the back­ ground of the story, much as an op^rateur or narrator would describe what has happened before the curtain opens. In addition, it sets the stage for the entry of the loquacious

"Docteur" of the farce, a pedantic faux-savant. In George

Dandin, however, the entry of Lubin, which immediately follows Dandin's opening monologue, serves as an interrup­ tion to Dandin's lament. Lubin is not an aid to Dandin, as Barbouille hopes the doctor to be. Rather, he is an aid to Clitandre, and an obstacle for Dandin. A quick review of Barbouille will also indicate that this is the 64 only monologue for this character. Dandin has several monologues throughout the entire play, and the tone of each and every monologue is much higher than the crude expres­ sions and reasonings of Barbouille.

In both plays, the fathers are ready to disown the daughters if indeed they are guilty of infidelity:

GORGIBUS: Je d^donne au diable 1'escarcelle^ si vous l'aviez fait, [to Angeiique] (Barbouille, scene 5)

In George Dandin, rather than a simple infidelity, a point of honor is at stake. Monsieur de Sotenville is only 202 slightly less closed-minded than his wife, and is more willing to give Dandin the benefit of the doubt. But his concern is not dictated by love for his daughter nor respect for his son-in-law, but rather by a concern for the estime of the Sotenville family— the "honneur de la famille" must not be breached:

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Oui: 1'honneur de notre famille nous est plus cher que toute autre chose, et si vous dites vrai, nous la renoncerons pour notre sang, et 1'abandonnerons & votre coldre. (II, 7) Both Barbouille and Dandin search for witnesses.

Barbouille uses a purely theatrical device of turning to the audience:

LE BARBOUILLfi: Je me donne au diable si j'ai sorti de la maison, et demandez plutdt k ces Messieurs qui sont lA-bas dans le parterre; c'est elle qui ne fait que de revenir. Ah! que l 1innocence est opprimfee! (scene 12)

Dandin the "isolated" hero, however, only addresses him­ self as the "other," and the witnesses he requires are none other than the parents, for as we noted earlier, it is the parents who can confer his very "existence" on him:

GEORGE DANDIN: II me faut de ce pas aller faire mes plaintes au p&re et k la mdre et les rendre t£moins, k telle fin que de raison, des sujets de chagrin et de ressentiment que leur fille me donne. . . (I, 3) But it is not only the parents, it is divinity, God him­ self who is to bear witness to Dandin's "tragedy." 203

GEORGE DANDIN: . . . 0 Ciel, seconde mes desseins, et m'accorae la grSce de faire voir aux gens que l'on me d^shonnore." (II/ 8)

As we noted, Barbouille's witnesses can only be the campagnards in the parterre for whom this farce was originally intended. Dandin's witnesses are those beings who confer existence itself.

In Le Barbouille, wife and lover complain about the husband, but the tone and style is "country farce."

ANGfDLIQUE: Monsieur, je vous assure que vous m'obligez beaucoup de me tenir quelquefois compagnie: mon mari est si mal b£ti, si debauche, si ivrogne, que ce m'est un supplice d'etre avec lui, et je vous laisse S. penser quelle satisfac­ tion on peut avoir d'un rustre comme lui.

VALERE: Mademoiselle, vous me faites trop d'honneur de me vouloir souffrir . . . puisque vous temoignez que me compagnie ne vous est point desagr£able, je vous ferai connoitre combien j'ai de joie de la bonne nouvelle que vous m'apprenez, par mes empressements. (scene 3)

The tone of the language employed by Ang^lique and

Clitandre in George Dandin, however, is much more clearly a parody of the noble style of tragedy:

[Ang§lique and Clitandre are exchanging parting words.]

CLITANDRE: H£lasl de quel coup me percez-vous l'cime lorsque vous parlez de vous retirer, et avec combien de chagrins m'allez-vous laisser maintenant?

ANGELIQUE: Nous trouverons moyen de nous revoir.

CLITANDRE: Oui! mais je songe qu'en me quittant, vous allez trouver un mari. Cette pensee m'assassine, et les privileges qu'ont les maris 204

sont des choses cruelles pour un amant qui aime bien.

ANG^LIQUE: Serez-vous assez fort pour avoir cette inquietude, et pensez-vous qu'on soit capable d 1aimer de certains maris qu'il y a? On les prend, parce qu'on ne s'en peut d^fendre, et que l 1on depend des parents qui n'ont des yeux que pour le bien! Mais on sait leur rendre justice et l 1on se moque fort de les consid^rer au-delS de ce qu'ils mdritent. (Ill, 5)

The two farces, La Jalousie de Barbouille and George

Dandin both dramatize marital discord, quarrels, unfaithful wives, and locking out and reversal scenes. There is a

great deal of similarity in not only the plot but in the various roles, i.e., husband, lover, wife, parents. But in

comparison I have just made, it is quite obvious that the entire tone of each farce is quite different. Barbouille

is much more reminiscent of the Italian commedia and even

the brutal frankness of Boccaccio. Dandin in tone is much

closer to the true "mock-heroic," for again, it is not so much the subject matter as the treatment that determines

the generic register. In this sense, I feel that critics

such as Eustis err in claiming that Barbouille and other early farces already are examples of the "mock heroic."

Rather, I feel that Molidre did indeed rework the basic plot, but I might suggest that he reworked it simply be­

cause it was already available, it worked, it was funny,

and furthermore, the seventeenth century did not neces­

sarily esteem originality and newness to the extent that 205 our own century esteems it. Moli^re also kept the same general number and distribution of characters. But again, this is just as easily attributed to a practical necessity:

Moli^re normally gave every one of his actors or actresses a role in almost every play, for otherwise they would be idle and perhaps not entitled to a share in the receipts.

Furthermore, it is my contention that the tone has been dramatically altered for two basic reasons. The first is the theory that has been stressed throughout this chapter, that Moli^re meant this farce of George Dandin to be played for a courtly audience, which is a far cry from the audiences for which he played Barbouille in the provinces with his Illustre Theatre. But MoliSre can play a certain subject, in this case "cuckoldry” for the enter­ tainment of a courtly audience just as well as he can titillate the audience at the Palais Royal with scatologi­ cal humor in Le Mgdecin malgrg lui, so long as Bray's biens£ance externe and biens^ance interne are respected.

There is also a second reason. Let us not forget that over a decade separates the composition of Barbouille from the composition of George Dandin. In this interim period, Moli&re's fortune and reputation have grown by leaps and bounds in Parisian circles. He regularly plays the tragedies of Corneille and other playwrites together 6 5 with his own pieces as part of his theatrical repertoire.

He has already produced several plays which are considered 206 his "grandes comedies." He himself has memorized and played thousand of lines of tragedy as well as mock-heroic. It is thus possible to claim that Molidre, in refining and reworking Dandin, can draw on this vast storehouse of experience, either consciously or subconsciously, and thus produce a "parody" which emerges as not only a "self­ parody" of his own theatrical repertoire, but a parody of the heroic register as well. This effect is most evident in his plays in which there is, to borrow the terminology of Robert J. Nelson, an "unreconstructed hero," or one who 6 6 either cannot or will not change, adjust, or repent. b. Moli^re's "Unreconstructed Heroes"

It is generally accepted, that tragedy, through pity and fear, together with the notion of catharsis, allows audience identification with the tragic hero. But in comedy, there can be no such sense of identification, for that would destroy the "superior view" that the audience holds which permits that audience to laugh at what would 6 7 otherwise be true misfortunes. It is my contention that the audience was meant to accept the farce figure of Dandin as pure fun, and not to identify with him, nor to feel any emotion regarding his predicament, just as the audience was meant to feel superior to the character of Arnolphe in

L'Ecole des femmes, who in his own way, is as much a figure of farce as Dandin. 207

It is interesting to note that L'Ecole des femmes and

George Dandin, of all of the plays in Molidre's repertoire, have most often posed a critical dilemma: are they "come­ dies," tragedies," or perhaps "burlesque tragedies"? I would like to demonstrate that these two plays are paro- 6 8 dies of tragedies. Secondly, both the "heroes" remain

"unreconstructed" in the sense that Nelson has given the

term, and they remain "unreconstructed" because both are

"victims" of theatricality. In other words, the other characters, the props, situations and similar theatrical devices do not allow them any sort of change. Thirdly, since many of the theatrical devices that function as obstacles for Arnolphe reappear in one way or another in

George Dandin, the latter functions as a parody of L'Ecole des femmes (and we recall that it has been suggested that the play could just as well have been called L'Ecole des 69 cocus), in other words, a parody of a parody.

Alain and Georgette, the servant characters in L'Ecole des femmes seem to be early prototypes of Claudine and

Lubin in George Dandin. Ironically, it is the servant characters which acquaint us with the "tragic flaw" of

Arnolphe and Dandin: jealousy. Alain explains it to

Georgette in II, 3:

ALAIN: C'est que la jalousie . . . entends-tu bien Georgette, . . Dis-moi, n'est-il pas vrai, quand tu tiens ton potage, 208

Que si quelque affam£ venoit pour en manger, Tu serois en colSre, et voudrois le charger? . . . La femme est en effet le potage de l 1homme; Et quand un homme voit d'autres hommes parfois Qui veulent dans sa soupe tremper leurs doigts, II en montre aussitot une coldre extreme. (II, 3) In II, 1, of George Dandin, Claudine has some pertinent remarks of her own for Lubin:

CLAUDINE: Voila comme il faut faire pour n'§tre point tromp§. Lorsqu'un mari se met & notre discretion, nous ne prenons de liberty que ce qu'il nous en faut, et il en est comme avec ceux qui nous ouvrent leur bourse et nous disent: "Prenez." Nous en usons honnetement, et nous nous contentons de la raison. Mais ceux qui nous chicanent, nous nous efforgons de les tondre, et nous ne les £pargnons point. (II, 1) There is, however, a progression in terms of dramatic composition from L'Ecole des femmes to Dandin. Alain merely explains the phenomenon of cuckoldry in burlesque terms, but Claudine indoctrinates. But her description of the way in which Lubin is to award her total freedom is not only a burlesque treatment of the subject, but parody of the Ang^lique/Dandin rapport as well.

In both plays, the description of the "tragic flaw" is coming from the mouth of a burlesque servant character.

In the first play, it is in terms of the kitchen. In the second, in terms of the marketplace. Both these descrip­ tions then serve the purpose of lowering the standing of the protagonist Arnolphe or Dandin in the eyes of the spectators. One of the most effective theatrical devices in

George Dandin are the scenes in which Lubin reveals all to Dandin in his own blundering way. Dandin must then be witness to his own betrayal, and pretend that he knows nothing, so that Lubin will unwittingly continue to be his informant (I, 2; II, 5; III, 3). This same strategem/ theatrical device had already been very effectively used in

L'Ecole des femmes in the scenes where the young lover

Horace unwittingly told all to Arnolphe (I, 4; III, 4;

V, 2). But Horace at least had the excuse that because of the change of name, he did not realize that Monsieur de la

Souche and Arnolphe were one and the same. Lubin in his manner of revelations is just a complete oaf, and to be thus "betrayed" by an oaf diminishes Dandin even more in status. With Lubin as a betrayer, only at best is Dandin a burlesque tragic hero.

In II, 5, of George Dandin, Lubin is angry at Dandin, whom he still does not recognize as the "mari cocu." In

I, 2, Lubin had revealed all to Dandin, but made him promise not to tell anyone. Lubin cannot understand how the "mari" discovered the infidelities of Ang£lique and

Clitandre. Lubin then threatens not to tell Dandin any more details or that Clitandre is in his house while telling him just that: 210

LUBIN: Point d 1affaire. Vous voudriez que je vous dise que Monsieur le Vicomte vient de donner de 1'argent & Claudine, et qu'elle l'a menS chez sa maitresse. Mais je ne suis pas si b§te. (II, 5) Dandin, while dealing with an idiot, learns that ironically

he himself is being bested by money. As Dandin had

"bought" Angdlique, Clitandre is now "buying" the ser-

vant.4 . 70

In III, 3, Dandin is once again ridiculed, for he is mistaken for a woman, a servant girl, by this same imbe­

cile. Lubin is struggling in the dark, and thinks that he

is conversing with Claudine. When Lubin attempts to kiss

the hand he thinks is Claudine's he gets a rude punch in the face, but he still thinks it is Claudine:

LUBIN: . . . Allons, suivons-les [Ang^lique and Clitandre], et me donne ta petite menotte que je la baise. Ah! que cela est doux! (Comme il baise la main de Dandin, Dandin la lui pousse rudement au visage.) Tubleu: comme vous y allez! Voili. une petite menotte qui est un peu bien rude. (Ill, 3)

In V, 2 of L'Ecole des femmes, Horace and Agnds are in the process of eloping, but Horace must find a temporary shelter for her so that "Monsieur de la Souche" will not find her while he (Horace) finishes some business. He takes

Agnfes to Arnolphe and, placing her hand in Arnolphe's, asks him to watch over her. Ironically, then, Horace steals

Agnes's hand, then gives it back for safekeeping to the very person he stole it from. 211 71 But if hands betray, so do houses. For Dandin and

Arnolphe, "A man's home is not his castle." Lubin's revelations indicate to Dandin that his house has been invaded by his rival. Later in the play, Dandin will once again find himself betrayed by this prop, this house, for he will even be locked out by Ang^lique. Horace's revela­ tions, too, indicate to Arnolphe that his house has been invaded, and Arnolphe is later asked to betray himself by hiding Agn&s in the house from which she had been carried off.

The "blows" to these burlesque heroes also occur in relationship to the house. In I, 2, of L'Ecole des femmes,

Arnolphe wishes to enter while Georgette and Alain engage in a long quarrel, in the farce tradition, about who should open the door. When the exasperated Arnolphe finally threatens to starve the one who does not open, the two servants then fight for the privilege of opening the door, with the result that poor Arnolphe is accidentally struck by Alain in the melee. But Arnolphe does not fall to the ground. In George Dandin, II, 4, Dandin is calling for his servant Colin. In the dark, the two keep missing each other until finally they collide, and Dandin is knocked to the ground. Dandin, then, by means of this theatrical gesture, is obviously defeated in the eyes of the audience.

Cuckolded by his wife, lectured to by his in-laws, out­ witted by the servant girl, forced to deal with an oaf of 212 a valet, and knocked to the ground in front of his home, no wonder he exclaims: "Ma maison m'est effroyable maintenant. . (I, 1). This character who cannot be master of himself, of others or even the props, cannot be a tragic hero.

At best, Dandin is a parody of a tragic hero, but he remains a buffoon, and as such, a victim of a theatrical notion of existence inherited from the farce tradition, from the inherent theatrical cruelty of the commedia, and from Molidre's own collection of burlesque heroes. And not only is Dandin the victim of this theatrical tradi­ tion, he is also a victim of a dramatized, absurd dream­ world that becomes, nightmare. And this nightmare is all the result of a misbegotten marriage. But even this leads to a paradox: is marriage itself absurd, and if not, why would Moli^re entrust the defense of marriage, even the theatrical defense of marriage, to a buffoon?

C. Theatrum Mundi

1. The Dreamworld: An Absurd Nightmare

In George Dandin, the play is a dream analogue, and

Dandin has his role in an anxiety dream in which he is repeatedly forced to play the scapegoat in a world peopled by fools who live in a world turned upside down, a looking- glass world where illusion and self-delusion reign as reality. Disguise and deceit are everywhere, but it seems 213 obvious that Dandin is incapable of exposing it. The play,

George Dandin, then becomes "dramatized frustration."

In Dandin's nightmarish dreamworld, such dramatized frustrations are immediately obvious. They first occur in 72 the scenes m which the theme of blindness is evident.

The Sotenvilles at each of their three appearances, once at the end of each act, cannot see Ang^lique's dishonorable actions because they are too blinded by their self-imposed emphasis on their own honor, despite Dandin's "Il me faut . . . les rendre t^moins" (I, 3), ". . . quelque chose que je puisse voir moi-meme de mon d^shonneur, je ne serai point cru h mon serment, et l'on me dira que je r§ve. . ."

(Ill, 6), and "0 Ciel . . . m'accorde la grSce de faire voir aux gens que l'on me d^shonnore" (II, 8). Dandin is incapable of making them "see" anything.

Ang€lique claims that she wants to ". . . voir un peu le beau monde, et goQter le plaisir de m'ouir dire des douceurs" (II, 2) (emphasis mine). But she cannot "see" that the "beau monde" created by Clitandre is merely illu­ sion, and that she is being used. So too, Dandin attempts to put an end to this, albeit for his own selfish pur­ poses, but he cannot. Lubin, in each of the three acts is so stupid he cannot "see" anything and is hardly worthy of mention.

Dramatically, this theme of lucidity versus blindness culminates in the third act which takes place in darkness. 214

Dandin has been the most "lucid" figure in the entire play,

but as the scapegoat figure of the dreamworld, he is doomed

to eternal, repetitive frustration in the "dreams" and

"illusions" of honor created by the Sotenvilles, control­

ling neither his own dreams nor his own world.

Dandin's frustrations occur because not only can he not make others "see" the truth, he cannot make them "hear"

the truth either. Dandin is thwarted in his attempts to

tell the parents about his dishonor, for not only are they

too busy with their "speech lessons," but they constantly

emphasize form over content in their insistence on seeing only what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear to the point of absurdity. Curiously, Furetidre's

Dictionnaire Universel (1690) defined the seventeenth- century notion of the word absurde as follows: "Ce mot vient du Latin surdus. On voudroit estre sourd pour ne pas entendre les choses ridicules. En Grec, Ridicule se 73 dit asymphonos, comme d^plaisant & l'oreille."

As Carlo Frangois points out in La Notion de l'absur- ✓ de dans la littdrature frangaise du XVIIe si^cle, accord­ ing to the contemporary "authorities" on seventeenth- century language (Furetifere, Richelet, and the Acad§mie

Frangaise), the concept of the absurd took on two parallel but distinct meanings. The first referred to its use in logic or dialectic by philosophers, savants, thinkers, and purists of language to indicate that which was impossible, 215 a contradiction, something opposed to reason or even to common sense. The second was an enlarged and popularized meaning of absurde which did not limit it to philosophy.

In this sense, it was the synonym for sot, ridicule, impertinent, extravagant, incroyable, impossible, and irrationnel.^

Dandin's "j'enrage de bon coeur d'avoir tort lorsque j'ai raison" is closer to the first meaning of "absurde" that which is "impossible, a contradiction, something op- 75 posed to reason. . ." But when thxs statement falls from the mouth of a buffoonish character, it becomes a parody of even the philosophical notion of the absurd.

Curiously, both Dandin and Alceste use the expression j'enrage which suggests the absurde pouss§ jusqu'au bout

(la rage=la folie) . Both la rage and la folie were seen in the seventeenth century as a type of physical illness in which the victim must be isolated from those who are 76 well so as not to pass on his illness. Alceste's rage/ folie/illness is self-imposed, just as his final isolation is self-imposed. But Dandin did not want to reform the 77 world, or society. He merely wanted to better his stand­ ing in that very society which he wants to ape, which is now the cause of his rage. It is the other characters who by their refusal to see and their refusal to hear plunge him into isolation, an isolation analogous to the folie of a bad dream, neither of which can be controlled or 216 prevented. But this isolation is not imposed solely by the other characters, for as the Alceste travesti of the farce and/or the berger extravagant of the intermddes, Dandin becomes a victim of the absurde as well. Since, as Brody notes, he is morally right but "esth^tiquement dans son 7 8 tort" in a theatrum mundi intended for the aristocracy

(or at least a superior bourgeoisie) his "illness" of mad­ ness is "esthetically" incurable. Seen in this light, the complete lack of redemptive or curative possibilities allow the play George Dandin to border on the tragic rather than the comic. But a buffoon or a fool can never be a tragic hero for the seventeenth century, and Dandin is a fool, for even if he has married into the sotte famille of the

Sotenvilles it is because he himself has admitted to "une

'sottise' la plus grande du monde": his marriage.

2. Marriage, the Illusion of Marriage, and the Rituals of Illusion

In George Dandin, any suggestion of fertility rite is lacking and as a result, the sense of fullness that sug­ gests comedy's essence as a celebration of life. The spectators have witnessed neither courtship rituals nor the marriage feast itself, nor a happy fertile aftermath in the promise of children. The only reference to children is one that turns to derision of Dandin: "le ventre anoblit," Madame de Sotenville informs him. Why yes, he 217 replies, "... mes enfants seront gentilhomines, et moi je serai cocu. . ." (I, 4).

Despite the humor of the theatrical effects, a feel­ ing of lacuna or void is thus evoked in the spectator of

Dandin. Despite his appeal, "0 Ciel. . ." (II, 8) and despite his remorse for his "sottise," absolution is totally withheld; punishment is psychological hell with no promise of comic redemption.

But marriage in the "real world," the theatrum mundi, could obviously be as bad, the promise of the sacrament left unfulfilled. By ritualizing the problems of marriage,

George Dandin allows its spectators to face more easily a fundamental problem of human existence, as ancient drama did. Francis L. Lawrence, in Moli^re: The Comedy of

Unreason, tells us that:

The complete ancient drama required four elements: an agon or contest between the old and new fertility principles; a sacrificial death; an anagnorisis, the discovery or recognition of the king followed by his initiation, resurrection or reincarnation; a feast and a marriage celebrating the epiphany of the young god and endinq with a komos, a procession with songs of joy.79

Harold C. Knutson, in Molidre; An Archetypal Approach demonstrates how these ritualization theories are directly applicable to Molifere's theatricalization of the theatrum mundi:

All four elements have their counterparts in the comic story as utilized by Moli^re. We might say that the play itself is the contest, while 218

the catharsis operated by the death or expulsion of the scapegoat corresponds to the defeat of the father; the recognition of the young victor and the norms he symbolizes, the feast and procession about to take place around the forthcoming nup- tuals highlight in turn the intensely euphoric tone of the denouement.80

George Dandin, as a play, can surely be considered a

contest, one in which all the players except Dandin him­

self are "in" on the rules. If there is a scapegoat, it

is none other than Dandin. Curiously, he is also the meta­ morphosis of the father who must be punished, exorcised,

rendered impotent, in some manner cast out so that a young victor who represents accepted social norms may emerge.

But in George Dandin, Dandin will never be completely cast out, continuing to suffer as he does at the hands of the other players. The repetition of situations evokes laughter,

in the Bergsonian sense of the mechanical, this very repeti­

tion representing circularity and stagnation. In other words, the theatrical effect of the repetition is comical, while the repetition of the victimization of Dandin might,

in a metaphysical sense, become disturbing.

One might be tempted to think that Clitandre repre­

sents the "emerging young victor," but he is this only on

a superficial level. As Dandin is aesthetically incapable of becoming a nobleman, or an honnete homme, by reason of his birth and temperament, Clitandre is also a type of perversion of the honnete homme in that he lies, cheats, 219

and is too cowardly to face the parents with the truth. He

also is not very bright, apparently, since in II, 8 it is

AngSlique who invents the ruse which can extricate them

from the compromising situation in view of the parents.

"Ne faites pas semblant de rien, et me laissez faire tous

deux. ..." Angelique pretends to beat him off when it

is really Dandin (who has crept up close to them) that she

thrashes. But the parents, thinking that it is Clitandre who received the beating, are left with the impression that

he has indeed attempted to transgress the honor of their

daughter. When he returns under cover of night and dark­

ness in the third act, he is more representative of a

prowling tomcat than a noble young lover.

