This mixed-media depiction of Harlequin, by Russian artist Kasyan Yaroslavovitch Golejzovsky, was sold at an auction, in Düsseldorf, Germany, on 9 November 2017. I congratulate its owners. I love this work of art for many reasons. For instance, movement is beautifully expressed. Would that I had the money to bid and buy at auctions. However, I visit, if only to see beautiful objects.
Harlequin is a zanno (zanni), a comic servant, who was introduced into the Commedia dell’arte by 17th – century actor – manager Zan Ganassa (c. 1540 – c. 1584): Zan (=zanni) Ganassa. Commedia dell’ arte actors were professionals. They were provided with an outline of the comedy (called a canevas in French), where they played a role, always the same role, which they improvised. The Italians travelled to other countries. Ganassa was in Spain from 1574 to 1584. Paris had its Comédie-Italienne, and Harlequin was in 18th – century London.
In the commedia erudita, however, actors used a script written by a playwright. Ben Johnson, Shakespeare, Molière and dramatists preceding them often drew their material from Plautus (254 BCE [Sarsinia, Umbria, Italy] – BCE 154)[1]and Terence (195 BCE [Carthage, current Tunisia] – 159 BCE [Greece or at sea]).[2] Roman dramatists Plautus and Terence wrote in Latin, but the vernacular, early forms of Italian, was also used by actors. However, Plautus and Terence, found their inspiration in Greek New Comedy (320 BCE to the mid 3rd century BCE), from which they also borrowed. Molière‘s Miser (1668) is rooted in Plautus’ Aulularia.
Harlequin is perhaps the best-known of the commedia dell’arte’s zanni and one of its most celebrated characters. Harlequin always wears a costume. It is part of the mask, but behind the mask there is a man, or a woman. Until the creation of Pierrot, drawn from both pantomimes and the commedia dell’arte, the stock characters of the commediadell’arte seemed what they appeared.
However, Pierrot, created in late 17th – century France, by the Parisian Comédie-Italienne, is a sad clown, a mask wearing a mask. He entertains an audience, but he loves Columbina who loves Harlequin. This is love’s triangle, an impossible love that may feed on jealousy. As the 17thcentury drew to a close in France, Madame de la Fayette[3] published La Princesse de Clèves, in which her heroine will not marry Monsieur de Nemours for fear he will stop loving her once his love is reciprocated. Jean Racine‘s Phèdrefails to save Hippolyte, whom she has falsely accused of trying to seduce her, when she learns Hippolyte claims to love Aricie. La Princesse de Clèveswas published in 1678, the year after Phèdre was first performed.
The Duel after the Masquerade by Jean-Léon Gérôme (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In this respect, he is perhaps the most enigmatic character of the commedia dell’arte, and the most human. Jealous love finds its best expression in a novel by Madame de La Fayette,La Princesse de Clèves(1678). But Molière’s Arnolphe, the blocking-character in The School for Wives, L’École des femmes, is jealous. The Gelosi (jealous) were also a commedia dell’ arte troupe, but jealous love is not associated with the Gelosi. In Britannica, we read that:
“The name was derived from the troupe’s motto, Virtù, fama ed honor ne fèr gelosi. (“We are jealous of attaining virtue, fame and honour”).[4]
Commedia dell’arte troupe, probably depicting Isabella Andreini and the Compagnia dei Gelosi, oil … CFL—Giraudon/Art Resource, New York (Photo credit: Britannica)
George Dandin ou le Mari confondu (George Dandin or the Abashed Husband) is one of Molière‘s enigmatic plays. It was first performed on 18 July 1668,[1]at Versailles, and it was part of a Grand Divertissement Royal, a celebration of the French victory at Aix-la-Chapelle. It consisted of the play itself and a pastoral, a conversation between shepherdesses mainly.
