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