Regarding the feast and procession, these were repre­

sented by the ballet sequences of the original production of the Fete de Versailles. However, of the farce charac­

ters, only Dandin participates in the pastorale. But he does so most unwillingly. Pulled into the dance, he is totally out of step with its grace and beauty, and unwilling

to continue, he ends by leaving the scene. When the ballet

sequences are detached from the play, there is not even a

"sense of an ending." There is no feast, no procession, no euphoric tone. The only possible promise of "forth­

coming nuptuals" is for Lubin and Claudine, but their whole and entire relationship and rapport is a parody and a

travesty of love. But for the other characters, Knutson 220 strikingly summarizes the state of marriage as reflected in the play. It becomes, . . a total inversion of the comic myth: loathing, not love, links man and woman, marriage is present bondage instead of future bliss; parental authority, represented here in the ludicrous 81 Sotenville couple, has prevailed in its most crass form."

Ironically, in the dramatization of marriage in Moli&re's entire theatrical repertoire of married couples, it is only this "ludicrous Sotenville couple" who have a pre- 8 2 sumably happy marriage and understanding relationship:

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: . . . Et nous, mamour, [to Madame de Sotenville] allons nous mettre au lit. (Ill, 7)

Ironic paradox, then, is incarnate in the character

George Dandin: He is the only lucid character in an absurd theatrical world peopled by absurd characters who contrive to create the illusion that he is the one who is absurd.

It is Dandin who, forced to play the role of the buffoon by author, actors, and audience, becomes the symbol not of the philosophical sense of the absurd, but the "popular" meaning: sot, ridicule, impertinent, extravagant, incroyable, impossible, and irrationnel. Dandin is then

"lucid," and absurd; sane, yet insane; tragic, yet not tragic; married, yet not "recognized" as a mari. And the ironic paradox incarnate in Dandin is the result of the central ironic paradox of the entire play: the Sotenvilles 221 and their coterie do everything in their power to preserve their mask of honor, while Dandin, unmasked from the first moments of the play, does everything in his power to expose his face of dishonor.

D. Conventions: Unmasking Through Speech, Gesture, and Costume

Harry T. Barnwell in "Molidre's Language and the

Expectation of Comedy" notes that, "He who refuses raiment exposes himself at once to ridicule: he who adopts dis- 8 3 guise risks being stripped of it." Dandin, in his deal­ ings with the Sotenvilles, was incapable of the art of persuasion, spoke the language of a marchand, addressed them without the proper forms, and told them what they did not want to hear in a way that they did not want to hear it.

In other words, he refused verbal raiment. The Soten­ villes, for whom verbal raiment and the eulogy of honor was an entity in itself, were forced to protect themselves, for without a "verbal costume," Dandin's verbal nakedness was too shocking to their own overdressed sense of honor.

But curiously, Dandin, who did not adopt the "verbal costume," played the role in a physical costume which, in its finery, was quite stunning for the role of a peasant, even a rich peasant.

Haut-de-chausses et manteau de taffetas muse, le col de meme; le tout garni de dentelle et boutons d'argent, la ceinture pareille; le petit pour- point de satin cramoisi; 1'autre pourpoint de 222

dessus, de brocart de diff^rentes couleurs et dentelles d'argent; la fraise et souliers.84

In a sense, this costume is a disguise which becomes

another paradox: the costume is indeed a disguise, but the

disguise is what reveals the character. First the finery

is pretentious and out of place for the paysan enrichi,

and it is this very incongruity which serves to make

Dandin's rusticity even more laughable for the spectator

(and especially for the spectator of 18 July, 1668).

Secondly, the inventory does not mention the peasant bon­

net, but Moli&re for his interpretation of Dandin must have had one, for when Dandin is forced to apologize to

Clitandre in I, 6, Sotenville instructs him to remove it:

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Votre bonnet h. la main, le premier: Monsieur est gentilhomme, et vous ne l'etes pas. (I, 6) Dandin, thus, having refused verbal raiment, has exposed himself to the ridicule of the Sotenvilles, and having-

adopted a disguise expressed through the visual impact of the costume, has been stripped of it.

The Sotenville couple consistently appear in scenes

at the end of each act: I, 4,5,6; II, 7,8; and 111,7.

This placement is significant, for just as their appear­

ance is "too late" to see, and thus to admit what Dandin wants them to see and admit, so too is their aristocratic

attitude "too late." This is reflected in their own

"verbal raiment" which is also in its own way "too late." 223

They use outmoded expressions such as mamour and mon fils

in addressing each other, verbs such as forligner and

forfaire, oaths such as jour de Dieu and corbleu, and dwell

incessantly on medieval heraldry. The Baron invites

Clitandre to "courre un li&vre." They worship their

ancestors: in the family of the Prudoterie, "le ventre

anoblit"; in the house of Sotenville, courage and honor

are as "h£r£ditaire aux males, que la chastet§ aux

femelles" (I, 4). But this "verbal raiment" is donned to

the point of ridiculousness reflected in their costumes as well. The frontispiece to early editions of George Dandin portrays the arrival of the Sotenville couple at the end of the third act dressed only in their night clothes and night bonnets, which might suggest an "un-dressing." But

Sotenville is portrayed with his sword in his hand. The

"mask" of the nobleman symbolized by the sword serves to make Sotenville appear perfectly ludicrous.

In Le M^decin malgr£ lui, Sganarelle "dressed up" in

the doctor's robes and "dressed up" his language in a

"ballet de paroles" which was reflected in the movements and gestures of the farce. Dandin "undressed" his costume

and "undressed" his language, and every act of the farce

resulted in an impasse. In Le Mgdecin malgrg lui,

Sganarelle also donned the megalomaniac's mask in order to become a doctor, but this mask became, at the end of the play, indistinguishable from his face. Dandin, however, was totally incapable of donning the megalomaniac mask of

the nobleman, and as a result, any pretensions to mega­ lomania would be shattered in this very brittle comedy. NOTES

For the history of performance, see Despois and Mesnard, "Notice" on George Dandin, in Oevres de Molidre, VI, 475-504. See also Bray and Scherer, "Notice" on George Dandin, in Oe-uvres completes de Molidre, II, 739-747. Moliere first presented George Dandin in Paris on 9 Novem­ ber 1668 at the Palais Royal. For the year 1668, addi­ tional presentations followed on 11,13,16,18, and 30 November as well as on 2,4,7, and 9 December. Two plays which also treat the theme of marital discord had played at the Palais Royal a short time before Dandin. These were Le Mariage force on 22 and 24 June, followed by Amphitryon on 29 June and 1 July. For dates of performances, see also Georges Mongr^dien, Recueil de texts et de documents du XVIIe sidcle relatifs A Moli&re (Paris: CNRS, 1965), TJ 311, 312, 328, 343, 344-45, 350, 367, 370-70, 372, 373, 378, 379, 390, and passim.

2See Marc Fumaroli, "Microcosme comique et macrocosme solaire: Moliere, Louis XIV et L'Impromtu de Versailles," RSH, 145 (1972), 95-114. Fumaroli holds that the L 'Impromtu is both aesthetic and political. The micro- cosme comique concerns the playwright at Court, whereas the macrocosme solaire is a celebration of Louis XIV's reign. One is the image of the other in a comic, parodical sense. 3 Joan Crow, "Reflections on George Dandin," m Moliere: Stage and Study. Essays in Honour of W. G. Moore, ed. W. Dl Howarth and Merlin Thomas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 4. The 1969 London performance which Crow describes was first presented by Planchon in 1958 at Villeurbanne, Theatre de la Cit£. 4 _ _ Crow, p. 3. 5 La Gazette de France, 21 juillet, 1668, p. 695. Quoted in Despois and Mesnard, VI, 475-76.

^Among the most important are the twenty-page program given the spectators attending the spectacle as well as Fglibien's Relation. The latter work is considered the most official. Another Relation was also written on the order of the Queen by the Abb§ de Montigny, an academician and a poet. This text is in the form of a letter addressed to M. le Marquis de la Fuente. Shorter remarks regarding the Feite as well as Molidre's participation are mentioned in the Gazette of 20 July 1668, and Robinet's Lettre k

225 226

Madame of 21 July 1668. See also Despois and Mesnard, VI, 476-79, 595-99, and 614-40. 7 Lully's score is m the Collection Philidor, no. 33, entitled George Dandin ou le grand divertissement royal danse devant Sa Majesty le 15 juillet 1668. Recueillipar Philidor l'ainfe en 1690. (The date is erroneously given as the 15th rather than the 18th of July.) Lully later took the last act of the Pastorale and made it the third act of his first opera, Les Ffetes d 1Amour et de Bacchus, played for the first time in 16 72 (still during Moliere's lifetime). Philippe Beaussant in "Moliere et l'opfera," Europe, 523-24 (1972), 155-68, informs us that Molifere's progression towards music in his plays, or at least in spectacles of the Psychfe type, eventually led to a break with Lully, who, foreseeing the future of opera, regarded Moliere as a rival. See also Georges Mongrfedien, "Molifere et Lulli," DSS, 98-99 (1973), 3-16, who discusses Lully's eventual monopoly of opera throughout France. See also Arthur R. Harned, "Moliere and Lully," in Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters, pp. 31-48. 8 ^ See Jacques Vanuxem, "La Scfenographie des ffetes de Louis XIV auxquelles Molifere a participfe," DSS, 98-99 (1973), 77-89, who claims that Vigarani's scenic effects were in such great demand that all the "great" authors (Molifere, Corneille, Racine) deliberately chose subjects that could be adapted to Vigarani's stagings. 9 A toise is 1.949 meters. Thus, the stage area was approximately nineteen and a half meters deep, with an area left for the spectators of 25.337 by 17.541 meters.

"^It seems that this particular calculation by Felibien is more in keeping with the tendency to exagger­ ate and feblouir. If Ffelibien's report of the stage area and salle de theatre is accurate, it is impossible to accommodate that many people. A theatre of that size could accommodate six hundred and forty one persons with regular seating, and, depending on the disposition of the seats, an absolute maximum of nine-hundred and fifty amphitheatre style. (Calculations on theatrical dimen­ sions courtesy of Mr. Peter Homorody, George J. Kontogiannis and Assoc., A.I.A., Architectural Firm, Columbus, Ohio.)

^■*"For an engraving of the spectacle showing the decor of the final entrfee de ballet, see Marie-Frangoise 227

Christout, Le Ballet de Cour de Louis XIV, 1643-1672 (Paris: Picard, 196 7), plate XXI. The decor for this final entree is different from the decor of Acts I and II. 12 The lxvre de ballet was a kind of program commonly distributed among the spectators. It might contain a synopsis of the play, and sometimes the words and music for the ballet. For George Dandin, the livre de ballet had been published shortly before the Ffete by Jean Ballard. 13 See Despois and Mesnard, VI, 596-640, "Appendice fe George Dandin," for the prose introduction and excerpts from the pastorale. 14 Many critics and scholars, in particular Francis L. Lawrence, Moliere, the Comedy of Unreason (New Orleans: Tulane Studies in Romance Languages and Literatures, 196 8), p. 4 5, tend to assume that at this point as well as during the final entrfee de ballet, Dandin is pulled and forced into the dance numbers. While this would be an effective stage technique, neither Ffelibien's Relation nor the text of the pastorale make any positive indication of this. 15 Renfe Bray, Molifere, homme de thfecttre, p. 274 . 16 Angfelique's threat is, however, blackmail. It is not clear if Dandin's remark is meant to be taken as a parody of the heroic theatrical convention of death, now dfemodfe, or if suicide is no longer fashionable in the "real" world. 17 Dandin as a "tragic character" tends to be a vestige of nineteenth-century criticism and the tradition of the "thfefetre larmoyante." Thfeophile Gautier, for example, in 1849 claimed that characters such as George Dandin "ne [font] plus rire, il[s] [font] presque pleurer. [Leur] apparition . . . tire aujourd'hui les mouchoirs aux poches." Quoted by Otis Fellows, French Opinion of Molifere (1800-1850) (Providence: Brown Uni­ versity Press, 19 37), p. 89. 18 G. D. Kiremidjian, "The Aesthetics of Parody," JAAC, 28 (1969), 233. 19 Alfred Simon, Les Signes et les song*-.s (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 19 76), p. 208: "Dans 1 1espace clos de la bolte italienne, il [le vertige des apparences] suscite un opfera fabuleux." Simon also adds, "Ainsi, le thfecitre absorbe la ffete jusqu'au moment oil Versailles fait en retour feclater le thfeStre dans la fete" (p. 209) . 228

20Baroque traits as suggested by Robert J. Nelson, "Classicism: the Crisis of the Baroque in French Litera­ ture," ECr, 11 (1971), 180. In addition to the five baroque characteristics that I have enumerated, Nelson adds two more: polarization of attitudes, and imaginative rather than rational progression. 21 Some Molifere scholars have. This reflects a tendency among some critics and scholars to ally "Monsieur de la Dandinifere" and "Monsieur de la Souche," regarding them as "tragic characters." See Raymond Picard, "Molifere comique ou tragique? Le Cas de'Arnolphe," RHL, 72 (1972), 769-85. Picard discusses nineteenth-century views such as that of Taine, who in 1863 wrote, "Bien des gens ont plus d'envie d'en pleurer que d'en rire: Arnolphe, Dandin, Harpagon approchent de bien prfes des personnages tragiques." (Quoted by Picard, p. 770.)

22Many scholars note here a possible Cornelian parody, but I feel that it is merely a comic discrepancy between Dandin's exaggerations and threats of suicide in response to a common or lowly subject. For a further discussion of parody, see Henryk Markiewicz, "On the Definition of Literary Parody," in To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays of the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966 (The Hague: Mouton, 1967), II, 1264-72.

23If Clitandre and Angfelique can be interpreted as a parody of a courtly tradition, then Claudine and Lubin, who themselves are parodies of Angfelique and Clitandre, become parodies of courtly parodies. 24 Francis L. Lawrence, in a section entitled "The Unwilling Shepherd" (Molifere, the Comedy of Unreason), sees Dandin as the "drama of courtly love seen through the re­ verse side of the glass" (p. 45). Marcel Gutwirth in "Dandin, ou les fegarements de la pastorale," in Molifere Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of his Death, ed. George B. Daniel (Chapel Hill: University of North Caro­ lina Press, 19 73), claims that "La pastorale pousse jusqu'a la parodie involontaire le mode galant qui se dfefinit comme jeu de 1 1authentique soumission et de la feinte indifference. La comfedie exploite jusqu'au bout la relation de force qui oppose au tyran lfesfe son fepouse volage" (p. 131). Angelique, then, expecting a chevaleresque hero, ended up with Barbouillfe. 229 25 A possible parody of Cornelian love, which Octave Nadal described as "une liberty qui s'enchaine k une autre liberty." See Le Sentiment de 1 1 amour dans 1 1 oeuvre de Pierre Corneille (Paris: Gallimard, 1948), p. 111.

\For a discussion of "The Religion of Love" and "mock sacrifice," see Lawrence, p. 46. 27 See Lionel Gossman, Men and Masks: A Study of Moliere (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 19 6 3), pp. 155-56, who also discusses this paradox (but not in baroque terms).

28Although Dandin desperately seeks to be acknowledged as a human being rather than a source of material gain, ironically, he himself never calls Ang^lique by name, but always "ma femme" or"votre fille." To him, she herself is a non-person. He could just as easily be referring to any possession: "my farm," "my house,” "my barn." 29 Gossman, pp. 14 7-150, agrees that this would be a nihilistic victory.

30Lawrence, p. 46. 31 See Lawrence, p. 46, who agrees that this is a suicide convention. 12 Pierre Lifevre, "Le M^decin malgrg lui k la Com^die- Frangaise," Mercure de France, 269 (1936), 375. 33 Anna Katona, "Moliere in Hungary: His Reputation," in Molidre and the Commonwealth of Letters, pp. 355-364.

"^Katona, p. 364. With regard to author/actor/ audience, the Marxist ideology is that "1'existence sociale determine la conscience." There is not yet "the" Marxist-oriented standard work on Molidre's entire oeuvre. Editions of plays which do exist are not "hard line"" Marxist ideology, but rather "Marxistic" (French: marxisant). Such editions tend to reject MoliSre as a director and "homme de theatre" in favor of a Marxist- oriented historico-social approach. For a further dis­ cussion, see Romero, Traditions in Criticism, pp. 139-44. 35 Crow, p. 3. However, Jean Bouret, "Les Fr&res Le Nain: C'est tout de meme mieux que Fougeron," NL, 22- 29 September 19 78, p. 15 demonstrates that the painting 2 30

entitled "Le Repas des Paysans," for example, is a studio work and not a true representation of the peasant's way of life. With regard to Dandin, one might conclude that the play is also an aesthetic "studio work" written for a courtly audience, and not meant to arouse sympathy for or identification with the peasant's way of life.

Romero, pp. 155-56. For a photograph of the decor, see Exposition du IIIe centenaire de la mort de Moliere. Mus£e des Arts D^coratifs. 18 October/ 7 janvier (Paris: Mus§e des Arts D^coratifs, 1974), p. 137, plate 690. 37 See Jean-Pierre Collinet, Lectures de Molidre (Paris: Colin, 1974), pp. 253-255, who also discusses this production. O O Collinet, pp. 262-263. 39 See G. Guilleminault, "Le Theatre en France: I. A. La Com^die Frangaise. George Dandin." FR 44 (1971),570- 71. (rpt. from L 'Aurore^ 8 October 1970TT 40 Romero, p. 156. For a photograph of the Sotenvxlle couple, see IIIe centenaire, p. 138, plate no. 709.

^For other views and reviews of Dandin productions, see Jacques Le Marchand, "Molidre au Studio des Champs Elys^es," Figaro Litt^raire, 8 February 1958, p. 14, which is a short review of Le M^decin volant and George Dandin. See also Jean-Pierre Han, "Notes pour la mise-en-scdne de George Dandin," Europe, 523-24 (1972), 168-72. These are the notes for a 1970 performance of Dandin by the Compagnie Avant-Quart. 42 ^ ^ . Lucien Goldman, "Le Structuralisme genetique en histoire de la literature," MLN, 79, no. 3 (1964), 226.

4^See the "Notice" on George Dandin in Bray and Scherer, and the "Notice" in Depois and Mesnard. Crow, pp. 7-12, also discusses several sources such as Les Quinze Joyes de mariage, Le Roman de la rose, and a few possible theatrical sources such as Chappuzeau's L 'Avare dupp§ ou 1'Homme de paille. 44Halina Lewicka, Etudes sur 1'anciennefarce frangaise (Paris: Klincksiek, 1974), devotes a section to "1'enfant mis aux £coles" (pp. 32-46), and a chapter to La Farce d'un mari jaloux (pp. 4 7-54). Some of the material dis­ cussed appeared earlier as "La Farce d'un mari jaloux," in Melanges . . . It M. Brahmer (Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1976), pp. 259-302. For the idea of "lessons," 231 see also J. D. Hubert, Molifere and the Comedy of Intellect (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), pp. 190- 98. Helen Purkis, "Les Interludes de George Dandin," Baroque, 5 (1972), 63-69, gives an interesting twist to the idea of "lessons," seeing the pastorale as a "lesson in courtly love" for Dandin, who is, unfortunately, incapable of comprehending the instructions. 45 Lewicka, Etudes . . ., p. 48. 46 e M Jehan Jenen cited by Lewicka, Etudes . . ., p. 49, passim.

^Bray, Molifere, homme de theatre, pp. 254-55. 48 Hubert, p. 198. 49 The technique of verbal dominance is also used by Ionesco, particularly in La Legon. See Sidney L. Pellissier, "Ionesco and Molifere," in Moliere and the Commonwealth of Letters, pp. 145-159. See also Kenneth S. White, ''Hypnotic Language and Its Apotheoses: Molifere and Ionesco," in Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters, pp. 160-68.

^ S e e Susan Relyea, Signs, Systems, and Meanings; A Contemporary Semiotic Reading of Four Molifere Plays' (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press~i 1976), pp. 71-72, for a discussion of nominalism and the problems of language. 51 La Farce du Cuvier, in Four Farces, ed. Barbara Bowen (Oxford: Basil Blackwell^ 1967), pp. 15-34. 52 Farce moralisfee fe quatre personnaiges, c'est assavoir: deux hommes et leurs deux femmes, dont 1 'une a malle teste et l 1autre est tendre de cul, in Nouveau Recueil de farces frangaises des XVe et XVie sTecles, ed. Emile Picot and Christophe Nyrop (Paris: Damascene Morgand and Charles Fatout, 1880), pp. 115-61. 53 Beatings and the baton were theatrical conventions of the medieval farces, the Pont-Neuf entertainments, and also of the gags and lazzi of the commedia. 54 See Yves Giraud, "Molifere au travail: la vraie genfese de George Dandin," Francia, 19-20 (1976), 65-81. Giraud also gives an extended comparison with La Jalousie du Barbouillfe, but not quite in the same manner that I treat the subject. 232 55 Admittedly, this is simplifying the process. Moli&re's borrowings from the Italian theatre by the time of his late farces were, in general, more refined, both in terms of themes as well as acting techniques. 5 6 See Alfred Mortier, "Un Ancetre italien de George Dandin," RLC, 6 (1926), 16-27. In this article, Mortier presents the locking-out and reversal scene of the Rhodiana in a French translation. "F6licit6" is the French version of the heroine's name.

^Mortier, pp. 24, 27. 5 8 Mortier, p. 26. 59 Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron, trans. Richard Aldington (New York: Dell, 19 30), pp. 412-416, for the Seventh Day, Tale Four. See also pp. 4 30-36 for Tale Eight. In the latter tale, a rich merchant marries a lady of quality who soon takes a lover. The wife's mother then heaps invective on the merchant-husband for casting doubt on her high-born daughter, and even has him beaten by the wife's brothers. Thereafter, the wife can do as she pleases.

Barbara Bowen, Les Caract^ristiques essentielles . . . . p. 29, notes that punishment for jealousy is a common device in medieval French farces as well as Boccaccio's tales. Angelique also "punishes" Dandin for his jealousy.

r *i Although Hubert, p. 195, notes that Dandin is the "least noble" character among Moliere's creations. 6 p Alvin Eustis, Molidre as Ironic Contemplator (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), p. 106.

Note Barbouille's tu versus Dandin's vous. 64 In scene 9, Barbouill§ merely speaks a few lines which serve to forward the story. In no sense are these lines monologues or soliloquies.

^ S e e Jean Dubu, "Moliere et le tragique," DSS, 98-99 (1973) , 33-55, who notes that Molidre memorized thousands of tragic verses of Corneille, and that he had to justify his troupe's moral role by performing tragedies as well as comedies. It might be argued that Moliere's parody of tragedy is unintentional, a result of having played so many tragedies. 233 6 6 See Robert J. Nelson, "The "Unreconstructed Heroes of Molifere," in Moliere, A Collection of Critical Essays, pp. 111-35. Nelson stresses the "single vision" of the hero (hero taken in the purely structural sense) and contrasts it with the double vision of others. The hero sees only discrepancy and duplicity (Le Misanthrope, Tartuffe, Pom Juan), whereas the others, who usually get the better of the hero by mask or ruse, see combination and compli- mentarity. c n See Henri Bergson, Le Rire (1899; rpt. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Prance, 1969), p. 3: "Signalons maintenant . . . 1'insensibility qui accompagne le rire. . . . Le rire n'a pas de plus grand ennemi que 1'Emotion."