Background
Henri van Laun (the translator)
a comédie-ballet
a pastoral
sources: Guarini’s (Il Pastor Fido) and, perhaps, Boccacio (The Decameron)
the Dolopatos (the tale of a woman locked into a tower)
a mésalliance
George Dandin(1668) is a comédie-ballet and a farce, accompanied by a pastorale. My copy (Pléiade, 1956)does include the pastoral. It is in the endnotes, beginning p. 955). It is mentioned in Molière21 e-text. However, ironically, the pastoral is included in the Internet Archive translation we are using. It is Henri van Laun‘s (1820-1896) six-volume Dramatic Works of Molière with eleven ilustrations by Horace Vernet, Alexandre-Joseph Desenne, Tony Johannot and Louis Hersent. George Dandin appears in volume IV of Van Laun’s collection and it is complete. Henri van Laun has separated the acts into a larger number of scenes.
However, our Molière21 e-text contains the precious Notice and I should think the new Pléiade edition (2010) of Molière’s complete works also includes the pastoral, written by Molière and set to music by Lully. However, the pastoral can be read online in Henri van Laun‘s English translation of Molière, whose translation of George Dandin, I am using.
Pastorals – the Dolopatos
Pastorals find their origin in Guarini‘s (1538-1612) Pastor Fido (1590), The Faithful Shepherd. As for GeorgeDandin, a farce, it may also be rooted in Giovanni Boccacio‘s (1313-1375) Decameron, 4th, 7th, and 8th days. The Decameron contains 100 tales told by young men and women hiding from the plague. These were very influential. Chaucer may have read the Decameron when he was on a mission to Italy in 1372. The structure of his Canterbury Tales resembles that of the Decameron.
Molière has written other pastorals, Mélicerte (December 1666), La Pastorale comique(January 1667), Le Sicilien ou l’Amour peintre (February 1667). He did so just before writing GeorgeDandin. Molière was extremely sick when he wrote most of the above-mentioned pastorals. He had to take time off and was reported to be dying. It was a lung ailment. (See Molière, Wikipedia.) Molière died in February 1673.
George Dandin is also associated with an Indian work, the Dolopatos, written before the Common Era, before Christ, and translated into Arabic and Hebrew (see Salon littéraire). It was also translated into Latin and then French. As well, this farce is rooted in Molière’s own Jalousie du Barbouillé, which may have been written before Molière’s return to Paris.
The Agroikos –Impoverished Nobility
In Greek literature, George Dandin, would be called an agroikos (rustic), a stock character. He is a peasant who has married into the upper classes and wishes to be separated from his wife when he realizes that he has simply bought a title: de la Dandinière. Such incidents were frequent in 17th-century France because aristocrats wanted to be ‘seen’ at court, which costs a fortune. They could not afford dowries for all their daughters. Often only one was endowed.
Angélique’s parents are also impoverished nobility, but they do not live in Paris. Angélique, however, was literally sold to Dandin and, even after the marriage, the Sotenvilles (sot=stupid) continue to see him as a peasant and so does their daughter. The Sotenvilles did have not consult their daughter when arrangements for her marriage were made. It is a mésalliance.
A Mésalliance – Cuckoldry
In Act III, Scene 5, Clitandre points to the incongruous aspect of Angélique’s marriage to Dandin:
(…) et que c’est une étrange chose que l’assemblage qu’on a fait d’une personne comme vous avec un homme comme lui !
[(…) and that the union of a woman like you to a man like him is somewhat strange.(III, 5)]
I sense here a wish on the part of Clitandre to give order to the disorderly. The marriage has not been consummated (Act III, Scene V ), but there is a contract.
Typically, in Molière, a mésalliance (marrying into a different class) and a forced marriage (un mariage forcé) both lead to cuckoldry, the fate so feared by Arnolphe (L’École des femmes, 1662). Dandin was foolish and the Sotenvilles, sots, as their name suggest. When her parents will not allow her to be separated from Dandin, Claudine, Angélique’s maid, says:
“It is a pity to see a poor young wife treated in such a fashion; it cries to Heaven for vengeance.” (Claudine, III, 12) However, Dandin is treated neither as a husband nor as a nobleman.