6 8See Edouard Morot-Sir, "La Dynamique du theatre et Molifere," in Molifere Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of His Death, ed. George B. Daniel (Chapel Hill: Univer­ sity of North Carolina, 1973), p. 48: Nous avons vu la rfeponse de Molifere: le languge tragique est une imitation outrfee qui invite k la parodie - non pas k la parodie de la chute sur une scfene, mais fe la parodie de la projection tragique de la chute." Morot-Sir?s theory can be applied to Dandin's "tragic" exaggerations. 69 Hubert, p. 198. (Thus, Molifere's repertoire would have included L 1Ecole des maris, L'Ecole des femmes, and L'Ecole des cocus.) Roughly one-third of his plays have as the dominant theme cuckoldry. 70 Clitandre gave Lubin "trois pifeces d'or" for deliver­ ing a message to Angfelique. Lubin ironically refers to Clitandre as an "honnete homme," mistaking the contempor­ ary meaning of the term. 71 See Robert Nicolich, "Door, Window, and Balcony m L'Ecole des femmes," RN, 12, 19 71, 364-69, who notes that these stage props are physical evidence of the psychologi­ cal domination Arnolphe attempts to hold over Agnfes. 72 Hubert, p. 91, claims that Dandin becomes the spectator of his own misfortune and the only character who is not blind. ^Furetifere gives the definition as: "ABSURDE, adj. masc. & fern. Terme de Philosophie. Ce qui choque le sens commun, qui est impertinent, incroyable, impossible. Proposition absurde. quand on suppose une chose absurde, on en tire mille consequences absurdes. il prouve une chose absurde par une chose plus absurde. ..." Quoted in 2 34

Carlo Frangois, La Notion de L 1Absurde dans la littferature frangaise du XVIIe sifecle (Paris: Klincksieck, 1973), pp. 26-27. 74 Frangois, p. 27. 75 Frangois, p. 26.

^Frangois, p. 28, 118-19. 77 Will G. Moore, however, in "Raison et structure dans la comfedie de Molifere," RHL, 72 (1972), 800-805, suggests that Dandin is even more profound than Alceste because the latter revolts against society whereas Dandin, revolting against his human condition, revolts against the world. (Moore emphasizes PIanchon's Dandin.) 7 8 Jules Brody, "Esthetique et socifetfe chez Molifere," in Dramaturgie et socifetfe au 16e et au 17e sifecles (Paris: CNRS, 196 8), p.“ 319. 79 Lawrence, p. 14. Lawrence bases this theory m part on Francis M. Cornford's The Origins of Attic Comedy (1914; rpt. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday-Anchor, 1961), whose thesis is that both tragedy and comedy evolved from primi­ tive seasonal pantomimes. 80 Harold C. Knutson, Molifere: An Archetypal Approach (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press), 1976, p. 15. 81 Knutson, pp. 157-58. 82 See Raymonde Temkine, "Comment peut-on fetre mari?" Europe, 523-24 (1972), 173-81. 83 Harry T. Barnwell, "Molifere's Language and Expecta­ tion of Comedy," SF, 55 (1975), 47. 84 From the "Inventataire fait aprfes le dfecfes de Molifere," quoted in E. Soulife, Recherches sur Molifere et sur sa famille (Paris: Hachette, 1864) , p~. 276. CHAPTER IV

LES FOURBERIES DE SCAPIN, OR

MEGALOMANIA RE-ESTABLISHED

A. The "Farceur," His Art in 1671: Spectacle and Performance

Easter break of 1671 lasts from 17 March until 10

April. Around mid-March, Moliere's troupe has already decided that important renovations are necessary for the

Palais Royal. These renovations include the addition of a third row of loges as well as the remodeling of the stage machinery necessary for the pifece £ machines. Psyche, which had enjoyed a succ^s vif at the Tuileries the preceding

January. The cost is approximately 4,359 livres, a consid­ erable sum for the times, and a Siam that is to be shared by the Italian commedia troupe. The work on the theatre seat­ ing will probably be completed by around 15 April, but the work on the machinery might well continue into the month of

July.'*' Molidre's troupe, faced with these costs as well as the need to assure their own livelihood, can ill afford to remain idle. While waiting for the work at the Palais Royal for Psychg to be completed, interim plays are necessary.

235 2 36

Tartuffef Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, Monsieur de 2 Pourceaugnac, L'Avare, and Le Misanthrope all play. Then, on Sunday 24 May 1671, La Grange's Registre indicates that

Molifere's troupe debuts the performance of a new play, Les

Fourberies de Scapin, accompanied by an earlier short piece, 3 Le Sicilien, ou 1 1 amour pexntre.

Many scholars concur that Molifere prepared and pre­ sented Scapin because he wanted a fairly new piece "in reserve" should Psychfe fail to bring in the receipts and win 4 public acclaim. It has also been suggested that this very same desire for high receipts and wide public acclaim prompted Molifere to schedule the dehat of Scapin on a Sunday whereas the usual practice was to debut a new creation on a

Friday, for Sunday receipts at the Palais Royal were 5 normally higher than the other days of the week.

Les Fourberies de Scapin was the first play since

L 1Avare (9 September 1668) that Molifere wrote for the

Palais Royal and not on command as a spectacle or a divertissement de Cour. Thus, the play was conceived g directly for the Parisian public and not for the Court.

But in short, during Molifere's lifetime, the play does not appear to have been a success. There were only a total of eighteen performances (none for the Court), and with meager and constantly declining receipts. All eighteen perform­ ances took place within the two months following the 237 debut. The last performance occurred on 19 July, and like 7 its debut, on a Sunday.

Psychg, which followed on the 24th, was fabulously successful— thirty-eight consecutive performances up until

25 October. Fourteen of the performances earned well over one thousand livres, and eight between eight hundred and O one thousand. By comparison, only two of the performances of Scapin surpassed seven hundred livres, the lowest taking in a mere one hundred forty-three. Even the final two

Sundays only produced receipts of three hundred five and two 9 hundred thirty-five livres respectively.

Curiously, after the death of the author, the play caught on. From 1673 (MoliSre's death) until 1715 (Louis

XIV's death), Les Fourberies de Scapin played one hundred ninety-seven times. But Scapin never became popular at

Court, at least during Louis's lifetime. There was only one performance between 1680 and 1700, and two Scapin performances at Court between 1700 and 1715.^

The plot of Scapin closely follows that of the Phormio of Terence (B.C. 194-159) which in turn is derived from a

Greek comedy no longer extant. ^ Molidre shifts the scene from Athens to Naples, and in this manner, preserves a certain remoteness (for his Parisian public) which makes it easier to accept the many improbabilities of the story.

Argante is a wealthy Neopolitan who is also quite miserly. He has a son, Octave, and a daughter, stolen by gypsies (les Egyptiens) at a tender age, whom he has never been able to recover. G^ronte, a second wealthy though miserly old man, also has a son L^andre by his first wife . . . 12 and a daughter by a second wife now living m Tarentum.

Argante and G^ronte plan a marriage between Argante's son

Octave and Geronte's daughter. The two old men go abroad, leaving their sons in the care of their two respective valets, Silvestre and Scapin. But during his father's absence, Octave has married a poor though "honnete" orphan,

Hyacinthe. She had recently come to Naples with her mother who sadly died not long after the arrival, leaving

Hyacinthe in the care of the servant Narine and in dire poverty. L6andre, too, has fallen in love, with a gypsy girl, Zerbinette, and would like to marry her.

It is at this point that the play actually opens.

Octave is grievously dismayed, for he has just learned from Silvestre that his father's ship has put into port in

Naples much earlier than expected. Not only has Octave married an unknown orphan without his father's permission, but he also learns that Argante is returning early because the father himself has arranged a marriage for Octave.

Octave begs Scapin, the rascally valet of L^andre, to help him arrange things with his father. Scapin at first re­ fuses, for he has already had several brushes with the law, but relents when the weeping Hyacinthe enters. She fears that Octave's love for her will falter now that his father 239

has returned. Octave assures his beloved that he would

renounce everything in the world for her. Scapin encourages

the young lovers to beg him once again so that he can break

his oath to meddle no more in the affairs of others.

After Hyacinthe exits, Scapin has Octave rehearse how

the boy is to speak with his father. But at the approach

of the old man, Octave is so terrified that he runs off.

Argante has learned of the clandestine marriage and is furi­ ous. Scapin invents several explanations: Octave was

"pousse par sa destinde," for after all, since Argante him­

self must have been quite a "ladies' man" in his day,

Octave because of heredity cannot help but be irresistible to women. But flattery does not endure, and Scapin must

finally claim that Octave, was "forced" to marry Hyacinthe,

for her kinsmen had threatened his life. Argante decides that this is a good enough reason for an annulment. But

Scapin reminds him that Octave would then appear cowardly in the eyes of the world and thus would never consent.

Argante is obdurate: should Octave refuse, he will disin­ herit him, and off he goes, muttering to himself. Scapin decides that it is time for a trick: Silvestre is to dis­ guise himself as a blackguard (spadassin), even if it does mean three years in the galleys for the both of them should they be caught.

As Act II opens, the two old men are deploring Octave's marriage. G^ronte is chiding Argante that he did not bring 240 up his son properly, but Argante will soon put an end to that sort of insult. Although Scapin has told him nothing precise, Argante hints that G£ronte's son has done something worse. He then goes off to search for a lawyer. L^andre enters and attempts to embrace his father who demands to know what he has done. Liandre reveals nothing, but resolves to avenge himself on Scapin, who he thinks has betrayed him to his father. 13

Enter Octave and Scapin. L^andre attempts to beat the valet, demanding a full confession from Scapin, now on his knees. Scapin admits to all sorts of pranks which L^andre 14 never even suspected, but what Ldandre really wants to know is what Scapin has revealed to his father. Scapin swears he has not even seen G§ronte.

Carle, another fourbe, enters and announces a "facheuse nouvelle": the gypsies are about to carry off Zerbinette, and unless L^andre can produce the money to buy her within two hours, he will lose her forever. The tables are turned, and it is now L6andre who kneels at Scapin's feet to beg forgiveness and aid in obtaining the necessary five hundred 6cus. Octave also needs two hundred pistoles to sup­ port his new wife. Scapin resolves to get the money from the fathers.

Scapin spies Argante, and invents the story that he has spoken with Hyacinthe's "brother," a ruffian, who is willing to settle the matter out of court for a large sum of money. 241

Argante balks and says he prefers to sue. Enter Silvestre

disguised as the "ruffian-brother," threatening to cut

Argante to ribbons. Argante hides behind Scapin in terror, but Scapin introduces him to the "spadassin" as Argante's mortal enemy. The "spadassin" promises to dispatch Argante

into the next world and exits after a display of swordsman­ ship. Argante will hand over the money, but is at first reluctant to trust Scapin with it. Scapin pretends to be offended and threatens to wash his hands of the whole situ­ ation, but Argante coaxes him into accepting and dispatching the two hundred pistoles.

Out goes Argante and in comesGSronte. Scapin pretends to be wailing. He and Ldandre were walking along the road by the harbor, with Scapin consoling L6andre over his father's rough treatment. A very courteous Turk invited them onto his ship where they were wined and dined. But then Scapin was put on a skiff and tossed into the sea. If the father will not produce a ransom of five hundred 6cus, the son will be shipped off to Algeria. G£ronte parts with 15 the money most reluctantly.

As Act III opens, Zerbinette is explaining to

Hyacinthe that she is grateful for having been ransomed, but more than money will be required for any rights over 16 her. Scapin assures her that it is indeed marriage which

L€andre plans, and that he will help all of them, for he enjoys all risks and adventures. All exit but Scapin. 242

When G£ronte enters, Scapin reveals a "new danger."

Hyacinthe's "brother" and her "kinsmen" have assumed that

it is G^ronte who is insisting on the annulment so that

Octave will be free to marry his own daughter. (In an

aside, Scapin reveals that this will be his revenge on

G€ronte for lying to L^andre about him.) The ruffians are searching everywhere for him, but if G^ronte will get into

Scapin's sack, Scapin will carry him home where they can barricade themselves against attack. Gdronte climbs into the sack. Scapin assumes several different voices and accents and pretends to cry out in pain as the imaginary ruffians beat him, all the while beating Gdronte inside the sack. Scapin becomes so carried away with his fourberie that he fails to notice that Ggronte has peeped his head out of the sack and has discovered the ruse. Scapin finally notices him and runs away.

Zerbinette comes in laughing. Since she does not recognize the father, she recounts how a "certain G6ronte," a miserly and ridiculous old man, was defrauded of his money by the conniving and rogueries of a most excellent and clever Scapin. G^ronte goes off in a rage.

After several more entrances and exits of various characters, G^ronte and Argante are finally comparing notes on how they have been tricked by Scapin. But GSronte has worse news. His daughter, who was to arrive from Tarentum today, is said to have perished at sea. Then the nurse 243

Narine enters, flings herself at the feet of "Seigneur 17 Pandolphe" (GSronte's assumed name while in Tarentum),

and explains that because of the abandonment and confusion

in which they had found themselves, she had permitted

Hyacinthe to marry a youth by the name of Octave, a

"Seigneur Argante's" son. All are astonished at the coin­

cidence. After several other incidents, coincidences,

announcements and reversals involving various characters,

it is finally discovered by means of a bracelet that

Zerbinette is actually Argante's long-lost daughter.

Scapin realizes that the sons may well make peace with

the fathers at his own expense and also that the fathers

plan more than just a simple reproach for him. He there­

fore has Carle announce that he has been mortally wounded

by a mason's hammer which fell on his head, and he has him­

self carried in on a stretcher, his head swathed in bandages.

He pretends to implore forgiveness before his demise, but

Geronte will only consent on the condition that he dies.

Argante then asks Gdronte to forgive him unconditionally in favor of their mutual joy, and Geronte relents. Upon hear­ ing this, as theatrical tradition has it, Scapin springs to 18 his feet and pirouettes. Before having himself carried off in triumph, he exclaims, "Et moi, qu'on me porte au bout de la table, en attendant que je meure" (III, 13).

According to Robinet, it was Molidre himself who played the role of Scapin "admirablement" (Lettre du 30 244 mai, 1671). Robinet also commends La ThorilliSre on his performance as Silvestre disguised as a "matamore," and

Mile Beauval as Zerbinette, a role created especially for her so that she might display her marvelous and infectious 19 ability to laugh. The distribution of the rest of the roles for the original cast is open to conjecture. Aim£-

Martin claims that Hyacinthe was played by Mile MoliSre, although later scholars dispute this claim, the role being somewhat flat and undeveloped. It was simply not Moli^re's usual practice to assign or to create such roles for his wife Armande.'2®

Regarding the nurse, could it have been an actor who played the role? It was indeed Molifere's usual practice to have the role of a blatantly ridiculous, old, or ugly female character played by a man (a female actress simply could not afford to jeopardize her standing in the eyes of the audi­ ence with an unflattering image). However, the role of

Narine is not part particularly comical nor unflattering, but simply that of an older woman. If one of Molidre’s younger and more beautiful actresses was not willing, there was always Marotte, a lowly employee of the troupe who occasionally left her job as usherette to join the cast.

She had no real status to lose. It was Marotte who had played the role of the ugly older sister in Psych£ and who would soon have the title role in Molidre's next new play 245 about a gauche and provincial woman of rank, La Comtesse 21 d 1Escarbagnas.

Aime-Martin claims that the role of the nurse Nerine was played by Mile de Brie in the original 1671 cast, although the Repertoire des comedies frangoises que se peuvent jouer (I la cour) en 1685 awards Mile de Brie the role of Hyacinthe, and notes that a "La Grange" played not 22 only the role of Nerine, but also that of Argante. A male actor could not play both roles, for Argante and Narine appear together on stage in Act III from scene 9 through 13.

However, the problem is solved when we recall that La Grange the actor married Marie Ragueneau, a "comedienne sans eclat" otherwise known as "Marotte," on 25 April 1672, almost a 23 year after Scapin1s debut. Despite Aime-Martin's claims, more recent scholarship has suggested that the 16 85

Repertoire reflects the original 1671 cast, for the members of Moliere's troupe commonly played the same roles through- 24 out the years. Thus, the role of Hyacinthe would have gone to de Brie, Argante to La Grande, and Nerine to

Marotte.

Aime-Martin also claims that Hubert and Du Croisy originally played Argante and Geronte, with La Grange as

L§andre. It is supposed that Molidre's young protege 25 Baron may well have played the role of Octave. The

Repertoire of 16 85, however, attributes the roles of

Argante and Geronte to La Grange and Du Croisy respectively, 246 with Hubert as L^andre. (Octave was played in 16 85 by

Dauvilliers, who was never in the troupe during MoliSre's lifetime.) But it remains that except for the three roles mentioned in Robinet's Lettre , we have no conclusive evi­ dence indicating the original 16 71 cast, and as I shall later show, even those roles are open to question.

It is also commonly believed that at least the roles of the fathers, Geronte and Argante, were played in 1671 h I'italienne, or in other words, played wearing actual 26 masks. Indeed some scholars have even theorized that

Molidre outfitted the entire cast with masks. This theory seems plausible, for all the characters seem to be comic

"types." Their roles would merely be accentuated by the use of masks. There is no real need for psychological analysis. The actions and dialogues are for the most part merely necessitated by the particular situation or perhaps tradition. The fathers in particular do not correspond to the image of a pdre de famille, even as represented by an 27 Orgon or a Harpagon.

This very confusion over the casting of the roles as well as the style of the acting and the possible costuming may well have contributed to the cool reception that Les

Fourberies de Scapin suffered at the start. Garapon, fol­ lowing the traditional theory popularized by Despois and

Mesnard, hypothesizes thatMolidre, whose health by this time had greatly declined, was perhaps incapable of the 24 7

mobility, agility, and acrobatics which were necessary to

accompany the verbal virtuosity that the role of Scapin 28 demanded. However, in Robinet's Lettre, we recall that

it is indeed to MoliSre that he attributes the role of

Scapin. But it is possible that Moli^re played the role for

the debut or for only a few performances and that later the

troupe juggled all the roles, with MoliSre no longer play­

ing Scapin. Several contemporary events lend credence to

this theory.

In Psych£, for example, MoliSre played only the small role of Zdphire and only appeared in the third act. He did 29 not play at all in La Comtesse d 1Escarbagnas. Much empha­ sis has traditionally been laid upon the fact that Molidre,

as chief actor, author, and director of his troupe felt it his duty to continue to play his demanding roles in the theatre despite the grave consequences this would have on his own poor health. But in October of 16 72, he would turn over even his cherished role of Alceste to the then nine- 30 teen-year old prodigy, Michel Baron, durxng an illness.

When one adds to the above the theory that Armande herself may not have appeared at all in Scapin, with

Molidre gone from the stage, and all the roles juggled, it may well be that the public did not turn out because they knew that they would not be seeing their favorite performers in their favorite roles. In other words, it may very well be that there is a very practical explanation for the cool 248

reception of Scapin at the start as opposed to all the

"theoretical" reasons proposed throughout the centuries.

It was Boileau who proposed one of the first theoreti­

cal criticisms of Scapin. The lines from the Art pogtique

are legendary:

C'est par IS que Moligre illustrant ses Merits, Peut-gtre de son art eut remportg le prix, Si, moins ami du peuple en ses doctes peintures, II n'eut point fait souvent grimacer ses figures, Quittg pour le bouffon l'agrgable et le fin, Et sans honte h Tgrence allig Tabarin. Dans ce sac ridicule otl Scapin s'enveloppe, Je ne reconnais plus 1'auteur du Misanthrope.31 (Chant III, vers 426-33)

Later, Voltaire refers to Les Fourberies de Scapin as "une de ces farces que Moligre avait prgparges en Province," but

Voltaire also announces that Boileau was in error to claim that Moligre shamelessly allied Terence with Tabarin.

Voltaire asserts that this was not true, at least for

Moligre's "grandes comgdies," plays in which the latter surpasses Terence. According to Voltaire, Molidre only sunk to easy humor in his farces, the "bas comique" being only in deference to the common people, but that this "bas comique" was necessary to maintain the troupe in reasonably 32 good financial shape.

But Voltaire's theory fails to take into account that there were elements of the bas comique in plays written directly for the Court. For example, of the six plays

Moligre composed immediately preceding Scapin, five were written directly for the Court. The sixth, L 'Avare, intended for the Palais Royal (debut: 9 September 1668), is considered a grande com^die and not a farce. In addi­ tion, the officially sanctioned five-act version of Tartuffe was presented during this period on 4 February 1669 at the

Palais Royal. (The three-act version had originally debuted on 12 May in 1664 at Versailes.) But of these seven plays, five definitely have elements of the bas comique (George

Dandin, Tartuffe, L'Avare, Monsieur de Pourceaugnac, Le

Bourgeois gentilhomme; excluding Les Amants magnifiques and

Psych§), though not all are considered farces. Furthermore, much contemporary evidence as well as recent scholarship all point to the fact that Moli^re was at least by this period intending the bulk of his theatrical repertoire toward courtly, or at least toward sophisticated and educated audi­ ences , and not so much towards the common people. In addi­ tion, as I noted in my chapter on Le Mgdecin malgr§ lui, there is evidence to show that it is a traditional error to assume that the audience at the Palais Royal, especially for farces and other types of comedies, was composed mainly of plebians.33

Voltaire in his hypothesis is clearly in error (not to mention the fact that his own philosophical writings unquestionably contain elements of the bas comique, but were hardly intended for the "common people") .

Other explanations for the cool reception have also been proposed. Couton, for example, cites technical 250

imperfections, claiming that the piece was "... trop courte pour faire un spectacle entier, un peu longue pour 34 accompagner une grande pidce." At first, the historical evidence seems to lend credence to Couton's assertion. Of the original eighteen performances during Moli&re's life­ time, Scapin played alone on the boards for fifteen. It played together with Le Sicilien for the debut and the second performance. On 23 June, Scapin played together with Les M^decins, and this was the performance that brought in the very lowest of the receipts, only one hundred 35 and forty-three livres. But even Couton's theory ignores another historically obvious fact: the sudden popularity of the play after the author's death.

My own theory, taking into account all the historical evidence, is that Les Fourberies de Scapin at the time of the original performances was not a "failure," but that the play was merely "eclipsed" by the success of Psyche, indi­ cating that even the public at the Palais Royal was acquiring the taste of the Court for the grand spectacle. As for the Court, Les Fourberies de Scapin is not a spectacle and thus simply not to their taste. The court ballets which Moli&re wrote on order were often escapist fantasies. Scapin, with its Neapolitan setting and its masks may have been "remote" and Italianate but not escapist. In addition, around 1670, there was a new passion in Paris for everything Turkish. The Court had already 251 recommended and approved the fantasies and "turqueries" of

Le Bourgeois gentilhomme (debut: October, 16 70, Chambord;

25 November 1670, Palais Royal; comidie-ballet). Le

Bourgeois gentilhomme often played in 1671 and 1672 as well.

Thus, Scapin may have been eclipsed not only by Psych£ but by Le Bourgeois gentilhomme as well, despite Scapin1s scene of the galdre turque. The public at the Palais Royal, in imitation of the Court, preferred the "turqueries," and they too regaled in escapist fantasies.

Before turning to an examination of the sources and other possible borrowings for Les Fourberies de Scapin, I will examine the way in which several modern actors and metteurs-en-sclne have chose to interpret the theatrical idiom which is Scapin, the major metteurs-en-sc^ne being

Copeau with respect to his twentieth-century revolution of the tr^teau nu, and Jacques Echantillon's very modern and daring productions.

Of Moli^re scholars, Maurice Descotes perhaps best traces the principal actors and major productions of Les

Fourberies de Scapin from the time of Moli^re to many recent performances. He divides the Scapin productions into two groups. First, there are those actors who played

Scapin somewhat mechanically or as a "type," (Monrose,

Gugazon, Coquelin— nineteenth century) with little regard for vraisemblance. Another tradition of actors played the role with more emotion, realism, and finesse. Descotes 252

concludes that the term which perhaps best defines the role

is virtuosite.• 4.-36

Laurence Romero claims that Les Fourberies de Scapin was "launched into the twentieth century by a brilliant

production by Jacques Copeau (in 1917)" and that it "was

often considered the first Molidre play to be completely 37 modernized for our time." Romero also notes that serious 38 actors such as Louis Jouvet, Jean-Louis Barrault, and 39 . . . Robert Hirsch have revived interest m Scapin. But

Romero wonders if the popularity of Scapin is on the wane,

since the traditional commedia dell*arte style which Copeau repopularized faded in competition with a modern idiom 40 "which tends to be darker, more absurd." Romero, whose

text was published in 19 74, was obviously unfamiliar with

the Jacques Echantillon productions of 19 74 and 1978.

Pierre Abraham, in "Sur la mise en scdne des classiques," (19 74), comments on Echantillon1 s mise-en- 41 sc£ne of Scapin at the Comedie-Frangaise. Echantillon evidently feels that although MoliSre may have had some of his roots in the Italian theatre, the modern reader or spectator can no longer identify with such an "Italian con­ nection." Echantillon, to replace the feeling of "remote­ ness" evoked by the Italianate elements, chose to replace the Italian with a "Western connection." This metteur-en sc6ne apparently must feel that the traditions of the western American cowboy are among "les mythes les plus 253 populaires" with which the contemporary French spectator can identify. Scapin is the character who must bring order to this world which is temporarily disordered, and who else but the "sheriff" of a western can do this? Abraham notes that

"C'est pourquoi Scapin, dds son entree en scene, va nous apparaitre coiff6 d'un chapeau texan tout blanc, avec & ses fiances deux petits pistolets £ amorce dont il va se servir h tout propos et hors de propos." But Abraham feels that there is a certain discordant element in this production for

"Le seul ennui de ce spectacle en tous points charmants, c'est la .difficult^ ga et la, de mettre le texte de Moli^re 42 dans la bouche d'un sh^rif."

Matthieu Galey in "Theatre: Les Fourberies de Scapin de Moli&re" (1978) reviewed another Echantillon production 4 3 by the Tr^taux du Midi touring company. Echantillon him­ self plays Gdronte as a Chaplinesque clochard. The time is changed to the Belle Epoque of the 1900s, and the players are costumed in the striped bathing suits of the period.

The visual gags with which the production abounds are in the style of Mack Sennet clowns. Galey concludes that the pro­ duction is hardly a cause to "crier au crime de ldse-

Molidre," especially for the "jeunes publics du Sud-Ouest 44 qui forment une bonne part des salles."

But even in face of these recent attempts to modernize

Moli&re, it is unquestionably to Jacques Copeau that one must attribute the revived popularity of Scapin and the coirnnedia tradition. His 1951 edition of Les Fourberies de

Scapin includes all the stage directions and diagrams for

the now famous and revolutionary 1917 Theatre du Vieux

Colombier production, with its tr£teau nu, its emphasis on movement and visual spectacle, and the revival of the 45 commedia1s impulsive animation. Registres. Tome II:

Moli£re (Copeau1s collected notes, articles, speeches, and an introduction for an edition of Molidre's works) hallmarks many recent theatrical trends, including productions of

Scapin. In the first part of this work, Copeau describes everything that the Comedie-Frangaise did wrong in produc­ ing Molidre, and in the second, everything he himself did 46 right at the Vieux Colombier. Ironically, Copeau later became the head of the Comedie-Frangaise for a time and was thus able to institute many of the reforms that he recom­ mended. With his younger disciples, Jouvet and Dullin,

Copeau also ended up accomplishing the opposite of what he originally preached. His primary thesis is that the influ­ ence of the dramatist himself should be paramount, but the result of his efforts was that the dramatist became less important than the director. Even Copeau himself at times overshadows Moliere. As Harold Hobson in a review notes:

"It is a central development of twentieth-century theatre that what Copeau made possible was not Beckett or Anouilh 47 or Pinter, but Jean-Louis Barrault and Peter Brook."

And one might add, Jacques Echantillon. 255

With this summary view of the stage fortunes of Scapin,

let us now turn to an examination of the "sources" that

Moli&re the dramatist may have had at his disposal.

B. The Question of "Sources"; "Je prends mon bien ou je le trouve"

It is perhaps the play Les Fourberies de Scapin which

best illustrates Molidre's tendency to "borrow" plots,

scenes, characters, and devices for his own theatrical

repertoire. It is indeed with reference to this play that he is alleged to have said "je prends mon bien oil je le 48 trouve." Not only is the plot borrowed from Terence, but

the characters and settings are Italian, and many of the most "theatrical" scenes are merely transformations from

other plays or even Molidre's own previous works. But most

scholars and critics are also quick to point out that it is not so much the subject but rather the treatment of it that makes a play original and interesting. With this in mind,

I shall divide this section of my chapter into two parts.

First, I shall discuss Molidre's possible parody or borrow­ ings from outside sources with specific reference to Latin

comedy (Terence's Phormio); Italian borrowings (in particu­

lar, the commedia); and finally, French sources, including both early farces and contemporary seventeenth-century plays. Secondly, I shall note Molidre's possible self­ parody and borrowings from his own material which finds itself transformed in Les Fourberies de Scapin. 256

1. Theatrical "Borrowings"; Practicality and Parody

a. Latin Comedy; Terence's Phormio

Fernandez, whose Molidre, the Man seen through the

Plays, is distinctly a biographical analysis of the drama­

tist, feels that the Jesuits and their teaching methods

provided the young Molidre an early impetus toward the

theatre. At the College de Clermont, which Molidre

allegedly attended, awards of prizes were prefaced by the

performance of tragedies and ballets written by the Jesuit

fathers and rehearsed and presented by the students.

Fernandez speculates that Moli^re was probably a good

scholar (though not a brilliant one) who was well-versed in

reading and translating the works of Plautus, Terence, the

majority of the classical Latin authors and some of the 49 Greek.

An analysis of the Phormio and Scapin will show that

Scapin is neither a slavish imitation nor a free adaptation

of the Latin play. Since Molidre uses the Phormio more or

less as the "skeleton" of his play, it is to be expected

that the first act, the exposition, is made up largely of

sources taken from the Phormio. After the first act, how­

ever, Molidre more or less takes off on theatrical scenes

and devices which are of his own invention as well as those which are borrowed from other plays. In addition a heavy dose

of farcical elements sets the tone of Scapin as much more 257 gay than that of the Phormio. The plot of the Phormio is as follows

Chremes has one son by his domineering wife,

Nausistrata. Under an assumed name, he has also contracted a bigamous marriage in Lemnos and has a natural daughter by this union. His brother Demipho has a son by the name of

Antipho. Chremes wants to marry his natural daughter to his brother's son.

Chremes and Demipho go abroad, leaving their sons in the care of Demipho's slave, Geta. In the meantime,

Antipho falls in love with a penniless orphan, Phanium. He had met her by chance. She had come to Athens with her mother and her nurse, but the mother had died in poverty.

Wanting to make the girl his mistress, Antipho is refused on the grounds that she is from a good family. Antipho then turns to the parasite Phormio for aid.

Phormio devises a plan, pretending to be a friend of the girl's father. He claims that Antipho is Phanium1s only next of kin. By Athenian, law, the boy must marry the girl, even without a dowry. Naturally, Antipho has no objections. The court orders the marriage.

Chremes's son, a young man by the name of Phaedria, has also fallen love with a cithern player, Pamphila. But he needs money to buy her from the slave dealer.

The fathers, Demipho and Chremes, return from abroad.

Demipho tries to annul Antipho's marriage, but Phormio, 258

still pretending to be a friend of the girl's father, tries

to prevent him from doing so. Phaedria learns that the

slave dealer is about to sell his beloved Pamphila and he

begs Geta to get the money to buy her himself. Geta in­

vents a story. He tells Demipho that Phormio will accept

the annulment and marry Phanium himself if Damipho will pro­

vide a dowry. It is, however, the other father Chremes who

pays the dowry. He wants to insure that Antipho will be

free to marry his own daughter from Lemnos.

Chremes then meets Sostrata, whom he recognizes as the .

nurse of the daughter he has in Lemnos. It turns out that

Phanium is his daughter. She and her mother and her nurse

had come to Athens to look for him. Chremes also thus

learns that the marriage he had been planning has already

taken place by means of Phormio1s trickery and the court

decree. Geta, the slave, however, has been eavesdropping.

He thus learns of Chremes's bigamous marriage and promptly

reports it to the parasite Phormio who, to escape punish­ ment from Demipho and Chremes, reveals what he has heard to

Chremes's legal wife Nausistrata. She defends Phormio and

Phaedria at the end of the play. The general similarities between the Phormio and Scapin

are quite obvious. The characters themselves display

almost a mechanical similarity and parallelism: two fathers,

two sons, two girls, a nurse, a second marriage and a lost

daughter for one of the fathers, the jeunes amoureux and 259 their problems, voyages, the need for money on the part of the sons and roguish tricks to obtain it.

But there are some obvious differences. The "parasite," a common character in Roman comedies, has been suppressed, possibly because there was no parallel for him in Molidre's contemporary society. Thus, the play would have been too remote. Likewise, "slaves" have become "valets." The role of Nausistrata has been entirely suppressed. However, in the Latin play, the girls never actual.ly appeared on stage, despite the fact that they were continuously talked about and central to the action and outcome of the plot. Molidre actually puts the characters of Hyacinthe and Zerbinette on stage, and furthermore, he distinguishes them. Hyacinthe, like her flower name, is gentle and sweet. Zerbinette is portrayed as having a laughing and happy nature, as sug­ gested by her pert name. She is also a bit £tourdie, well illustrated by her heedless revelations to Geronte. Never­ theless, there is also probably a practical reason for the inclusion of the female roles: Molidre had several actresses in his troupe for whom he provided roles.

I would now like to point out several instances in which Moli^re, in Les Fourberies de Scapin, departs from the Latin model, and actually improves, by dramatic means, the theatrical impact of the play. For example, the point of Athenian law which permitted the marriage of Antipho and

Phanium to take place has become a vehicle for a tirade on 260

the impossibility of coming out ahead in a French lawsuit, 51 as related by Scapin to Argante (II, 5). This particular scene, then, becomes not only a satire of the French law system, but also a theatrical device, for it is really a parody of a tirade.

In the Phormio, Geta, a somewhat indifferent onlooker merely recounts Antipho's reception by Phanium's nurse. In the corresponding scene of Scapin (I, 2) Octave himself recounts the entire story of his marriage, meeting, and courtship. Scapin continually interrupts with ironic remarks, and the exasperated Silvestre finally takes over at the end to sum up the entire story. Octave becomes a 52 parody of a heroic young lover, a "Rodrique travesti," and this technique on the part of Moliere greatly increases the dramatic impact. Although Octave is terrified at the thought of his father’s imminent wrath, he assures Hyacinthe that he is willing to forsake all for her (I, 3). The sons in the Phormio vacillate and seem to be interested only in sensual pleasure.

In the Phormio, Geta coaches Antipho on how to act and what to say when he will meet with his father. The scene is only mildly amusing. In the corresponding scene of

Scapin (I, 3), Scapin actually pretends that he is Argante while coaching Octave. Indeed, Scapin is so convincing in his role that Octave is struck dumb with terror. He later tells Scapin that he thought it really was his father he 261 was hearing. Molidre then creates in this scene a "play within a play," with not only Scapin himself "playing a 53 role," but also acting as the "director" for Octave.

In the Phormio, Phaedria begs the slave Geta to get him the money which he needs in order to buy Pamphila the cithern girl. The corresponding scenes in Molidre's play

(II, 3-4) are much more amusing, theatrical and movement- oriented. Leandre, as the scene opens, is berating Scapin, demanding that the valet admit his "misdeed." But Scapin is unaware that Argante has revealed to Geronte what Scapin has told him, and he is also unaware that Leandre has spoken with his father. Scapin therefore "confesses" on his knees to a number of misdeeds that Leandre did not even suspect. Then, when Leandre learns that his beloved

Zerbinette will be whisked away by the gypsies, it is he who, on his knees, begs Scapin to help him. In this manner,

Moli^re makes what was could merely be an ironic reversal much more theatrical.

Finally, in the Phormio, Geta is trying to weedle some money out of Demipho, who stands his ground. As the sum gets higher and higher, it is Chremes who offers to pay each time. In the corresponding scenes in Scapin (II, 5,6,7),

Argante continually vacillates as the sum gets higher and higher. Thus, like the Phormio, the scene is verbally comi­ cal. But, it is at this point that Silvestre enters, dressed as a ruffian, threatening to kill Argante who wants 262 to annul the marriage of his "sister." Argante ducks be­

hind Scapin while Silvestre struts and threatens. In this

manner, Moli&re adds intense physical movement to the verbal

humor. In addition, while creating this very dramatic and

theatrical scene, Molifere has also created another "play

within a play."

Since the Italian theatre, too, owes a great deal to

the Greek and Roman theatre of antiquity, it is appropriate

to turn to a discussion of Moliere's homage to the commedia

and other Italian sources, specifically as they contribute

to Les Fourberies de Scapin.

b. Molidre and the Italian Theatrical Tradition

Scholarship has often viewed Les Fourberies de Scapin 54 as Moli&re's "homage" to the commedia, despite the fact

that there are Italianate elements in almost all of his plays. But why would Moli&re choose Scapin in 16 71 for his most clearly Italianate play since the early days of the

Illustre Theatre?

There may again be a practical rather than a theoreti­ cal reason. In 1670, Scaramouche had returned to the

Palais Royal after an absence. We also know that Moli^re

and his company had frequent suppers with the Italian players at the house of the painter Verrio in the late months of 1670. Furthermore, the business and various other practical necessities involving the renovations at the 263

Palais Royal required a close and frequent contact between 55 the two troupes during the early months of 1671. It may simply be that Moli&re had an exceptionally close contact with the Italians at this time and decided to put their theatrical tradition to good use.

I have already sketched the history of the Italian theatre in my "Chapter One: Introduction," and also in my chapter on George Dandin with respect to Calmo's Rhodiana and the literary tradition of Boccaccio. I would now like to discuss the theatrical conventions in Les Fourberies de

Scapin which create an atmosphere having a certain

"poStique de fantaisie de faire chatoyer des couleurs de gai£t6 m£diterran6enne.

Especially with regard to Scapin, it is important to recall that the two major divisions of the commedia, the commedia erudita and the commedia dell'arte had separate beginnings and were established about a century apart, but shared many of the same theatrical conventions and struc- 57 tures of dramatic materials. These conventions and structures in turn had their roots in the Greek and Roman comedy of antiquity.

Most of the sixteenth century plays of the commedia erudita were rather monotonous with a repetitive intrigue: young men must connive to gain possession of the girls that they love (girls who seldom appear on stage) from their stern or miserly old fathers or guardians. The young men 264

are aided in the process by crafty servants or slaves.

Plot complications and various forms of trickery are impor­

tant elements. These include disguise, eavesdropping,

impersonation, schemes for obtaining money, the sudden

resolution of false or mysterious identities, and the loss

of all obstacles at the end so that the young lovers can

marry. Most of the above description easily fits the basic

intrigue of Scapin.

In the commedia erudita, the unities of time and place

are for the most part respected, with the action taking

place in twelve to twenty-four hours. The conventional

setting is composed of a street or square with two or three

houses equipped with doors and windows. In Scapin,

Molidre observes the unity of time and also of place with

the conventional setting of the street, although he moved

the play from Scappino's native Milano to Naples. The city

of origin may have constituted an important point for the

Italian audience, but the French audience probably neither

cared nor noticed except for the setting & l'italienne.

In addition, Molidre in his own way observes the unity

of action more than these Italian models. Whatever the

action in Les Fourberies de Scapin, it is always dominated

by the incomparable Scapin himself. As Attinger notes,

'Cependant que les amoureux se concertent et que les

vieillards g^missent ou menacent, on sent que Scapin r§git 5 8 ces volont6s faibles comme un op^rateur de marionettes." 265

Despite these similarities, it is difficult to deter­ mine if they are due to the wealth of source material based on the sound classical education (including Terence) that people of Moli&re's rank and education were likely to receive,^ or familiarity with the commedia erudita.^

Also, it is a very risky business to make too many positive assumptions about the exact origins of Molidre's art. It is an inexhaustible, but difficult subject for investiga- 61 tion.

The commedia dell'arte, sometimes known as the commedia a soggetto or the commedia all1improviso, appealed not only to the aristocracy but to the public at large. As a break with literary tradition, their comedies were always three acts in length rather than five, and their specialty was the comedy of intrigue based on a plot outline, with the dia­ logue and gestures on the spur of the moment at the time of production. But as Giacomo Oreglia, in The Commedia dell1 arte notes, this improvisation does not mean merely the freedom to depart from a printed text, but also the capacity of the actors who have worked together a long time to "vary the business" while remaining fully aware of each other's strengths and weaknesses. Their teams were so 6 2 tightly knit that the result was a kind of impromptu.

Molidre and the members of his troupe also quite likely improvised their acting style, but as I noted earlier in this chapter, it is possible that Scapin was given a cool 266

reception by the Parisian public because the roles may have

been shuffled and the production simply not up to par 6 3 (especially if Moli&re did not play).

Some of the stock characters in the commedia dell'arte

came to be associated with a particular city or region:

MoliSre uses the technique of dialects associated with them

in the infamous sack scene of Act III, scene 2 of Scapin.

He also suppresses the role of the bumbling dottore, and

doubles the severe and irrascible Pantalone in the charac­

ters of Argante and Geronte. The usual two pairs of

innamorati, hardly distinguishable in the commedia dell'arte,

are modified in Scapin because of practical exigencies.

The teen-age Baron convincingly portrays a lovelorn and emotional Octave whereas the middle-aged Hubert (or La

Grange) portrays the more level-headed L^andre.

Finally, there are indeed scenes involving Scapin which are just plain traditional horseplay, not to mention the sack scene and the stock beating. But Scapin surpasses the commedia zanni and lazzi, for he is clearly the meneur- de-jeu of the entire play and not merely a comic accessory.

In summary, then, one might concur with Descotes that the dominant element by which this comedy approaches the style of the Italians and the commedia is with regard to the conventions. Any attempt at vraisemblance has been neglected with respect to the dialogues, the action, the 64 characters, and the whole framework itself. 267

But Moli^re's possible borrowings, keeping in the

spirit of "je prends mon bien oil je le trouve," were

certainly not limited to the commedia or Latin comedy. A

good deal of bien was borrowed from playrights in his own

native France.

c. Contemporary French Comedy

Molifere's major French borrowings for Scapin can be divided into two groups: first the farces, and then the

comddies by Cyrano (Le Pddant jou6), Rotrou (La Soeur), and

Rosimond (La Dupe amoureuse) . Let us begin with Tabarin.

Two well-known farces in particular have a sack and 6 5 beating scene, although Tabarin himself may have borrowed 6 6 from the Italians. In one of the farces, Francisquine, wife of the old d§bauch£ Lucas, hides him in a sack because he fears being carted off by the police (sergents). But it is not the police but Fristelin at the door, who is bring­ ing Francisquine a billet doux from his master.

Francisquine pretends to hear a noise outside and entices

Fristelin into the same sack in which Lucas is already hiding. Then, along comes Tabarin, Piphagne's valet, who wants to purchase some meat from Francisquine. She decides to play a good trick and tells Tabarin that there are two

"pourceaux" in the sack. When Tabarin and Piphagne open the sack, they discover Lucas and Fristelin, and the farce ends in a giant free-for-all fight. 268

In a second farce tabarinique, Tabarin has hidden the captain Rodomont in a sack in order to introduce him into the house where Isabelle lives with her old husband Lucas.

When Rodomont emerges from the sack, it is not Isabelle but

Lucas himself whom he finds. Rodomont quickly invents a story that tempts Lucas's avarice. The latter is induced to climb into the sack in the place of Rodomont, who then slips away. Along come Tabarin and Isabelle. Thinking that it is Rodomont in the sack, they decide to teach him a lesson. They beat the sack and the person inside as hard as they can, only to discover that they have beaten Lucas.

In the farces tabariniques, however, the emphasis is on marital squabbles or ruses, the teaching of "lessons," or 6 7 some involvement with a possible lover. Although no actual sacks are involved, Molidre had already exploited the the­ atrical effects of marital squabbles and beatings in both

Le M£decin malgr§ lui and George Dandin. In Scapin, how­ ever, there are two essential differences. First, there is no "marital squabble" and secondly, there is no real reason or cause except a theatrical one, for Scapin's desire for vengeance and assumption that G^ronte told some sort of a tale to L6andre about him hardly qualifies. In other words, one might argue that Sganarelle deserves his beating in the

"tit for tat" scheme of Le M^decin despite the fact that

Martine more or less goaded her husband into beating her.

One might also argue that Ang§lique, though ostensibly 269 beating Clitandre as a ruse to fool her parents, was taking out her marital frustrations on Dandin who had "bought" his bride without her consent and now is constantly threatening to beat her. But in Scapin, the only real cause for beat­ ing the father is the purely theatrical exploitation of easy humor. Furthermore, Martin, Sganarelle, and Dandin were more or less uncooperative in their beatings. But

G^ronte was enticed and tricked into getting into the sack.