Georges Dandin (George Dandin), husband of Angelica
Angelica (Angélique), Georges Dandin’s wife
Sir Sotenville (Monsieur de Sotenville), Angelica’s father
Mrs Sotenville (Madame de Sotenville), Sir Sotenville’s wife
Clitander (Clitandre), in love with Angelica
Claudine, Angelica’s servant
Lubin, Clitandre’s servant
Colin, Dandin’s servant
Act One
The play is a three-act farce and the overall dramatic action, the deceiver deceived, or trompeur trompé, is reflected in each act. The action is triggered in the same manner as in L’École des femmes. Dandin is told that he has a rival, Clitandre, by the rival’s valet, Lubin. Like Arnolphe, Dandin believes this intelligence will help him. He wishes to prove to his in-laws that he has a wicked wife from whom he should be separated, which her parents would never allow. However, Clitandre or Angélique always talk their way out of every ploy used by the ill-fated Dandin.
In Act One, Clitandre, who happens to be with Angélique, suggests that Angélique betrayed him.
Est-ce donc vous, Madame, qui avez dit à votre mari que je suis amoureux de vous ? (Clitandre, I, 6)
[Is it you then, Madam, who have told your husband that I am in love with you? (Clitandre, I, 6)]
She defends herself by making believe she is accusing him, but if reversed her words are an invitation to Clitandre to continue the galanterie. It’s a brilliant double entendre. Dandin is then asked to apologize to Clitandre who is a genuine gentilhomme. (I, 8)
Act Two
In Act Two, once again Lubin tells George everything. Angélique’s parents are brought to see their daughter breaking the terms of the contract, her marriage contract. Act Two, Scene 3 resembles L’École des femmes (III, 2). Dandin tries to impress upon his wife that, given the marriage contract, she has duties, but she is very quick to state that George married her parents. She was not consulted. Angélique denies that she has obligations towards George. When Clitandre dispatches uneambassade, a letter, she invokes the importance of pleasure, as does Agnès in L’École des femmes. She will not chase galants away.
Moi, les [men courting her] chasser ! et par quelle raison ? Je ne me scandalise point qu’on me trouve bien faite, et cela me fait du plaisir. (Scene 2) [I drive them away! and for what reason? I am not scandalised at being thought handsome, and it affords me pleasure.] (Scene 4)
Angélique is caught speaking with Clitandre, but she feigns anger at Clitandre. (Scene 10) Once again, Dandin is punished. It seems Clitandre is being hit with a stick, but George Dandin is the victim.
Act Three
In Act Three, Angélique thinks George is sleeping. She is outside with Clitandre. It’s night time and very dark. Believing he is speaking with Claudine, Lubin tells George Dandin everything. But matters are as in the School for Wives, he is speaking to the young couple’s barbon, Dandin. He asks Colin, his valet, to seek his in-laws.
In Scene 5, Clitandre is worried. Husbands have privileges. Angélique tells him that she does not make love with Dandin.
Serez-vous assez fou pour avoir cette inquiétude, et pensez-vous qu’on soit capable d’aimer de certains maris qu’il y a ? (Scène V) [Are you weak enough to have such anxiety, and do you think it is possible to love a certain sort of husbands? (Scene V)]
In Scene VI, Angélique and Claudine, her maid, cannot re-enter the house. George Dandin has bolted the door. She tells him she has wronged him and, in desperation, she makes believe she has killed herself. When he opens the door to see if she is dead, she and Claudine lock him out. The Sotenvilles arrive and Angélique accuses George Dandin of having spent the evening drinking.
Angélique wants to end the marriage and so does Dandin, but Angélique’s father will not let her leave her husband. Monsieur de Sotenville gives himself the puissance absolue, the absolute power (Scène 7), of a pater familias. Angélique is asked by her father to apologize to Dandin, a husband from whom she wants to be separated.
Moi ? lui pardonner tout ce qu’il m’a dit ? Non, non, mon père, il m’est impossible de m’y résoudre, et je vous prie de me séparer d’un mari avec lequel je ne saurais plus vivre. (Scène 7)
[I! pardon him after all that he has said to me? No, no, father I cannot possibly make up my mind to it; and I beg of you to separate me from a husband with whom I can no longer live. (Scene 14)]
As for Dandin, the Sotenvilles force him to kneel down and apologize to Angélique. Therefore, George says to himself that all he can do is go and drown himself, which is indeed all the he can do:
Ah ! je le quitte maintenant, et je n’y vois plus de remède, lorsqu’on a comme moi épousé une méchante femme, le meilleur parti qu’on puisse prendre, c’est de s’aller jeter dans l’eau la tête la première. (Scène 8)
[Ah! I give it up altogether, and I can see no help for it. When one has married, as I have done, a wicked wife, the best step on can take is to go and throw one’s self into the water, head foremost. (Scene 15)]
As noted above, in Molière, mésalliance and forced marriages lead to cuckoldry. All Dandin has gained by marrying Angélique is a title: de la Dandinière, a hollow and ridiculous title. “Se dandiner” means to waddle.