Although MoliSre may have borrowed the acting style and "stage business" from the Italian theatre as well as the French farceurs, it was certain dialogues that he borrowed from contemporary comedies. Molidre reworked the opening lines from Rotrou's La Soeur twice. 6 8 The first occasion was for the play M^licerte, the opening scene of

Act II. The similarity is even more highlighted in Scapin, as a comparison of the three sets of dialogues will illus­ trate. Let us begin with the pleasantly rhymed exchanges of Lelie and Ergaste in La Soeur;

LELIE: 0 fatale nouvelle, et qui me desespdre! Mon oncle te l'a dit? et le tient de mon pSre? ERGASTE: Oui. LELIE: Que pour firoxdne il destine ma foi? Qu'il doit absolument m'imposer cette loi? Qu'il promet Aur^lie aux voeux de Polydore? ERGASTE: Je vous 1 1ai d£j& dit, et vous le dis encore. LELIE: Et qu'exigeant de nous ce funeste devoir, II nous veut obliger d'£pouser dSs ce soir? ERGASTE: D&s ce soir. LELIE: Et tu crois qu'il te parloit sans feinte? ERGASTE: Sans feinte. LELIE: Ha! si d'amour tu ressentois l'atteinte, Tu plaindrois moins ces mots qui te coutent si cher 2 70

Et qu'avec tant de peine il te faut arr&cher; Et cette avare echo qui repond par ta bouche Seroit plus indulgente h 1"amour qui me touche. ERGASTE: Comme on m'a tout appris je l'ai rapporte, Je n'ai rien oublie, je n'ai rien ajoute: Que desirez-vous plus (La Soeur, I, 1)

There is a great similarity in Molidre's Meiicerte:

MELICERTE: Ah! Corinne, tu viens de l'apprendre de Stelle, Et c'est de Lycarsis qu'elle tient la nouvelle. CORINNE: Oui. MELICERTE: Que les qualitSs dont Myrtil est orne One su toucher d 1amour Eroxdne et Daphne? CORINNE: Oui. MELICERTE: Que pour l'obtenir leur ardeur est si grande, Qu'ensemble elles en ont dej& fait la demande? Et que, dans ce debat, elles ont fait dessein De passer, d&s cette heure, & recevoir sa main? Ah! que tes mots ont peine & sortir de ta bouche! Et que c'est foiblement que mon souci te touche. CORINNE: Mais quoi? que voulez-vous? C'est la v§rite, Et vous redites tout comme je l'ai conte. (Meiicerte, II, 1)

Such rhymed exchanges give way to the prose opening between Silvestre and his master Octave in Scapin:

OCTAVE: Ah! facheuses nouvelles pour un coeur amoureux! Dures extremites oCi je me vois reduit! Tu viens, Silvestre, d'apprendre au port que mon pdre revient? SILVESTRE: Oui. OCTAVE: Qu'il arrive ce matin m§me? SILVESTRE: Ce matin mime. OCTAVE: Et qu'il revient dans la resolution de me marier? SILVESTRE: Oui. OCTAVE: Avec une fille du Seigneur G^ronte? SILVESTRE: Du Seigneur G^ronte. OCTAVE: Et que cette fille est mandee de Tarente ici pour cela? 271

SILVESTRE: Oui. OCTAVE: Et tu tiens ces nouvelles de mon oncle? SILVESTRE: De votre oncle. OCTAVE: A qui mon p&re les a mand^es par une lettre? SILVESTRE: Par une lettre. OCTAVE: Et cette oncle, dis-tu, sait toutes nos affaires? SILVESTRE: Toutes nos affaires. OCTAVE: Ah! parle, si tu veux, et ne te fais point, de la sorte, arracher les mots de la bouche. SILVESTRE: Qu'ai-je & parler davantage? vous n'oubliez aucune circonstance et vous dites les choses tout justement comme elles sont! (Scapin, I, 1)

Although the similarities are evident, Moli&re en­ larges the scope and strengthens the effect with the greater number of Silvestre's "oui's" and the echo effect of his replies. But later in the act of each respective play, both valets will try to hurry along their masters: In

Rotrou's play, Ergaste says to L61ie:

ERGASTE: Si de ce long recit vous n'abrdgez le cours, Le jour se l&vera plus t6t que ce discours. Laissez-le-moi finir avec une parole.69 (La Soeur, I, 4)

Moli&re apparently reworked this dialogue and gave it to

Silvestre who like Ergaste, reprimands Octave who is tak­ ing too long to describe his first meeting with Hyacinthe:

SILVESTRE: Si vous n'abregez ce rScit, nous en voil& pour jusqu'& demain. Laissez-le-moi finir en deux mots. (Scapin, I, 2)

The scene in which Silvestre is disguised as a matamore

(II, 6) closely resembles scene 10 of La Dupe amoureuse, 272 a one-act comedy by Rosimond played at the Marais sometime during the second half of 1670. An old valet, travestied as a Gascon captain, terrifies old Polidore and makes him 70 disguise himself and pretend to be someone else.

Finally, two of the key scenes are almost a direct 71 imitation of Cyrano's Le Pddant jou£. Leandre's kidnap­ ping and the galdre scene of II, 7 seem to correspond to a similar account in Le Pedant. Likewise, the r6cit of

Zerbinette in III, 3 has a similar counterpart in II, 2 of

Le Pedant. The pedant Granger has a son, Chariot, who is in love with Genevote, but his father is also vying for her hand. Genevote prefers Chariot. However, Zerbinette's account of the joke played on GSronte is really more amusing because she tells it unwittingly, accompanied by innocent and infectious laughter. Genevote recounts the joke while she is fully conscious of what she is doing.

Thus, in reference to "Je prends mon bien oil je le trouve," Moli^re borrowed plots, structures, conventions, and dialogues from Latin comedy, the commedia, and his

French contemporaries, reworking these materials in his own play. Still, there was quite a bit of "bien" to borrow from his own theatrical repertoire.

2. Moliere's Own Repertoire: Self-parody and Stagecraft -

In this section, I would like to examine possible borrowings, parodies, and theatrical devices that Molidre 273 may have drawn from, or perhaps reworked from his own repertoire. I will divide my discussion into two areas: miscellaneous borrowings; L'Etourdi, which some critics and scholars claim is a kind of "preliminary sketch" for

Scapin.

a. Miscellaneous Borrowings

Traditional scholarship has long claimed that the sack and beating scene was taken from Gorgibus dans le sac, a short piece mentioned by La Grange's Registre in 1661, 1663, and 1664. Unfortunately, the text is no longer extant, and there is no conclusive proof to show that the farce actually was written by Moliere. Any relationship between Gorgibus and Scapin must therefore remain a matter for conjecture.

There are, however, several other scenes which clearly demonstrate parentage. In Scapin, for example, the valet is wailing and carrying on, pretending not to see G^ronte in II, 7. (Scapin is actually setting up G§ronte for the ruse of the Turkish galley.) A similar device had already been employed by Lisette the servant girl who had pretended not to see Sganarelle the father in L 1Amour medecin (I, 6).

The same theatrical device was repeated in III, 6 of

Pourceaugnac, although it was limited to a single reply.

There is another theatrical device in Pourceaugnac, which more closely resembles Scapin, and this is the use of accents. Scapin employs a "baragouin gascon ou suisse" in 2 74

the sack scene. In Pourceaugnac (II, 7 & 8), Lucette had already employed a jargon of Languedoc, and Narine a

"parler picard." Thus, in these two plays, Pourceagnac and

Scapin, not only is Moli&re using accents for their comic sound effects in themselves, but the stage characters are using these accents as disguises or ruses, and as elements of the "play within a play" that they are creating for the dupe.

Zerbinette's comment to Geronte after she has made him appear foolish in his very own eyes is quite reminiscent of the second confidence of Horace to Arnolphe in L'Ecole des femmes. Zerbinette tells Geronte, "Mais il me semble que vous ne riez point de mon conte" (III, 2). Horace tells

Arnolphe:

Je tiens cela plaisant autant qu'on saurait dire, Je ne puis y songer sans de bon coeur en rire, Et vous ne'en riez pas assez, & mon avis. (Ill, 4)

A similar theatrical device was, as noted in the chap­ ter on George Dandin, employed by the character of Lucas who, as an oafish blunderer, revealed all to Dandin himself on several occasions. Zerbinette and Horace make their revelations more or less innocently, because of ignorance, while Lucas's revelations are caused by just plain stupid­ ity. All the scenes are verbally funny. But the corres­ ponding scene in Scapin is excruciatingly funny because it is accompanied by Zerbinette's own laughter. The scene is 2 75

therefore not only funny from the "intellectual" point of view but from the emotional point of view as well, for the scene also becomes a fantaisie verbale due to the sound effects.

Molidre, in several of his plays, uses the device of a character who wishes to enforce his will on others in the play. This domineering character is usually the father who wishes to impose his will on his offspring regarding a projected marriage. In Scapin, the marriage has already

taken place, and in I, 4, Scapin is trying to dissuade

Argante from annuling Octave's marriage:

SCAPIN: C'est une chose dont il ne demeurera pas d'accord. ARGANTE: II n 'en demeurera pas d'accord? SCAPIN: Non. ARGANTE: Mon fills? SCAPIN: Votre fils. Voulez-vous qu'il confesse qu'il ait St6 capable de crainte, et que ce soit par force qu'on lui ait fait faire les choses? II n'a gard£ d'aller avouer cela. Ce seroit se faire tort, et se montrer indigne d 'un p£re comme vous. ARGANTE: Je me moque de cella. SCAPIN: II faut, pour son honneur, et pour le vStre, qu'il dise dans le monde qte c'est de bon gr£ qu'il l'a 6pous6e. ARGANTE: Et je veux, moi, pour mon honneur et pour le sien qu'il dise le contraire. (I, 4)

One might conjecture that this mechanical insistence on his own will on the part of Argante is a verbal reminiscence and a echo of Alceste: "Moi, je veux me facher, et ne veux point entendre" (I, 1). In this manner, Molidre would then be affecting a verbal parody of a previous grande com^die. 2 76

Earlier in this same scene, Scapin had used the device of turning the question around to the father:

ARGANTE: C'est par force qu'il a £t6 mari6? SILVESTRE: Oui, Monsieur. SCAPIN: Voudrois-je vous mentir?

This was the same ruse that Clitandre had used to trick

Monsieur de Sotenville into thinking that he was not

Ang^lique's lover as Dandin had accused him:

MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: II m'a £t£ rapports, que vous aimez et poursuivez une jeune personne. qui est ma fille, pour laquelle je m'int£resse, et pour l'homme que vous voyez, qui a 1 'honneur d'§tre mon gendre. CLITANDRE: Qui, moi? MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Oui; et je suis bien aise de vous parler, pour tirer de vous, s'il vous plait, un 6claircissement de cette affaire. CLITANDRE: Voil& une Strange mddisance! Qui vous a dit cela, Monsieur? MONSIEUR DE SOTENVILLE: Quelqu'un qui croit le bien savoir. CLITANDRE: Ce quelqu'un-lA en a menti. Je suis honn§te homme. Me croyez-vous capable, Monsieur, d'une action aussi l&che que celle-lS. . . (I/ 5) There is, however, an essential difference. Scapin and

Clitandre both rely on the gullibility of the fathers. But

Clitandre completely denies the accusation, and is thus, plainly and simply, lying as well as allowing old Soten­ ville to be a dupe and victim of his own deception. Scapin's ironic comment allows a certain game atmosphere to continue, without the out-and-out deceitful overtones of George

Dandin. Finally, at the end of the play, the happy denouement occurs partly because mysterious and long-lost identities 277 are cleared up. The bracelet that Zerbinette was wearing when she was kidnapped by the gypsies at the age of four is unearthed, and she is recognized as Argante's long-lost daughter. This bracelet is reminiscent of the bracelet d 1agate that Valere kept as a souvenir of his mother ("Un bracelet d'agate que ma mfere m'avait mis au bras. . ."

[V-5]) and which is also partially responsible for the happy denouement at the end of L 'Avare. Thus, L 1Avare as well as

Scapin (like many plays of the time) have a somewhat artificial denouement, but such a denouement was already evident in the very first major play attributed to Moli&re,

L'Etourdi, ou les contre-temps, in which the dramatist, after ten or so gtourderies on the part of L^lie, finally put an end to the play.

b. L'Etourdi

Molidre's L'Etourdi was first performed at Lyon around

1655 and three years later helped to establish him as an actor and a dramatist in Paris. The main source for this first of Molidre's known "Italianate" plays is Barbieri's

Inawertito, or as in the full title, L 1Inavvertito overo

Scappino disturbato e Mezzettino travagliato (published

1629 and 1730).^ Molidre followed the rather complicated love story with a parallel set of characters, but with more clever and sophisticated stagecraft and techniques than

Barbieri. He untangled many of the complications and 278

rendered them dramatically concentrated. He introduced

three of the ruses in quick succession in the first act as

part of the exposition, thereby setting the theme and tone

of the play as basically bluffing and game-playing. In

addition, a burst of activity as the climax of each of the 73 five acts also heightens the dramatic impact.

In L 1Inavvertito, Scappino appears in more scenes than

any of the other characters, but he does not steal the show,

sharing the spotlight with Fulvio and Mezzetino (resur­

rected as L6lie and Trufaldin in L'Etourdi) who appear in

twenty-four scenes each. The other major characters appear

on stage about a dozen times each. But already, we see

Moli&re's manner of composition versus that of the commedia

dell'arte emerging. In the commedia, there was no "star 74 system," or "pidce & vedette." But even in his early

production, though Molidre created certain parts for

certain actors, he reserved the leading role for

himself and continued to do so throughout the rest of his

theatrical career. Although it is difficult to speak of a

progression in terms of "improvement" in Molidre's dramatic

composition, by the time of Scapin, there is a definite mastery of the technique of the pidce h vedette. In

L'Etourdi, Mascarille appears on stage more than any other

single character in any of Molidre's plays, and in this way,

influences the scene well as the other characters. In Les

Fourberies de Scapin, Scapin actually dominates all the 279 other characters, but he is not on stage as often as was

Mascarille. Indeed, he is off-stage for most of Act III.

But the essential difference is that Scapin does not have to be physically present for even in the third act, the other characters are always talking about him or searching for him.

This point is the basis, then, for some interesting conjectures. For one, the role of Scapin, though physi­ cally taxing, is less taxing then that of Mascarille. This would lend credence to the theory that Molidre's dramatic composition was influenced by his own declining health, but as a master technician of stagecraft, he could compensate for this phenomenon. This compensation was then not a "pro­ gression" in stagecraft, but an answer to a purely theatri­ cal exigency.

In summary, then, regarding all the various dramatic sources that were at his disposal (Latin comedy, the Italian theatrical tradition, the French theatrical tradition, the contemporary French stage, and a reworking of his own theatrical repertoire, Moli^re's method of "borrowing" had two major results. First, his originality in the fact that he did not merely "imitate," but reworked these theatrical materials in accordance with his own theatrical exigencies.

Secondly, these reworkings were often effected through a parody, not necessarily a parody of the original source, but a parody of theatrical conventions and theatrical heroics. 280

In terms of composition, Moliere's theatricality is prac­

tical as well as parodical.

With this in mind, let us turn to a discussion of the

theatrum mundi of Les Fourberies de Scapin, a theatrum mundi which in aesthetic terms becomes "l'art pour l 1art" and

"theatre pour th^&tre."

C. Theatrum mundi

Speaking of Dom Juan, Robert J. Nelson in "The Unre­

constructed Heroes of Moliere" notes that his "'hypocrisy1

is not a matter of ethics but of esthetics: he is a hypo­

crite only in the etymological sense of the word: an 75 actor." For Dom Juan, his lies of courtship are only

conventions in the game of love. Applying Nelson's sug­ gestion to Scapin, Scapin's lies, like those of the Dom,

are also conventions, but conventions in his role as

fourbe. We feel no particular pity for Charlotte and

Mathurine if they are silly and naive enough to believe Dom

Juan's conventional lies of courtship. Likewise, the

fathers in Les Fourberies de Scapin are gullible, domineer­ ing, and plain foolish, and if they too are naive and silly enough to believe Scapin's conventional lies which are part of his fourberies, like the peasant girls so too are the fathers undeserving of the spectator's sympathy. Dom Juan is, after all, an actor, one who acts the part of a superior being. So too, Scapin acts the part of a superior being in 281

his role as the meneur-de-jeu of his own little theatrical

universe. But the spectator in the theatrum mundi of the

"real world" need not fear the diabolical power of the Dom nor for that matter, that the "servant" will take over the world in the figure of Scapin. This is because Moli^re, in his dramaturgie, is careful to preserve an aristocratic vision du monde. I would like to demonstrate the validity of this claim by a comparison of the ethics and aesthetics of Dom Juan, Mascarille, and Scapin followed by a brief discussion of the role of the valet as servant (and servile) character.

1. Dom Juan, Mascarille, and Scapin

Dom Juan, as an aristocrat, should presumably have been of noble heart and deed, a hero in the Cornelian sense. But after his exit to hell, the spectator may awake to the rude shock that what he has just witnessed has perhaps not been what he expected. From the beginning of the play, we heard that Dom Juan is "Un grand seigneur m^chant homme, c'est une terrible chose" (Sganarelle, I, 1). During the play, the

Dom is accused of murder. We hear the plaintive cries of a noblewoman who claims that he has seduced and abandoned her.

But these and similar accusations are merely in the realm of verbal reminiscences on the part of various characters in the play. 282

What is it that the spectator actually witnesses on

the stage? All that he sees is a fellow cavorting with

peasant girls, tormenting poor beggars, bullying peasants,

flattering creditors, and cheating a servant of his wages,

hardly a depiction of a true nobleman. Furthermore, the

Dom is constantly accompanied by Sganarelle, a character whose verbal and gestural antics render him a buffoonish

valet in the manner of Sancho Panza. The spectator eventu­

ally realizes that the entire play has been a parody of an 76 archetypal romantic villain. What is "said" about Dom

Juan is not what actually occurs on stage and what the

spectator witnesses.

Scapin's predecessor, Mascarille in L'Etourdi, worried

about his "gloire" and his ability to battle "superhuman 77 forces," as illustrated by his many Cornelian style maxims

and his stances sprinkled throughout the play: "L'honneur,

o Mascarille est une belle chose:/ A tes nobles travaux ne

fais aucune pause" (III, 1). "Plus l'obstacle est puissant, plus on regoit de gloire" (V, 6). But despite these high-

flown statements, again, what is it that the spectator

actually witnesses? It is none other than repeated

attempts on the part of Mascarille to aid a silly scatter­

brain who can't seem to get anything right. And despite

all of Mascarille's attempts, the ending is contrived, the work of destiny, and might very well have occurred without his efforts. Like Dom Juan, who is a parody of the 283 archetypal villain, Mascarille becomes a parody of a

Cornelian hero.

And what of Scapin? There is really only one instance in the play in which Scapin speaks of his "gloire," and this is in his first scene on stage when Octave seeks his aid:

SCAPIN: A vous dire la verity, il y a peu de chose qui me soient impossibles, quand je m'en veux meler, J 'ai sans doute regu du Ciel un ggnie assez beau pour toutes les fabriques de ces gentillesses d'esprit, de ces galanteries ingdnieuses & qui le vulgaire ignorant donne le nom de fourberies; et je puis dire, sans vanity, qu'on n'a gu£re vu d'homme qui fut plus habile ouvrier de ressorts et d'intrigues, qui ait acquis plus de gloire que moi dans ce noble mStier: mais, ma foi! le m^rite est trop maltraits aujourd'hui. . . (I, 2)

The tone of Scapin's reference to his "gloire" is not quite so pseudo-Cornelian, as it was in Mascarille's statement in

L'Etourdi. The tone is altered in another important sense from L'Etourdi to Scapin, for the five-act and verse con­ struction— pretensions to great comedy— has given way to the much more malleable three-act prose construction. But

Scapin, like Mascarille, does aid and abet the young lovers in the obstacle course that destiny and the fathers have thrown before them. Only Scapin does so for his own pleas­ ure. In a sense, so too, Dom Juan and Mascarille act with regard to their own personal wishes, but Scapin will never step outside the theatrical universe of the stage, for it is the stage alone he serves. As Alfred Simon in "The 284

Elementary Rites of Moli^re’s Comedy" has already observed,

"Everyone thinks that he [Scapin] is his valet, but fool­ ing everyone, he serves the theatre alone. Through gesture and speech, he creates his own universe where the pawns assume positions according to his whim, while he alone is 7 8 involved in the situation."

It is here that the essential difference between Dom

Juan, Mascarille, and Sganarelle lies. Dom Juan was said

to be a villain, but on the stage, he acted out the parody of the archetypal villain. Mascarille said that he was seeking his gloire in the Cornelian sense, but in his actions upon the stage, whereby he was saving not the world but a silly §tourdi from his own self, Mascarille acted out the parody of the Cornelian hero. Scapin, serving the theatre alone, is a descendant and a unique kind of parody of Mascarille and Dom Juan, for he is the meneur-de-jeu, who as the prime mover of the theatrical puppets around him, reestablishes the megalomania of Sganarelle in Le M^decin malgr6 lui. Scapin accomplishes this not only through words, through dialogue, what others say about him as well as what he says about himself, but he reestablishes the megalomania through theatrical bodily posturing and physi­ cal gesture whose culmination occurs in what has tradi­ tionally been labeled an infamous episode, the scene of the sack. As Simon continues 285

. . . Scapin alone, from one end of the comedy to the other, offers this ecstatic image of bodily action driven to its limits. And its paroxysm comes in Scene 2 of Act III. Scapin, the character-actor, master of the situation, reduces G^ronte, the mask and character-object, to the derisory posture of a man caught in a sack. Two objects intervene, thanks to which Scapin can juggle the order of the world: the sack and the bat. He surpasses gesture through dance, and discourse through unbridled dialogue, multiplies his face and voice, and counterfeits all the possible events of the world. While he exalts himself in dancing, and annihilates the foul burden in the sack by beat­ ing it, he arrives at a truly Dionysian intoxica­ tion. 79

Scapin, then, seems to annihilate the order of the world and turn it topsy-turvy in the figure of the servant beating the patriarchal figure of the father. But since this anarchy is staged, not real, it remains a matter of theatrical aesthetics and not ethics. On stage, Dandin may have been morally right but "esth^tiquement dans son tort." 80 Scapin is morally wrong, but we might add,

"esth£tiquement, il a raison."

Nevertheless, Molidre as author and dramatist has carefully arranged certain other scenes so that there is no doubt in the spectator's mind that he is not witnessing an invitation to social anarchy. This has to do with the manner in which Scapin is presented in his metier, that of a servant. 2 86

2. Scapin as Valet/Servant Character

Those who look upon Moli&re as a moralist have tradi­

tionally seen his servant characters as pseudo-raisonneurs, 81 an incarnation of the "bon sens populaire." Others,

from perhaps an archetypal perspective, see the role of the

servant as one of symbolic instinct whose aid to the young

couple is instrumental in their triumph over the forces of

order and repression that seek to suppress a natural order

and instinct. 82

Scapin, like Molidre's other servant characters, aids

and abets the young lovers in their triumph over the forces

of repression, but in a theatrically superior fashion as a

theatrically superior being. Might this not suggest, then,

that Scapin in his superiority threatens the precarious

social balance and hierarchy of the "real world" as well as

the world of the stage? Again, the answer is no, for like

the bonnet of Dandin which, despite his pretensions to wealth and a higher social order, gave him away immediately

as a peasant, there are two scenes in particular in Scapin which leave him in the realm of the world of servants. This

is in Act II, scene 3 in which Scapin, sinking to his knees,

admits that he has stolen wine, stolen a watch, and because

of his own laziness, has tricked L^andre into not carous­

ing around all evening long by pretending that he was a

hobgoblin (loup-garou). Scapin would not have to accompany his master all evening long and could stay at home and do 287 as he pleased. In the final scene of the play, Scapin remarks, . . qu'on me porte au bout de la table, en attendant que je meure" (III, 13). Scapin then, on his knees appears cowardly, and apparently likes to indulge him­ self in liquor, laziness, theft and gluttony, discordant elements for a "superior" being. In this manner, Molidre has carefully constructed his character so that he is obviously a servant who is not a threat to the social order of the

"real world" although he can still "act" superior in the

"stage world" in many ways.

How then, might his display an "aristocratic" vision du monde? Scapin is the theatrical meneur-de-jeu who acts superior only while on the stage. In the real world, his metier would be that of servant, and as demonstrated, there are various indications that Scapin would not emerge from this social role. In Molidre's entire theatrical reper­ toire, although servants may complain about particular masters, they never actually complain about being ser- 8 3 vants. On the other hand, the bourgeois is often shown attempting to better his middle-class role and is depicted as aping the aristocracy in a ridiculous manner. This might tend to suggest a complicity between the aristocratic class and the servant class, a certain social stability, but one which excludes the bourgeois. This vision du monde then, might provide another clue for the apparent cool reception of Scapin at the start. The play, after all, was 288 written for the Palais Royal and not the Court. Historical evidence shows that at the Palais Royal although the spec­ tators were made up of various social strata, a large part was the middle class who in all likelihood had aristocratic pretensions. But paradoxically, if they were to admire

Scapin, they would have to acknowledge the superiority of a servant. Rather, the audience of the Palais Royal waited out the debut of Psych§, a com§die-ballet on which the

"superior" aristocracy had already conferred its approval.

But here lies another paradox, an ironic one, for

Scapin is in its own way a com^die-ballet, but one without the music. Speaking of Scapin, Garapon notes, "L1ensemble aboutit h une com£die-ballet d'un genre supdrieur, puisque la chordographie, les figures, et les airs ne sont plus rel£gu£s dans les entractes mais font partie intdgrante 84 de 1'action." Les Fourberies de Scapin then, in its 8 5 theatricality, becomes a mechanical ballet.

D. Conventions; The Mask of the Mechanical Ballet

In no other play has Molidre created such a close and necessary association of geste and parole than in Scapin, which, as suggested, are much like the airs and music of a com§die-ballet. It is this art and artifice of composition which renders the play so theatrically effective. Geste and parole combine, for example, during the many instances of "storytelling" whereby the rhetoric of the fictional 289 86 narrative is accompanied by theatrical gestures. In Act

I, scene 2, Octave gives a long winded account of his courtship and marriage to Hyacinthe while the other char­ acters must impatiently mill around waiting for him to finish. One might imagine that Octave is posturing physi­ cally as the noble young hero of what is becoming a comedie larmoyante.

But nevertheless, although greatly exaggerated,

Octave's storytelling has a basis in fact. Scapin's account of the marriage to Argante in I, 4 as well as Scapin's account of Ldandre's abduction by the Turks in the galley scene of Act II, scene 7 are pure fiction. The exaggerated postures, lamenting, crying and carrying on to Scapin only serve to heighten the theatrical effect of the little scenarios that Scapin is creating for the fathers.

In Act III, scene 1, Zerbinette even requests an episode of storytelling: "Mon Dieu, Scapin, fais-nous un peu de ce r6cit, qu'on m'a dit qui est si plaisant, du stratag&me dont tu t'es avis§ pour tirer de 1'argent de ton vieillard avare." Zerbinette then recounts this entire story unwittingly to the "vieillard avare" himself. She is laughing herself silly while the old father explodes with rage.

Finally, Scapin instructs others to tell stories for him, for in the last Act and scene of the play, he has instructed Carle to recount how he Scapin has been mortally 290 wounded. His entrance thus prepared, Scapin has himself

carried on stage, his head wrapped in bandages, while he

continues the tall tale and plays out the scenario of a

dying man. But hearing that he has been unconditionally pardonned, Scapin jumps to his feet and dancingly pir- houettes while announcing his own theatrical triumph.

Not only in storytelling, but the many instances of the "ballets de paroles" are accompanied by a "ballet de gestes" that can be affected by a skillful actor. For ex­

ample, Act I, scene 4 opens with a series of quiprocos that are supposedly between Scapin and Argante. However, Argante believes himself to be alone while Scapin and Silvestre are

"dans le fond de theatre." Thus, two separate but inte­ grated "ballets" are occurring, with the ironic commentary of Scapin accompanying the physical and vocal display of rage on the part of the father. Argante has evidently just heard of his son's marriage and is beside himself:

ARGANTE: A-t-on jamais oui parler d'une action pareille & celle-l&?

To this, Scapin comments:

SCAPIN: II a d6j& appris 1'affaire, et elle lui tient si forte en tete, que tout seul il en parle haut. As the stage directions indicate, Scapin speaks these lines to Silvestre, but obviously they are also meant for the spectator. Hence, Scapin has a double audience. 291

A second exchange follows, whereby Argante continues to speak to himself while Scapin addresses his remarks to

Silvestre/the spectators:

ARGANTE: VoilS. une t£m6rite bien grande! SCAPIN: ficoutons-le un peu.

After the two initial exchanges follow several lines of dialogue whereby Argante continues to believe himself alone, while Scapin continues to comment k part. The effect of the scene is a complete mockery of the father by the character of the valet. But taken in the spirit of farce, coupled with the idea that Argante himself is not only a

"type" but a buffoonish character, the fact that the father talks to himself without noticing the other characters on stage is accepted as mere convention. Argante and Scapin continues their separate but integrated "ballets":

ARGANTE: Je voudrois bien savoir ce qu'ils me pourront dire sur ce beau mariage. SCAPIN: Nous y avons song£. ARGANTE: TScheront-ils de me nier la chose? SCAPIN: Non, nous n'y pensons pas. ARGANTE: Ou s'ils entreprendront de l'excuser? SCAPIN: Celui-1& se pourra faire. ARGANTE: Pr§tendront-ils m'amuser par des contes en l'air? SCAPIN: Peut-§tre. ARGANTE: Tous leurs discours seront inutiles. SCAPIN: Nous allons voir. ARGANTE: IIs ne m'en donneront point A garder. SCAPIN. Ne jurons de rien. ARGANTE: Je saurai mettre mon pendard de fils en lieu de sdret6. SCAPIN: Nous y pourvoirons. ARGANTE: Et pour le coquin de Silvestre, je le rouerai de coups. (I, 4) 292

The two figures, Scapin and Argante have been "dancing" apart in their "ballet de paroles et de gestes." Later in the scene, they "dance" together, when Scapin tells Argante that Octave will never consent to an annulment:

SCAPIN: II ne le fera pas, vous dis-je. ARGANTE: II le fera, ou je le desh£riterai. SCAPIN: Vous? ARGANTE: Moi. SCAPIN: Bon. ARGANTE: Comment, bon. SCAPIN: Vous ne le desh^riterez point. ARGANTE: Je ne le desh^riterai point? SCAPIN: Non. ARGANTE: Non? SCAPIN: Non. ARGANTE: Hoy! Voici qui est plaisant: je ne desh^riterai pas mon fils. SCAPIN: Non, vous dis-je. ARGANTE: Qui m'en emp§chera? SCAPIN: Vous-meme. ARGANTE: Moi? SCAPIN: Oui. Vous n'aurez pas ce coeur-lA. ARGANTE: Je 1 1aurai. SCAPIN: Vous vous moquez. ARGANTE: Je ne me moque point. SCAPIN: La tendresse paternelle fera son office. ARGANTE: Elle ne fera rien. SCAPIN: Oui, oui. ARGANTE: Je vous dit que cela sera. SCAPIN: Bagatelles. ARGANTE: II ne faut point dire bagatelles. SCAPIN: Mon Dieu! je vous connois, vous Stes bon naturellement. ARGANTE: Je ne suis point bon, et je suis m^chant quand je veux. . . (I, 4)

Scapin, as the principle actor, director, creator, meneur-du-jeu, and dance master has as his own creator

Molidre himself. As Simon notes:

. . . Moli&re decomposes life into a mechanical ballet, he schematizes and puts rhythm into the visual development of the action. . . He firmly sketches out a silhouette, starts a gag, and 293

literally dazzles us. The false dignity that textbooks have conferred on the classics still keeps us from admitting that inspired mime in Moli^re, the dancing buffoon that he was.8?

In summary, then, for the "farceur" of 1671, Les

Fourberies de Scapin in spectacle and performance was a relative disappointment. The play did not receive the financial and critical acclaim awarded other plays of the period by Moli^re. Scapin was not warmly received at

Court. Perhaps the remoteness of the Italianate atmosphere was too remote for the Parisian taste of 16 71. Perhaps the

"farceur" himself did not play in every performance. Or perhaps the play was merely eclipsed by the many com£dies- ballets seemingly preferred by the Court and Parisian public.

Regarding Molidre's sources and borrowings, he may well have borrowed the plot from Terence; the structures, dramatic conventions, and style of acting from the commedia; the sack and beating scenes from the French farces, and various dialogues from his contemporaries. Moli^re also unquestionably reworked material from his own theatrical repertoire. "Je prends mon bien oil je le trouve" becomes, by means of these borrowings, both practical in terms of theatrical exigencies as well as parodical.

Parody and self-parody carry over into the theatrum mundi of the "stage world." Scapin becomes a parody of

Dorn Juan who is himself a parody of an archetypal villain. 294

Scapin also becomes a parody of Mascarille who is, in many ways, a parody of the Cornelian hero concerned about his

"gloire." But in the theatrum mundi of the "real world,"

Scapin is and remains a fourbe. In no way is he a threat to the spectators, for his dramatized gluttony and avarice leave him in the social role of the servant. But through the theatrical mechanics of geste and parole, Scapin wears the mask of the prime mover of the play, a mask which is actually his face. Les Fourberies de Scapin becomes, then, 8 8 "farce transcended and commedia perfected" in its tri­ umphal and triumphant theatricality. NOTES

■^Robert Garapon, Le Dernier Molidre: Des Fourberies de Scapin au Malade imaginaire (Paris: SEDES, 1977), p. 40. 2 Garapon, p. 40.

"^Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 399. 4 Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 388. See also Bray and Scherer, III, 437. 5 Bray and Scherer, III, 4 37. Garapon, p. 40, n. 3, remarks that at the Palais Royal Moli&re's troupe played "les jours ordinaires," or Tuesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. The Italian players, with whom he shared the theatre, played "les jours extraordinaires," or Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.

^Bray and Scherer, III, 437, emphasize this point. 7 Receipts and dates of performances from La Grange's Registre, as quoted by Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 399. g Garapon, p. 42. 9 From La Grange's Registre.

■^Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 400.

■^Scholarship beginning with Despois and Mesnard as well as Louis Moland, Moli&re et la com^die italienne (Paris: Didier, 1867), accept the Phormio as the chief influence for Molifere's Scapin. See also Katherine E. Wheatley, Moli^re and Terence, A Study in Molifere's Realism (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1931), pp. 10-4 3 for an extended comparison of Scapin and the Phormio. 12 On the gulf of Tarentum, in Apulia, it was as Greek colony in the eighth century, B.C. Moli^re, however, tends to use this city merely to evoke an Italianate atmosphere. I O Actually, it was Argante, and he only hinted at what Scapin had told him. The next scene, in which L^andre forces Scapin's "confession," is the only time in the play that Scapin is actually telling the truth.

295 296 14 Cailhava, in his Etudes sur Moli&re (1802, p. 273), claims that this "confession" is taken from an Italian canevas, and cites the French title as Pantalon, pfere de famille. One of Pantalon's sons steals a gold box from his mother-in-law. Arlequin is accused of the theft and threatened with a hanging. He drops to his knees and swears his innocence, but confesses an infinity of other thefts. Cailhava quoted in Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 448, n. 3. The editors admit the possibility, but underscore the lack of positive proof for Cailhava1s theory. 15 Moland, p. 34 7, claims that this scene is taken from an Italian canevas by Flaminio Scala entitled II Capj.tanc . Pantalon must give up cent Icus to rescue his son from bandits. It is also possible that this scene influenced Cyrano's Le Pedant jou£, and that Molidre borrowed the scene by way of Cyrano rather than directly from the commedia. (No conclusive proof exists for either theory.)

■^In the Phormio, the corresponding character was a slave girl who had to be bought. Zerbinette is not a slave, but the gypsies will not release her without payment. The hint that her favors will not be given without marriage indicate that she is from a good family, although at this point in the play, neither the other stage characters nor Zerbinette herself are aware of her heritage. It is also a bow to biensiance on the part of the dramatist. 17 Another bow to biens^ance. No present wives are indicated for either Argante or G^ronte. There is no indi­ cation that G^ronte's marriage in Tarentum was bigamous, but for the corresponding character in the Phormio, the second marriage was clearly bigamous, the daughter illegiti­ mate, and the feared reaction of the legitimate wife consti­ tuted part of the plot. In both plays, however, the mothers of the long-lost daughters conveniently die before the play actually begins. 18 See Maurice Descotes, Les Grands Roles du thSStre de Moli&re (Paris: PUF, 1960), p. 219. Moli^re had already used the gesture of the pirhouette in Dorn Juan. Sganarelle is so overcome by emotion that after his tirade, he performs a pirouette and falls to the ground.

1 9Quoted in Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 400: "Cet Strange Scapin-lk, / Est Moliere en propre personne, / Qui, dans une piece qu'il donne / Depuis dimanche seulement, / Fait ce rdle admirablement: / Tout ainsi que la Torrillidre, / Un furieux porte-rapi&re, / Et la grande actrice Beauval, / Un autre role jovial, / Qui vous feroit pSmer de rire." 297 20 Aim§-Martin, as discussed and challenged by Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 401. 21 See Roger W. Herzel, "'Much Depends on the Acting1: The Original Cast of Le Misanthrope," PMLA, 95 (19 80), 36 2- 63. For a further discussion of Herzel's theories on the original castings of Molidre's plays, see Molidre's Actors and the Question of Types," Theatre Survey 16 (1975) , 1-24.

22All references to Aim6-Martin and the Repertoire as found in Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 401-02. 23 Sylvie Chevalley, Album du theatre classique (Paris: Gallimard, 1970), p. 169.

^ B r a y and Scherer, III, 437. 25 Herzel, p. 36 5, notes that Baron had very charmingly played Cupid in the Court production of Psych£, and had also played Cl^onte (Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme), the young­ est of Moli^re's "young lovers," with an adolescent ripeness that was just right for the dgpit amoureux. Thus, Baron would seem to have fit the "type" of Octave. 2 fi Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 40 3, and Bray and Scherer, III, 437-38. In 1763, after a performance of Scapin, the Mercure galant notes: "C'est la seule piece rest£e au theatre oG 1 'usage du masque se soit conserve."

27Descotes concurs. See p. 215. 2 8 Garapon, pp. 41-4 2. 29 Garapon, p. 42, suggests that this was to recuperate from an illness. (However, Psych§ had played during the January preceding as well as the July following Scapin's May debut.) 30 Herzel, p. 365. 31 Nicolas Boileau-Despr£aux, Oeuvres, ed. Georges Mongr6dien (Paris: Garnier, 1961), p. 181. Several scholars have taken the stand that Boileau was merely criticizing MoliSre's general indulgence in easy humor rather than any one particular scene. Furthermore, it was actually GSronte, and not Scapin, who was enticed into climbing into the sack.

37For Voltaire's full text, see Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 406. 298 33 See John Lough, Writer and Public in France (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978), pp. 154-55, as well as his Seventeenth-Century French Drama: The Background (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978), p^ 18 3. 34 George Couton, ed., Moli^re, Oevres completes (Paris: Gallimard - Bibliotheque de la Pldiade) , 11," 89 2. Garapon, p. 41, agrees. 35 According to La Grange’s Registre. 36 Descotes, p. 226. 37 Romero, Traditions in Criticism, p. 151. 38 Louis Jouvet, Molidre et la com£die classique. Extraits des cours de Louis Jouvet au Conservatoire (19 39- 40). Paris: Gallimard - Collection Pratique du Theatre, 19 65) . Jouvet, like Cv'peau, emphasizes the physical side of theatre. The actoi must physically forget himself and immerse himself in his role and character: ". . . le theatre, c'est quelque chose de physique" (p. 188). Jouvet includes a lesson on Act II, scene 7, the Turkish galley scene. Current aesthetic theory concurs with Jouvet's prin­ ciples. See, for example, James K. Peibleman, "On the Metaphysics of the Performing Arts," JAAC, 28 (1970), 296: "Performing . . . artists may be thought of as the mouve- ments of the artifact." 39 Wallace Fowlie in his chapter "Molidre Today," in Dionysus in Paris (New York: Meridian Books, 1960), pp. 258- 59, discusses Jouvet's Scapin at Marigny (Barrault as Scapin), claiming that the Dionysian quality of the produc­ tion turned it into an intricate ballet, but since it was more Italianate than Gallic, the Parisian public found it too remote. More briefly mentioned are Jean Meyers's Scapin at the Com^die Frangaise, "recited," with gesture subordinate to voice (p. 260); Robert Hirsch's at the Com£die Frangaise (p. 35); Copeau at the Vieux Colombier (pp. 256-57). 40„ i Romero, p. 151. 41 Pierre Abraham, "Sur la mise en scene des classiques," Europe, 539 (1974), 297-299.

^Abraham, p. 29 8. 43 ^ . Mattieu Galey, "Theatre: Les Fourbenes de Scapin de MoliSre," NL, 24-31 May 19 78, p. 28. On the same page, and next to Galey's review, is a review by Patrick de 299

Rosbo, "Les Fourberies de Scapin de Molidre," describing Pierre Boutron's Scapinat the Athence (Louis Jouvet's theatre) as harshly clown-like. At the end of the play, Scapin finds himself alone, strumming a guitar. 44 Galey, p. 28. 4 5 Jacques Copeau, ed., Molihre, Les Fourberies de Scapin (Paris: Seuil, 1951). 4 6 Jacques Copeau, Registres. Tome II: Molihre, ed. Andrd Cabanis (Paris: Gallimard, 1976) , p~. 41: "Le 27 aout, j 1ai assist^ h une representation de la Cornddie-Frangaise: Les Fourberies, avec Crou£ dans Scapin. La pihce est absolument morte. . . c'est l 1art de 1880." Copeau objected to the fossilized production chiefly because Scapin and Silvestre became "deux jumeaux." (Referring to a 1919 pro­ duction. )

4 7Harold Hobson, "Copeau on Molihre," Drama, 123 (1976), p. 12. 48 . . . The traditional quotation is given as such. It was actually Molidre's first biographer, Grimarest, who in La Vie de Monsieur de Moli^re (1705; rpt. Nogent-le-Rotrou: La Renaissance du Livre - Collection BibliothSque de l'Amateur de Thgitre, 1930), alleges that he made a similar statement, although Grimarest never knew Molihre personally. Grimarest quotes Molihre as, "II m'est permis, disait Moli^re, de reprendre mon bien oh je le trouve" (p. 9). Voltaire quotes Molihre as ". . . cela m'appartenait de droit: il est permis de reprendre son bien partout oh on le trouve." Voltaire quoted in Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 406.

49 Ramon Fernandez, Molihre, the Man Seen Through the Plays, trans. Wilson Follett (New York: Hill and Wang, 1958), p. 5. For a discussion of the scope of Molidre's education, if he did attend the College de Clermont, see Jerry Lewis Kasparek, Molihre's Tartuffe and the Traditions of Roman Satire, North Carolina Studies in the Romance Lan­ guages and Literatures, No. 17 5 (Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press, 1977), pp. 11-23. For the alleged breadth of Molihre's readings of classical authors, see Gustave Michaut- Les Luttes de Molihre (Paris: Hachette, 1925), pp. 55ff., and also Jurgens, Cent Ans de recherches, pp. 554ff. 50 Plautus, The Phormio, trans. Barret H. Clark, m Roman Comedies, ed. George E. Duckworth (New York: Random House - The Modern Library, 1942), pp. 299-346. 300 51 According to Fernandez, p. 7, the study of law be­ came very casual in the mid 1660s. Moli^re displays a very good familiarity with legal language, but Fernandez asserts that a handbook would suffice, along with five minutes time. 52 Claude Abraham, "Rodrigue travesti," in Molidre Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of His Death, ed. George B. Daniel (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973), p. 74: "At one time or other, every young lover ever created by Moli&re echoes or apes Rodrigue giving a lesson in honor-in-love to his father." In Le Cid, Don Di&gue claims, "Nous n'avons qu'un honneur, il est tant de maitresses!" (line 1058), to which Rodrigue replies, "L'Infamie est pareille, et suit 6galement / Le guerrier sans courage et le perfide amant" (11. 1063-64). 53 Hubert, Molidre and the Comedy of Intellect, p. 234, sees Scapin as a "stage director." 54 Simon, "Elementary Rites. . p. 38.

55See Raymond Laubreaux, Molidre (Paris: Seghers, 1973) , p. 159. 56 Descotes, p. 215.

57Philip A. Wadsworth, Moli&re and the Italian Theatri­ cal Tradition (Columbia, S.C.: French Literature Publica- tions, 1977), pp. 3ff. The descriptions of the commedia, hereafter, are attributed to Wadsworth. Comparisons with Moli^re are my own. 5 8 Gustave Attinger, L*Esprit de la commedia dell'arte dans le theatre frangais (Paris: Librairle Th§atrale; Neuchatel: La Baconnidre, 1950), p. 161. 59 Wadsworth, Kasparek, and Fernandez, m their respec­ tive works, concur on this point regarding Molidre's alleged classical education. 6 0 The commedia erudita was so named because it was composed and introduced by Humanistic writers who wrote imitations and adaptations of plays by Plautus and Terence. Scapin, too, even if not an "imitation" of Terence, is at least a borrowing. This would lend credence to the theory that with Scapin, Moli&re is closer to Terence than to the commedia erudita. The commedia erudita was also called the commedia reolare because it accepted the rules of Aristotle as interpreted by the Italian theorists. For Scapin, it is 301 again difficult to determine if Molidre is borrowing directly from the commedia erudita or adhering to the unities in deference to Aristotle.

ads worth, pp. 11-12. 6 2 Giacomo Oreglia, The Commedia dell'arte (New York: Hill and Wang, 1964), p. xiv. r o Contemporary engravings depict MoliSre in the tradi­ tional commedia stripes, but the "Inventaire apr&s-d£c£s" mentions no particular costume for Scapin. This is odd, for it would be unusual to be missing a costume for a play in which Molidre allegedly appeared only two years before his death, while including costumes for plays as early as Les Facheux and Le Cocu imaginaire. Such a lacuna lends cre­ dence to the theory that Moli^re himself did not play Scapin in any or perhaps most of the 16 71 productions. The replace­ ment actor then kept the costume. 64 Descotes, p. 214. Descotes, too, points out that although the plot owes much to Terence, the structure of the comedy is Italian.

6 5The farces are recounted by Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 390-91. The canevas are extant, but since the farces are so heavily dependent upon gesture as well as a large degree of improvisation, it is almost impossible to give a true account of an actual performance, 6 6 Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 392. In fact, since the verve and style of Tabarin's farces was so close to that of the Italian players, he was sometimes mistakenly called "Tabarini" and said to be of Italian extraction.

6 7 Most all scholarship notes possible parentage between MoliSre's comedies and the sixteenth century conteur Straparole's Les Facetieuses nuits. In the "Seconde nuit, fable V," Simplice Rossi wants to seduce Giliole, the peas­ ant Guirot's wife. Husband and wife conspire, Simplice ends up in an empty flour sack, whereby he is beaten by the hus­ band. But this theme is really no different than that of many early farces and fabliaux. Any direct relationship with Molidre's works is at best tenuous. For a discussion of Straparole's work, see Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 392. Bray and Scherer and also Garapon concur that there is parentage between Molifere's works and those of Straparole, but they may be merely echoing the theories of Despois and Mesnard. 302 6 8 The passages are reproduced in Despois and Mesnard, VI, 171-72, n. 2. Also cited by Garapon, pp. 59-60. La Soeur dates from 1645. 69 Cited in Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 418, note 2. 70 Garapon, p. 57, n. 4. Garapon, p. 58, also notes that the playwright Dorimond introduced a "Scapin" in L 1Inconstance punie (1651) and in L'Amant de sa femme (1660) . 71 Garapon, p. 57; Bray and Scherer, III, 438. Despois and Mesnard, VIII, 519-26, cite extracts from Le Pedant jou£ in an "Appendice." The play dates from about 1654, although Despois and Mesnard cite a 1671 printing. 7 2 For the best treatment of L 1Inavvertito and Moli^re, see Wadsworth, pp. 28-37, who in his study and analysis also cites Moiand, Michaut, Lancaster, and Attinger. Despois and Mesnard give a full and complete text of L 'Inavvertito in I, 241-78.

^Wadsworth, p. 37. 74 Also emphasized by Wadsworth, p. 33.

^Nelson, p. 118. 76 Francis L. Lawrence, "The Ironic Commentator in Moliere's Dorn Juan," SFr,35 (1968), 201-207, also points out ironies along similar lines, referring to Dorn Juan as a "farce devil." 77 See Hubert, pp. 3-4 and Carlo R. Francois, "L'Etourdi de Molidre ou l'illusion h^rolque," RHT, 59 (1959), 87-91. 78 Simon, p. 38. 79 Simon, pp. 38-39.

^Brody, "Esth^tique et soci6t6. . .," p. 319.

81See, however, Jean Emelina, "Les Serviteurs du theatre de Moliere ou la f§te de 1 1 inconvenience," RHT, 26 (1974), 229-39, who examines these characters and concludes that servants are, in theatrical terms, more than just sym­ bols of "le bon sens populaire" because their frequent gluttony and avarice are also often dramatized. 8 2 See, for example, Marcel Gutwirth, "Le Comique du serviteur chez Molifere," Symposium, 4 (1950), 349-57. 30 3 83 Mollie Gerard Davis, "Masters and Servants in the Plays of Moli&re," In Molidre Stage and Study. Essays in Honour of W. G. Moore, ed. W. D. Howarth and Merlin Thomas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 147. 84 Garapon, p. 83. 8 5 Garapon, p. 64, suggests that in the opening three scenes, Octave and Silvestre are a "presto" followed by the "adagio cantabile" between Octave and Hyacinthe. The scene with Scapin playing the father restores gaiety. The metteurs-en-scdne Barrault and Hirsch were particularly skilled at the integration of mime and dance.

See Hubert, pp. 236-37. 87 Simon, p. 31. 8 8 Simon, p. 38. CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

From bawdy to burlesque to baroque, Molitre's three

late farces in spectacle and performance have as their

common thread an essentially game and play-oriented

philosophy of life. As Howard D. Pearce, in "A Phenomeno­

logical Approach to the Theatrum Mundi Metaphor," notes,

"... entertainment and laughter are the fundamental

response to life. More than response, play is the creation

of a game of life— with rules and with a built-in conflict,

resolved in laughter and applause."^ This game of life,

this laughter and applause, are also reflected in the

theatrum mundi metaphor as Elizabeth Burns defined it in

Theatricality: the world becomes a stage, and theatre its 2 paradigm. Thus, as Pearce continues, "The audience and

playwright and play and characters are accomplices in

making and sharing a world of meaning according to the 3 rules of their game."

The rules of the game are interpreted by the author who speaks to his audience through the medium of his

characters. In his Sganarelle of Le M^decin malgr6 lui,

Moli&re has created a happy beast of sexuality, aggression,

304 305 scatology, nonsense, and outrageousness who, forced to play a theatrical game through a quirk of fate, quickly adjusts to and adopts his role as meneur-de-jeu in a game of all-for-fun with all winners and no losers.

Scapin goes even farther than Sganarelle. Although both Sganarelle and Scapin lead the game of life for characters who are perfectly willing to be duped despite all evidence to the contrary, only Scapin actually sets up games for others to play. George Dandin, too, attempts to set up games. But the object of Dandin's games is to up­ set the social hierarchy, a social hierarchy in which, ironically, he himself wishes to rise. Furthermore, if theatre is indeed the paradigm of life, Dandin also fails because Moli&re, in complicity with his aristocratic audi­ ence, cannot allow a buffoon to win. Dandin fails because he lacks the skills to play the game of chance, and his clumsy peasant's body lacks the skills to dance not only in the interludes but also in the ballet of words, the ballet de paroles affected by the other characters.

Scapin accomplishes the opposite of Dandin and does indeed overturn the social hierarchy, but only the social hierarchy of his theatrical universe, for his game serves pure theatre alone. And it is with pure theatricality, the pure farce of Les Fourberies de Scapin that the

"farceur" Molifere and the "farceur" Scapin merge to become one metteur-en-scfene and one meneur-de-jeu who 306 exorcise civilized society through the medium of the stage.

To create a dramatized reality on this stage, Moli&re has "borrowed" from whatever source best served his creation

— "Je prends mon bien oh je le trouve." He is indebted to the spirit of the old French farce, the fabliau, the conte, the esprit gaulois. It is to this tradition, too, that he owes many of his plots and themes: Le Vilain mire, La Femme muette, the "mal-mari§," the "enfant mis aux §coles," the ubiquitous cuckold.

Molifere's repertoire, ranging from L*Etourdi to Les

Fourberies, constitutes one long homage to the Italians and to their style of acting: gesture, pantomime, and impromptu. These Italian players, and subsequently Molihre, probably owe various plots, scenes, episodes, intrigues, and characters to the literary tradition of Boccaccio as well as to Latin and Greek comedy of antiquity.

Molihre also did not deem it unworthy of himself to borrow from his contemporaries: Cyrano, Rosimond, Dorimond, not to mention a possible parody, perhaps even unconscious, of the Cornelian ethic. But the Cornelian hero, a man of action in the first part of the seventeenth century, has been metamorphosed in the second to a man of words. If indeed, Sganarelle and Scapin are "men of words," it is in a comic, parodical sense, and their mastery of parole becomes verbal inebriation and verbal virtuosity. But for some, words and actions lead nowhere: George Dandin. 307

In these three late farces, Molifere the mature artist

has also worked with his own past, drawing from his earlier

theatrical repertoire a plethora of plots, themes dia­

logues, and techniques. These he reworks into a more

complex and sophisticated comedy, a development that Poirier

in The Performing Self termed "the politics of self-parody."

In 1666, Alceste the monomaniac, after a disappointing

lack of critical acclaim for Le Misanthrope, finds himself

playing the boards in the company of Sganarelle, a happy

megalomaniac. Then, Moli&re will end the Sgnarelle cycle with Le Mgdecin malgr§ lui and seek new directions, but

nevertheless, the process of self-parody continues.

Moliere's visionnaires/imaginaires Arnolphe and

Alceste have neither the right use of reason in choosing

their wives (or prospective wives), choosing someone

diametrically opposed to them in temperament, nor do they possess control of their jealous imaginations.^ George

Dandin1s lament, "Pauvres maris! voilh comme on vous

traite" (III, 5), emphasizes the helplessness of the bourgeois (or nouveau riche paysan) who is confronted with

a pr^cieux philosophy that exists only in the spiritual whereas his existence is only in the physical, material side of existence. Nevertheless, when the situation is trans­

ferred from the intellectually clever drawing-room debates

of Le Misanthrope to the lower key of the burlesque George

Dandin, the ensuing farce becomes another self-parody. Regarding the theatrum mundi, each of Moli^re's three late farces has its own "optique th^atrale" with respect to author/actor/audience interplay. In Le M^decin malgr§ lui, it is the role of doctors and medicine in society, a phenomenon also reflected in Moli&re's many other "'medical plays." In George Dandin, it is marriage, the illusion of marriage, and the rituals of illusion which become, for

Dandin, an absurd nightmare and a descent into rage and folie. In Les Fourberies de Scapin, the theatrum mundi and the "optique th§atrale" involve the re-creation of the masked men of illusion, Dorn Juan and Mascarille, themselves parodies and pseudoheroic characters, who are in turn, parodied in a unique way in the theatrical heroics of

Scapin. But Scapin's theatrical heroics and theatrical superiority are no threat for Molifere's aristocratic and/or sophisticated audiences. For just as Dandin's bonnet leaves him in the realm of the peasant, so too do Scapin's occasional lapses into gluttony and avarice leave him in the realm of the servant character, in no way a jarxing intrusion into Moli&re's aristocratic aesthetic.

This aristocratic aesthetic as well as aristocratic ethic is best exemplified in the play George Dandin.

Lucien Goldmann tells us that "La conscience collective, conscience de classe, par exemple, n'est que 1'ensemble des consciences individuelles et leurs tendances telles qu'elles r^sultent de 1'influence mutuelle des hommes 309

les uns sur les autres et de leurs actions sur la nature."?

While it is true that Dandin has money, in the pre-indus-

trialized and provincial society portrayed in the play,

money does not represent power in quite the same sense that

it represents to twentieth-century man. A truer interpre­

tation of Dandin's lack of power is tied to the sense of

aristocratic ethics and aesthetics, for it is not whether

one is rich or poor, but one's attitude toward it, and how

one "acts" regarding one's economic condition. In the

scene of theatricality in and of the world, this "acting"

becomes another illusion.

But even "acting" as a noble is not enough, for one

must also be born to it. It must be rooted in one's past.

The vision du monde of the seventeenth-century nobleman

(here, Clitandre, Sotenville) is characterized in the

sociological sense by a life of consumption without the work that goes along with it. But since the seventeenth-

century nobleman does not see himself as a consumer of

goods, it allows him to concentrate, as does Sotenville, on

his gloire and his heritage, both rooted in the past.

Dandin*s attitude toward material wealth or "goods"

(Ang^lique) is rooted in his own interpretation cf the

present, his vision du monde being that of the marchand,

attempting to barter and buy what cannot be bought at any g price: "cette vraie noblesse," or grace versus gaucherie. 310

In the collective consciousness as defined by

Goldmann, there is no place for the "conscience supra- 9 individuelle." Thus, as "no man is an island," every individual is defined by his rapport with others. Dandin's alienation is due in part because he is anti-nature in attempting to define himself by something other than what nature intended him to be. He cannot define himself by rapport with others, neither the parents, nor the servants, and is alienated even from himself.

In the theatrical sense, when the pastorale sequences are included, Dandin's buffoonish characteristics are even more deeply etched. Without the pastorale sequences,

Dandin (at least according to the majority of theatrical interpretations) still retains his buffoonish character­ istics, but the play at times can indeed take on a disturb­ ing element, an underlying sense of unfairness.

However, there is a paradox in the presentation of the characters in George Dandin. Dandin is indeed mocked, but for that matter, so indeed are the other characters:

Sotenville is d£mode; his wife is ridiculous; Clitandre, with his repeated visits and nocturnal prowling, takes on a tomcat quality; Ang£lique's pr^cieux pretensions lapse into burlesque parody. Clearly this collection of char­ acters are not Louis's new nobles, nor for that matter, the well-to-do bourgeoisie of the Palais Royal, both of whom view the spectacle as an escape from reality. 311

Molifere's seventeenth-century goal was plaire, to present

Dandin and his entourage as entertainment, and most important, to present an aesthetic illusion of reality, not sociological reality itself.

The illusion of reality is affected in the theatrum mundi by the mutual agreements between the author, the actors, and the audience regarding the action dramatized on the stage, in other words, by theatrical conventions.

Molifere uses in his three late farces several devices, among them costume, as reflected in Sganarelle's doctor's robes; fantaisie verbale, as reflected in the theatrical peasant's patois, invented for the ears of a sophisticated and polished Parisian audience to manipulate them to laugh at what they think is provincial; the easy humor of the beatings and the ubiquitous presence of the baton.

Nevertheless, this is a comic theatre where the verbal component of wit is essentially semiotic. Sganarelle's wit, from a Freudian perspective, is based on the distinc­ tion between "tendentious" jokes (grivoiserie) , and

"innocent" jokes, from which the pleasure derived is an end in itself. For after all, Freud proposed a kind of primal scene of a man (Sganarelle) trying to interest a woman (Jacqueline) by verbally evoking sexual matters. But if the woman resists, and especially if another man's presence assures this resistance (Lucas), the third party 312 becomes the person to whom the hostile grivoiserie is addressed.

But as noted in Chapter Two, Sganarelle's immense pleasure is in creating his role and "playing" doctor with childish glee. Sganarelle's real pleasure is not in addressing any real hostility to Lucas. Rather, his real pleasure is creating his role through language, through the creation of his own medical terminology. His tendentious wit, then, has a dual function: to establish his role as the m^decin, and also to create his own pleasure. His playing with words (e.g., nourricerie) and his toying with medical terminology do seem to have an outward sexual connotation, but it really becomes innocent wit that is an end in itself. The words are signs, and there is a pleasure derived from the signs as ends in themselves.

This process, as perceived by the audience, results in laughter.

Sganarelle is also the meneur-dg-jeu not only through his mastery and power of words, but also through his megalomania, which, as defined earlier, can mean infantile or childish feelings of omnipotence, especially as retained in adult life, as might be examined in a Freudian analysis of arrested development. Scapin inherits Sganarelle's megalomania, and re-establishes the power of words to create reality, to create play-within-a-play, and also the power to use words as signs, as ends in themselves. Scapin 313

thus inherits Sganarelle1s innocent wit and continues the

lineage of megalomaniacs, but not so much as childish feel­ ings of omnipotence, but in the sense of the alternative meaning of megalomania. This is, as the word suggests, the mania or obsession by which a character has a miles gloriosus complex and imagines himself accomplishing grandiose things. Scapin, as the meneur-de-jeu of his own theatrical universe, actually does accomplish these grandiose things. But Dandin, whose every verbal aspira­ tion to megalomania is shattered, possesses not the power of words. He is actually the victim of words. Mocked, humiliated, and cuckolded, he becomes the victim of both tendentious wit (Clitandre and Ang§lique) as well as the victim of innocent wit (Lubin), for Dandin is the third party of the Freudian scenario.

Thus, Sganarelle's megalomania exists in a magical world of buffoonery where verbal virtuosity and the physical movements accompanying them unite in a ballet de parole in a happy drunken world, an atmosphere of all- for-fun, where all are intoxicated with the joy of life.

Sganarelle's megalomania is shattered by the very brittle world of Dandin, where love and drink are not sources of pleasure but rather mockery. But Sganarelle's magalomania re-emerges in Moli&re's mightiest megalomaniac, in Scapin, homme de theatre. NOTES

^Howard D. Pearce, "A Phenomenological Approach to the Theatrum Mundi Metaphor," PMLA, 95 (1980), 55. 2 Burns, p. 8. See also my "Introduction." 3 Pearce, p. 56. 4 Poirier, p. 27. See also my "Introduction." 5 Robert McBride, "The Sceptical View of Marriage and the Comic Vision in Molifere," FMLS, 5 (1969), 31.

^McBride, 41. 7 Lucien Goldmann, Sciences humaines et philosophie (Paris: Editions Gonthier, 1966), pi 133.

^Brody, "Esth^tique et soci£t§. . .", p. 318. 9 Goldmann, p. 133.

■^See Edward Baron Turk, "Comedy and Psychoanalysis: The Verbal Component," Philosophy and Rhetoric, 12 (1979), pp. 102-03. (Turk is not referring to Molifere's work directly.) See also Jeffrey Mehlman, "How to Read Freud on Jokes: The Critic as Schadchen," New Literary History, 6 (1975), 439-61.

314 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Editions

1. The Works of Molifere

Angug, Fernand, ed. Molifere, Le Mfedecin malgr£ lui. Paris: Bordas, 19 73.

Bray, Ren§, and Jacques Scherer. Molifere. Oeuvres com- plfetes. 3 vols. Paris: Club du Meilleur Livre, 1954-1956.

Copeau, Jacques, ed. Molifere, Les Fourberies de Scapin. Paris: Seuil, 1951.

Couton, George, ed. Molifere, Oeuvres completes. 2 vols. Paris: Gallimard - Bibliothfeque de la Pliiade, 19 71.

Despois, Eugfene, and Paul Mesnard, eds. Oeuvres de Molifere. 13 vols. Paris: Hachette - Collection les Grands Ecrivains de la France, 1873-1900.

2. Other Works

Boccaccio, Giovanni. The Decameron. Trans. Richard Aldington. New York: Dell, 19 30.

Boileau-Despr§aux, Nicolas. Oeuvres. Ed. Georges Mongrfedien. Paris: Garnier, 1961.

Le Docteur amoureux, com£die attribute h Molifere suivie du Desniaise de Gillet de la Tessonnerie. EcL P~. Lerat. Paris: Nizet, 1^73.

Le Docteur amoureux. Com£die du XVIIe sifecle. Textes litt§raires franpais No. 91. Ed. JT. J~. Guibert. Geneva: Droz; Paris: Minard, 1960.

La Farce du cuvier. In Four Farces. Ed. Barbara Bowen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967, pp. 15-34.

315 316

Farce moralis§e & quatre personnages, c'est assavoir: deux Hoitimes et leurs deux Femmes, dont l*une a malle teste et 1'autre est tendre de cul. In Nouveau Recueil de farces frangaises des XVe et XVIe sihcles. Ed. Emile Picot and Christophe Nyrop. Paris: Damascene Morgand and Charles Fatout, 1880, pp. 115-161.

Garguille, G. Chansons. Ed. E. Fournier. Paris, 1858.

Plautus, The Phormio. Trans. Barrett H. Clark, in Roman Comedies. Ed. George E. Duckworth. New York: Random House - The Modern Library, 1942, pp. 299-345.

Rabelais, Frangois. La Femme muette. In Oeuvres completes. Ed. P. Jourda. Paris: Gamier, 1962, I, 547-48.

Tallemant des R§aux. Historiettes. Ed. Antoine Adam. Paris: Gallimard - Bibliothfeque de la P16iade, 1960. Vol. II.

Le Vilain mire. In Gallic Salt. Ed. Robert Harrison. Berkeley: University of California Press, 19 74, pp. 62-85. 317

B. Works on Molifere

Abraham, Claude. "Rodrigue travesti." In Molifere Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of His Death. Ed. George B~. Daniel. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973, pp. 72-77.

Anouilh, Jean. La Petite Moli&re. L ’Avant Scfene, 210 (15 December 1959).

Arnavon, Jacques. Notes sur 1'interpretation de Molifere. Paris: Plon, 1923.

Audiberti, Jacques. Moli&re dramaturge. Paris: L'Arche, 1954.

Auld, Louis. "The Music of the Spheres in the Comedy- Ballets." L 1Esprit Createur, 6 (1966), 176-87.

______. "The Unity of Molifere's Comedy-Ballets: A Study of Their Structure, Meanings, and Values." Disser­ tation Abstracts, 29 (1969), 3997-98A (Bryn Mawr).

Barnwell, Harry. "Moli&re's Language and the Expectation of Comedy." Studi Francesi, 55 (1975), 34-47.

Barrault, Jean-Louis. "Portrait de Moli&re." Cahiers de la Compagnie Madeleine Renaud - Jean Louis Barrault^ 49 (1964), 3-55.

Beaussant, Philippe. "Molifere et l'opSra." Europe: Revue Littferaire Mensuelle, 523-24 (1972), 155-68.

Billeter, Regula. Les Valeurs spectaculaires dans 1'oeuvre de Molifere. Boulogne: Imprimerie Maleva, 1962.

Bouatchidze, Gaston. "Le Rire georgien de Molifere." Europe: Revue Littferaire Mensuelle, 52 3-24 (1972), 189-99.

Bowen, Barbara. "Some Elements of French Farce in Molifere." L 1Esprit Crfeateur, 6 (1966), 167-175.

Bray, Ren§. Molifere, homme de thfeStre. Paris: Mercure de France, 1953.

Brody, Jules. "Esth§tique et soci£t§ chez Molifere." In Dramaturgie et socifetfe: rapports entre l1oeuvre th£citraie, son interpretation, et son public aiux XVIe et XVIIe sifecles. Ed. Jean Jacquot et al. 318

Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1968, pp. 307-26.

Cartier, Jacqueline, ed. Le Petit Molifere, 1673-1973. Paris: Editions Guy Authier, 19 73.

Chevalley, Sylvie. Les Dossiers Molifere: Molifere. Geneva: Minkoff, 1973.

______. Molifere en son temps. (1622-1673). Paris-Geneva: Minkoff, 1973.

Chumbley, Joyce Arlene. "The World of Molifere's Comedy- Ballets." Dissertation Abstracts International, 33 (1973), 5337-38A (Hawaii)".

Collinet, Jean-Pierre. Lectures de Moli&re. Paris: Armand Colin, 19 73.

Copeau, Jacques. Registres. Tome II: Molifere. Ed. Andrfe Cabanis. Paris: Gallimard, 19 76.

______. Le Thfe&tre Populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1942.

Crow, Joan. "Reflections on George Dandin." In Molifere: Stage and Study. Essays in Honour of W. G. Moore. Ed. W. D. Howarth and Merlin Thomas. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973, pp. 3-12.

Daniel, George B., ed. Molifere Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of His Death. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, T973.

Davis, Mollie Gerard. "Masters and Servants in the Plays of Molifere." In Molifere: Stage and Study. Essays in Honour of W. G. Moore. Ed. W. Dl Howarth and Merlin Thomas. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973, pp. 132-48.

De Rosbo, Patrick. "Les Fourberies de Scapin de Molifere." Nouvelles Littferaires, 24-31 May 19 78, p. 2 8.

Descotes, Maurice. Les Grands R&les du thfeStre de Molifere. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960.

Dubu, Jean. "Molifere et le tragique." Dix-septifeme Sifecle, 98-99 (1973), 35-55.

Dumur, Guy. Rev. of La Petite Molifere, by Jean Anouilh. Thfecitre Populaire, 34 (1959) , 103-04. 319

Dussane, B. "Moli^re ^ la scfene." In Molifere, Oeuvres completes. Ed. Renfe Bray and Jacques Scherer. Paris: Club du Meilleur Livre, 1954, I, 55-95.

Emelina, Jean. "Les Serviteurs du thg&tre de Molifere, ou la fgte de .1'inconvenance." Revue d'Histoire du Theatre, 26 (1964), 229-239.

Eustis, Alvin. Molifere as Ironic Contemplator. The Hague: Mouton, 19 73.

s -\ Exposition du III centenaire de la mort de Molifere. Mus^e des Arts Ddcoratifs. 18 octobre 19 7 3 / 7 janvier 19 74. Paris: Mus§e des Arts D^coratifs, 1974.

Fellows, Otis. French Opinion of Molifere (1800-1850) . Providence: Brown University, 19 37.

Fernandez, Ramon. Moli&re, the Man seen through the Plays. Trans. Wilson Follett. New York: Hill and Wang, 1958^.

Folet, H. Moli&re et la m^decine de son temps. Lille: L. Danel, 1894.

Fowlie, Wallace. "Molifere Today." In Dionysus in Paris. New York: Meridian Books, 1960, pp~ 24 7-264.

Frangois, Carlo. "L'Etourdi de Molifere, ou l1illusion h^roique." Revue d'Histoire Litt£raire de la France, 59 (1959), 87-91.

______. "M^decine et religion chez Molifere: deux facettes d' une m§me absurdity." French Review, 42 (1969), 665- 72.

Fumaroli, Marc. "Microcosme comique et macrocosme solaire: Moli&re, Louis XIV, et L 1Impromptu de Versailles." Revue des Sciences HumaTnes, 145 (1972 D 95-114.

Galey, Matthieu. "Molifere h I'^cole de Vitez." Nouvelles Litt§raires, 20-26 July 1978, p. 11.

______. "Theatre: Les Fourberies de Scapin de Molifere." Nouvelles Litt^raires, 24-31 May 19 78, p. 28.

Garapon, Robert. Le Dernier Molifere: Des Fourberies de Scapin au Malade imaginaire. Paris: Soci§t§ d'Edi­ tion d'Enseignement Superieur, 1977. 320

Garavini, Fausta, "La Fantaisie verbale et le mimetisme dialectal dans le theatre de Molifere: h. propos de Monsieur de Pourceaugnac." Revue d'Histoire Litt§raire de la France, 72 (1972), 806-20.

Gaxotte, Pierre. Moli&re. Paris: Flammarion, 19 77.

Molifere, fameux com£dien. Paris: Hachette, 1971.

Gill, A. "The Doctor in the Farce and Molifere." French Studies, 2 (1948), 101-28.

Giraud, Yves. "Molifere au travail: la vraie genese de George Dandin." Francia, 19-20 (1976), 65-81.

Gossman, Lionel. Men and Masks: A Study of Molifere. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 196 3.

______. "Molibre and Tartuffe: Law and Order in the Seventeenth Century." French Review, 43 (1970), 901-12.

Grimarest, Jean-Leonor Gallois, Sieur de. La Vie de Monsieur de Moli&re. Pref. L^on Chancerel. 1705; 1705; rpt. Nogen't-1 e-Rotrou: La Renaissance du Livre - Collection Bibliothfeque de l1Amateur de Theatre, 19 30.

Guicharnaud, Jacques. Moli&re, une aventure th^atrale. Paris, Gallimard - Collection BibliothSque des Id^es, 1963.

______, ed. Molifere a Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964.

Guilleminault, G. "Le Th££tre en France. La Com§die Frangaise. George Dandin." French Review, 44 (1971), 570-71.

Gutwirth, Marcel. "Dandin, ou les §garements de la pastorale." In Molifere Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of His Death. Ed. George B. Daniel. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973, pp. 121-33.

______. "Le Comique du serviteur chez Molifere." Symposium, 4 (1950), 349-57.

______. Moli&re ou 1'invention comique. La M§tamorphose des thkmes et la creation des types. Paris: Minard, 1966. 321

Han, Jean Pierre. "Notes pour la mise-en-sc&ne de George Dandin." Europe: Revue Litt^raire Mensuelle, 523-24 “(19 72) , 168-72.

Harned, Arthur. "Molidre and Lully." In Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity. Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr., Guy T. Trail, and EdithaS. Neumann. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 298-302.

Harrison, Tony, ed. Moli&re/The Misanthrope. London: Rex Collings, 19 73. Herzel, Roger W. "Molifere's Actors and the Question of Types." Theatre Survey, 16 (1975), 1-24.

______. "'Much Depends on the Acting': The Original Cast of Le Misanthrope." PMLA, 95 (1980), 348-66.

Hobson, Harold. "Copeau on Molifere." Drama, 123 (1976), 12-14

Howarth, W. D., and Merlin Thomas, eds. Molifere; Stage and Study. Essays in Honour of W. G. Moore. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Hubert, Judd. Molifere and the Comedy of Intellect. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962.

Jaquot, Jean, Elie Konigson, and Marcel Odon, eds. Dramaturgie et soci§t6. Rapports entre l 1'oeuvre thfeatrale, son interpretation et son public aux XVIe et XVII^ sifecles. Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 196 8.

Jasinski, Ren6. Molifere. Paris: Hatier - Collection Connaissances des Lettres, 1969.

Johnson, Roger, Jr., Guy T. Trail, and Editha S. Neumann, eds. Molihre and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1975.

Jouvet, Louis. "MoliSre " Annales de Conferencia, 31 (1937); 32 (1938); 37 (1948) ; 57 (1950) .

______. Molifere et la com6die classique. Extraits des cours~de Louis Jouvet au Conservatoire (1939-46). Paris: Gallimard ■- Collection Pratique du Theatre, 1965. 322

Jurgens, Madeleine, and Elizabeth Maxfield-Miller. Cent Ans de recherches sur Molifere, sur sa famille, et sur les coin^diens de sa troupe. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 196 3.

Kasparek, Jerry Lewis. Moli&re1s Tartuffe and the Tradi­ tions of Roman Satire. North Carolina Studies in Ro- mance Languages and Literatures, No. 175. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1977.

Katona, Anna. "Molifere in Hungary: His Reputation." In Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity" Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr. , Guy T. Trail, and Edithaa S. Neumann. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 355-64.

Kern, Edith. "Moli&re and the Tradition of the Grotesque." In Moli&re and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity" Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr., Guy T. Trail, and Edrtha S. Neumann. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 507-20.

Knutson, Harold C. Molifere: An Archetypal Approach. Toronto-BuffaloT University of Toronto Press, 19 76.

Krige, Uys. "Molifere's Le Mfedecin malgrfe lui in Afrikaans." Theoria, 34 (1970), 1-19.

Lanson, Gustave. "Molifere et la farce." Revue de Paris, (May, 1901). Rpt. in G. Lanson, Essais de mfethode, de critique, et d'histoires litt^raires^ Ed. Henri Peyre. Paris: Hachette, 1965, pp. 189-210.

Laubreaux, Raymond. Molifere. Paris: Seghers, 19 73.

Lawrence, Francis L. "The Ironic Commentator in Molifere's Pom Juan." Studi Francesi, 35 (1968), 201-07.

______. Moli&re: The Comedy of Unreason. New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 196 8.

Lebfegue, Raymond. "Molibre et la farce." Cahiers de l1Association des Etudes Franpaises, 16 (1964), 183- 201.

Le Boulanger de Chalussay. Elomire Hypocondre. Ed. F. W. Vogler. In Molifere Mocked. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 19 72. 32 3

Leiner, Wolfgang. "Contributions am^ricaines aux Etudes moli§resques." Romance Notes, 15, Supplement No. 1 (1973), 168-86.

Le Marchand, Jacques. "Au Festival d'Avignon. Le M^decin malgr§ lui de Molifere." La France Litt£raire, 1 August 195 3, p. 12.

______. "Molifere au Studio des Champs Elys§es." Figaro Litt§raire, 8 February 1958, p. 14.

Libvre, Pierre. Le Mfedecin malgr§ lui h. la Com^die Frangaise." Mercure de France, 269 (1936), 374-77.

Livingston, Paisley L. "Comic Treatment. Molifere and the Farce of Medicine." Modern Language Notes, 94 (1979), 676-87.

Magnfe, Bernard. "L'Ecole des femmes ou la conquSte de la parole." Revue des Sciences Humaines, 145 (1972), 125-140.

Marcabru, Pierre. "L'Effet Vitez." Le Point, 348 (1979), 186-87.

Maxfield-Miller, Elizabeth. "Le Midecin de Molifere: Jean Armand de Mauvillain (1618-16 85)." Revue d'Histoire du Theatre, 4 (1950), 456-460.

McBride, Robert. "The Sceptical View of Marriage and the Comic Vision in Molifere." Forum for Modern Language Studies, 5 (1969), 26-46.

Meyer, Jean. Molifere. Paris: Librairie Acad^mique Perrin, 1963.

Michaut, Gustave. La Jeunesse de Molifere. Paris: Hachette, 1922.

Les Luttes de Molifere. Paris: Hachette, 1925.

Milhaud, Mariane and Gerard. "MoliSre face h la m^decine." Europe: Revue Littferaire Mensuelle, 441-46 (1966), 114-28.

Millepierre, Franyois. La Vie quotidienne des m^decins au temps de Molifere. Paris: Hachette, 1964.

Moland, Louis. Molifere et la com§die italienne. Paris: Didier, 1867. 324

Mongr^dien, Georges. "Molifere et Lulli." Dix-septi&me Si&cle, 98-99 (1973), 3-16.

______. Recueil des textes et des documents du XVIIe sTfecle relatlfs h Moli&re. Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 1965.

______, and Jacques Vanuxem. "Recueil des textes et des documents du XVIIe sifecle relatifs A Molifere. Supple­ ment." Dix-septi&me SiAcle, 98-99 (1973), 123-42.

Moore, Will G. MoliAre, A New Criticism. 1949; rpt. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968.

"Molifere; The Comic Paradox." Modern Language Review, 68 (1973), 771-775.

______. "Raison et structure dans la comfedie de Molifere." Revue d'Histoire Litt§raire de la France, 72 (1972), 800-05.

______. Rev. of Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters. Modern Language Review, 73 (1977), 950-51.

Morot-Sir, Edouard. "La Dynamique du theatre et MoliAre." In MoliAre Studies to Commemorate the Tercentary of His Death. Ed. George B. Daniel. Chapel Hill: Uni­ versity of North Carolina Press, 1963, pp. 15-49.

Mortier, Alfred. Un Anc§tre italien de George Dandin." Revue de Literature Compar§e, 6 (1926) , 16-27.

Mould, William. "Illusion and Reality; A New Resolution of an Old Paradox." In MoliAre and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity. Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr.', Guy T. Trail, and Editha S. Neumann. Jackson: University of Mississippi Piess, 19 75, pp. 521-26.

Nelson, Robert J. "The Unreconstructed Heroes of Molifere." In Molifere, A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Jacques Guicharnaud. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964.

Nicolich, Robert N. "Door, Window, and Balcony in L 1Ecole des femmes." Romance Notes, 12 (1971), 364-69.

Nurse, Peter H. Classical Voices: Corneille, Racine, Molifere, Mme de LafayetteLondon: Harrap, 197l.

Pellissier, Sidney L. "Ionesco and MoliAre." In Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Poster­ ity. Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr., Guy T. Trail, and Editha 325

S. Neumann. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 145-59.

Pelous, J.-M. "Les Metamorphoses de Sganarelle: La Perman­ ence d'un type comique." Revue d'Histoire LittSraire, de la France, 72 (1972), 821-49.

Picard, Raymond. "Molihre comique ou tragique? Le Cas d'Arnolphe." Revue d'Histoire Litt£raire de la France. 72 (1972), 769-85.

Purkis, Helen. "Les Intermfedes de George Dandin." Baroque, 5 (1972), 63-69.

Potter, Edithe. "Faith and the Absurd in Le Mfedecin malgrfe lui." Neophilologus, 58 (1974), 368-71.

Relyea, Suzanne L. Signs, Systems, and Meanings: A Contem­ porary Semiotic Reading of Four Molifere Plays. Middle­ town, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1976.

Romero, Laurence. "MoliSre, Hie et Nunc: Criticism in the Last Decade." Romance Notes, 15 Supplement No. 1 (1973), 151-67.

______. Molifere, Traditions in Criticism. 1900-1970. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 1974.

Saintonge, Paul. "Thhme et variations." L'Esprit Cr£ateur, 6 (1966), 145-55.

______. Saintonge, Paul. "Thirty Years of Molihre Studies. A Bibliography, 1942-1971." In Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity. Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr.', Guy T. Trail, and Editha S. Neumann. Jackson, University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 74 7-815 .

Savoie, Norman R. "Molifere and French Television." In Moli&re and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity! Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr., Guy T. Trail, and Editha S. Neumann, Jackson, University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 645-664.

Sandier, Gilles. "Un Pom Juan dans la vraie tradition." Quinzaine littferair'e, 272 (1978), 19.

Scherer, Jacques. Structures de Tartuffe. Paris: Soci6t6 d'Edition d'Enseignement Superieur, 1966. 326

Senart, Philippe. "La Revue thfecitrale: une tfetralogie de Molifere et Le Malade imaginaire." Revue des Deux Mondes, 11 (1978), 688-96.

Simon, Alfred. "The Elementary Rites of Molifere1s Comedy." Trans. Stirling Haig. In Molifere, A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Jacques Guicharnaud. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964, pp. 29-39; rpt. and trans. of "Les Rites felementaires de la comfedie moliferesque." Cahiers de la Compagnie Madeleine Renaud - Jean-Louis Barrault, 15 (1956), 14-28.

Soulife, Eudore. Recherches sur Molifere et sur sa famille. Paris: Hachette, 1864.

Suzuki, Rikife. "Molifere au Japon." Cahiers de l'Associ- ation Internationales des Etudes Frangaises, 16 (1967), 259-67.

Temkine, Raymonde. "Comment peut-on fetre mari?" Europe: Revue Littferaire Mensuelle, 523-24 (1972), 173-81.

______. "Molifere ou la confession impudique." Europe: Revue Littferaire Mensuelle, 57 (1979), 210-18.

Thuillier, Rene. La Vie maladive de Molifere. Paris: Jouve et Cie, 19 32.

Triolet, Elsa. "Spectacle continu - II." Les Lettres Frangaises, 31 July 1953, p. 10.

1'urnell, Martin. The Classical Moment: Studies of Corneille, Molifere, and Racine. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1947.

Vanuxem, Jacques. "La Scfenographie des ffetes de Louis XIV auxquelles Molifere a particip§." Dix-septifeme sifecle, 98-99 (1973), 77-89.

Vedel, Valdemar. Deux Classiques frangais vus par un critique Stranger: Corneille et son temps - Molifere. Trans. E. CornetTI Paris: H. Champion, 1935.

Venesoen, C. "Molifere tragfedien?" Dix-septifeme sifecle, 83 (1969) , 25-34.

Wadsworth, Philip A. Molifere and the Italian Theatrical Tradition. Columbia, S.C.: French Literature Publications, 1977. 32 7

Walker, Hallam. "Les Facheux and Molifere's Use of Games." L 1 Esprit Crfeateur, Tl C1971) , 21-33.

Wheatley, Katherine E. Molifere and Terence, A Study in Molifere's Realism. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1931.

White, Kenneth S. "Hypnotique Language and Its Apotheosis: Molifere and Ionesco." In Molifere and the Commonwealth of Letters: Patrimony and Posterity. Ed. Roger Johnson, Jr., Guy T. Trail, and Editha Neumann. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1975, pp. 160-168.

Young, Vernon. "Molifere imaginaire." New York Review of Books, 27, no. 3 (March 6, 1980), 45-46. 328

C. Other Works

Abraham, Pierre. "Sur la mise-en-scfene des classiques," Europe: Revue Littferaire Mensuelle, 539 (1974), 297-99.

Attinger, Gustave. L 1Esprit de la commedia dell1arte dans le theatre frangais. Paris: Librairie Th§atrale, 1950.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1968.

Bar, Francis. "Fins et moyens de l'archalsme chez les burlesques du XVIIe siScle." Cahiers de l1Association Internationale des Etudes Frangaises, 1 5 (1967), 39-58.

______. Le Genre burlesque en France au XVIIe sifecle: Etude de style. Paris: Artrey, 1960.

Beneveniste, Emile. "Le Jeu comme structure." Deucalion, 2 (1947), 161-172. ------

Bfenichou, Paul. Morales du grande sifecle. Paris: Gallimard, 1948.

Bentley, Eric, ed. Let's Get a Divorce! And Other Plays. New York: Hill and Wang, 1958.

Bergson, Henri. Le Rire. 1899; rpt. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 196 3.

Bouret, Jean. "Les Frferes Le Nain: C'est tout de m§me mieux que Fougeron." Nouvelles Litt6raires, 22-29, September 1978, p. 15..

Bowen, Barbara. Les Caract^ristiques essentielles de la farce frangaise et leur survivance dans les annfees 1550-1620. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press, 1964.

______, ed. Four Farces. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967.

______. "Le Th^&tre du clichfe." Cahiers de 1'Association Internationale des Etudes Frangaises, T& (1974), 33-47.

Brancovan, Mihai de. "Les Concerts." Revue des Deux Mondes, 11 (1978), 720-21. 329

Brereton, Geoffrey. French Comic Drama from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century. London: Methuen, 19V7.

Burns, Elizabeth. Theatricality: A Study of Convention in the Theatre and m Social Life. New York: Harper and Row, 19 72.

Callois, Roger. Les Jeux et les homines. Paris: Gallimard, 1958.

Chevalley, Sylvie. Album du theatre classique. Paris: Gallimard, 19 70.

Christout, Marie-Franpoise. Le Ballet de cour de Louis XIV, 164 3-16 72. Paris: Picard, 1967.

Cornford, Francis M. T h e Origin of Attic Comedy. Ed. Theodore H. GasterT Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday - Anchor, 1961.

Corvin, Michel. "Illusion sc^nique et illusion th§atrale: sur la mise-en-scfene contemporaine." Studi Francesi, 3 (1979), 145-60.

Deierkauf-Holsboer, S. Wilma. L'Histoire de la mise-en- sc&ne dans le th^Stre frangais k Paris de 1600 <§ 16 73. Paris: Nizet, 1 9 6 (Ti

Duchartre, Pierre Louis. The Italian Comedy. 1929; rpt. New York: Dover, 1966.

Ehrmann, Jacques. "Homo Ludens Revisited." Yale French Studies, 41 (1968), 31-57.

Feibleman, James K. "On the Metaphysics of the Performing Arts." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 2 8 (1970), 295-99.

Foucault, Michel. Histoire de la folie & l'cige classique. Paris: Gallimard, 1972.

Francois, Carlo. La Notion de l'absurde dans la litt^rature frangaise du XVIIe sifecle' Paris: Klincksieck, 19731

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Trans. Joan Riviere” Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday - Anchor, 1958.

Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Trans. James Strachey. New York: Norton, 1960. 330

______. Totem and Taboo. Resemblances Between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics. Trans. A. A. Bri11. New York: Moffatt, Yard, and Co., 1918.

Frye, Northrup. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, I557T

Garapon, Robert. La Fantaisie verbale et le comique dans le theatre frangais du moyen age k la fin du XVIIe sidcle. Paris: Armand Colin, 195 7.

Goldmann, Lucien. Sciences humaines et philosophie. Paris: Editions Gonthier, 1966.

______. "Le Structuralisme g§n§tique en histoire de la lTtt^rature." Modern Language Notes, 79 (1964), 225- 39.

Golopentia-Eretescu, Sanda. "Grammaire de la parodie." Cahiers de Linguistique Th^orique et Appliqu^e, 6 (1969), 167-81.

Grotjahn, Martin. Beyond Laughter. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.

Gurevitch, Morton. Comedy, The Irrational Vision. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 19 75.

Harrison, Robert, ed. Gallic Salt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

Highet, Gilbert. The Anatomy of Satire. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.

Hurrell, John Dennis. "A Note on Farce." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 145 (1959), 426-430.

Kiremidjian, J. D. "The Aesthetics of Parody." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28 (1969), 231-242.

Knight, Alan E. "The Medieval Theatre of the Absurd." PMLA, 86 (1971), 183-189.

Kowzan, Tadeusz. Literature et spectacle. Paris: Mouton; Warsaw: PWN— Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 19 75. 331

Lancaster, H. Carrington. A History of French Dramatic Literature in the Seventeenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1936, Part III, 2 vols.

Lanson, Gustave. Histoire de la literature frangaise au XVIIe sifecle. 1920; rpt. Paris: Hachette, 1951.

Lea, Katherine M. Italian Popular Comedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934, Vol. I.

Lebfegue, Raymond. "Le Moyen Age dans le thgStre franpais du XVIIe sidcle." Dix-septifeme Sifecle, 114-115 (1977), 31-42.

______. Le Theatre comique en France de Pathelin h Mdlite^ Paris: Collection Connaissance de Lettres, 1972.

Lewicka, Halina. Etudes sur l'ancienne farce frangaise. Paris: Klincksieck, 1974.

______. La Farce d'un mari jaloux. In Mfelanges de TTtt§Fature et de philologie offerts h. Mieczyslaw Brahmer. Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1967, pp. 295-302.

______. "Un Proc6d§ comique de l'ancienne farce: la fausse comprehension du language." In Melanges de langue et de literature du Moyen &ge et de la Renaissance offerts h Jean Frappier par ses collfegues, ses eifeves, et ses amis. Geneva: Droz, 1970, II, 653-658.

Lewis, W. H. "The Medical World." In The Splendid Century: Life in France under Louis XIV. Garden City, N. Y. : Doubleday - Anchor, 1953, pp^ 177-194.

Lough, John. Paris Theatre Audiences in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.

______. Seventeenth-Century French Drama: The Background. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 19 78.

______. Writer and Public in France. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 19 78.

Makarius, Laura. "Ritual Clowns and Symbolic Behavior." Diogenes, 69 (1970), 44-73. 332

Markiewicz, Henryk. "On the Definitions of Literary Par­ ody." In To Honor Roman Jakobson; Essays of the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1968. The Hague: Mouton, 1967, II, 1264-72.

Mauron, Charles. Psychocritique du genre comique. Paris: Corti, 19 70.

Mehlman, Jeffrey. "How to Read Freud on Jokes: The Critic as Schadchen." New Literary History, 6 (1975), 439-61.

Mic, Constant. La Commedia dell’arte. Paris: J. Schiffrin, 1927.

Mirandola, G. La Fortuna del Boccaccio nella cultura francese. Florence: Olschki, 1971.

Mitford, Nancy. "The Faculty." In The Sun King. New York: Harper and Row, 1966, pp. 149-155.

Nadal, Octave. Le Sentiment de l 1amour dans l1oeuvre de Pierre CorneilleT Paris: Gallimard, 1948.

Nelson, Robert J. "Classicism: The Crisis of the Baroque." L 1 Esprit Cr^ateur, 11 (1971), 169-186.

Nicolitch, Robert W. "Facade, Contrast, and Light at Versailles: A Basis for Seventeenth-Century French Literature - Art Parallels." In Studies in Honor of Tatiana Fotich. Washington, D.C.7 The Catholic University of America Press, 1972, pp. 93-106.

Nicoll, Allardyce. Mimes, Masks, and Miracles. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1931.

______. The World of Harlequin. A Critical Study of the Commedia dell1 arte. 196 3, rpt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Oreglia, Giacomo. The Commedia dell1arte. New York: Hill and Wang, 1964.

Pearce, Howard D. "A Phenomenological Approach to the Theatrum Mundi Metaphor." PMLA, 95 (19 80), 42-5 7. t Poirier, Richard. The Performing Self. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Porter, Lambert C. "La Farce et la sottie." Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, 75 (1959), 89-123. 333

Purkis, Helen. "L'Illusion th§atrale." Studi Francesi, 63 (1977), 407-24.

Rastier, Francois. "Niveaux d'ambiguit£s des structures narratives." Semiotica, 3 (1971), 289-342.

Robert, Jean. "Iconographie relative & des farceurs frangais et italiens." Revue d'Histoire du Theatre, 28 (1976), 162-64.

Rousset, Jean. "L’lle enchant£e. Fete et theatre au XVIIe si§cle." In Melanges de litt§rature et de philologie offerts & Mieczyslaw Brahmer. Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1967, pp. 435-441.

_____. L'Int6rieur et l'ext^rieur. Essais sur la po§sie et sur le theatre au XVII e sifecle. Paris: JT Corti, 1968.

______. La Literature de l'Age Baroque en France. ParisT Corti, 1961.

Scherer, Jacques. La Dramaturgie classique en France. Paris: Nizet, 1951.

, ed. ThfeStre du XVIIe sifecle, I. Paris: Gallimard, 1975.

Schwartz, I. A. The Commedia dell'arte and Its Influence on French Comedy in the Seventeenth Century. New York: New York University Press, 19 33.

Simon, Alfred. Les Signes et les songes. Essais sur le theatre et la f§te. Paris: Seuil, 1976.

Smith, Winifred. The Commedia dell*arte. 1912; rpt. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1964.

Spaziani, Marcello. "Le Origini italiane della commedia foraine." Studi Francesi, 6 (1962), 223-44.

Tobin, Ronald W., and John D. Erickson, eds. Paths to Freedom: Studies in French Classicism in Honor of E.B.O. Borgerhoff. L*Esprit Criateur, IT (19 71), Special issue.

Turk, Edward Baron. "Comedy and Psychoanalysis: The Verbal Component." Philosophy and Rhetoric, 12 (1979), 95- 113.