A Problematical comedy
the contract
the parasites
Monsieur de Sotenville: a pater familias – fear
Marriage being a contract and a sacrament, Molière’s George Dandin is a problematical farce. In L’École des femmes, Arnolphe and Agnès were not married. But the Sotenvilles are George Dandin’s in-laws and parasites.[2] They married Angélique to him because of the money he could provide.
Initially, George Dandin was also a parasite. He wanted a title. But the curtain rises on a desperate husband who wishes to see the marriage terminated. We know that the marriage has not been consummated. (Scene V)
Monsieur de Sotenville is the archetypal pater familias. Claudine obeys because she is afraid of him. Fear is very much a factor in Molière. The Sotenvilles may still need Dandin’s money, but more importantly, a separation could be a scandal.
Ma fille, de semblables séparations ne se font point sans grand scandale, et vous devez vous montrer plus sage que lui, et patienter encore cette fois. (Scène 7)
[Such separations, daughter, are not brought about without a great deal of scandal; and you should show yourself wiser than he, and be patient once more. (Scene 14)]
Honour is invoked, but far more severe an element is the authority Monsieur de Sotenville has given himself. He possesses his daughter.
You must, daughter; I command you. (Monsieur de Sotenville, Scene 14)
This word stops my mouth. You have absolute authority over me. (Angélique, Scene 14)
“Poor lamb,” says Claudine, Angélique’s maid.
As Angélique bemoans, it will happen again and again. The structure of farces allows constant reversals. They are like the Saturnalia of ancient Rome.
Tout ce que vous me faites faire ne servira de rien, et vous verrez que ce sera dès demain à recommencer. (Angélique, Scène 7)
[Whatever you make me do will be of no use; we shall have to recommence to-morrow, you will see. (Scene 14)]
In the world of comedy, there are no rules of marriage. The genre promotes the marriage of the young lovers. In this play, however, the dramatic structure, i.e. the reversals, dominate. However, while militating in favour of the real young lovers, the farce is unkind to Angélique and Clitandre. They cannot marry because Angélique’s parents will not allow their daughter to come home.
Conclusion
George Dandin is filled with comical scenes, such as the double entendre. The manner in which the Sotenvilles deal with George is also comical. (I, 4) So is the way in which Monsieur de Sotenville introduces himself to Clitandre. He mentions his lineage. (I, 5) In fact, the Sotenvilles are ridiculous. In George Dandin, lineage is mocked as it has never been. Madame de Sotenville’s maiden name is de la Prudoterie.
It could be said therefore that Molière rescues the comedic by pushing the farce to an extreme. Everything is a joke. When the curtain falls, the play will not have taken place. It will have been a joke.
The most famous line of the play is:
“J’enrage de bon cœur d’avoir tort, lorsque j’ai raison.” (Dandin, I, 4)
[It makes me mad to be put in the wrong when I am in the right. (I, 7)]
In fact, Dandin is both in the wrong and in the right. According to Will G. Moore, “Dandin is essentially in the right, but he is in all actual cases made to appear in the wrong.”[3]
_________________________ [1]There is disagreement concerning the date. [2] Michel Serres, Le Parasite (Paris : Hachette littératures, coll. Pluriel, 1997 [1980]), p. 361-373. [3] See W. G. Moore, Molière: a New Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 [1949]), p. 118.
Arnolphe, or Monsieur de la Souche Agnès,une ingénue, raised by Arnolphe Horace, the jeune premier whose father is Oronte Oronte, Horace’s father and a friend of Arnolphe Chrysalde, the raisonneur and Arnolphe’s friend Enrique, Chrysalde’s brother-in-law
The dramatis personæ also includes a notary, a maid (Georgette), and a valet (Alain).
Arnolphe & Monsieur de la Souche
a fortuitous victory
two names
In L’École des femmes (1662), the victory of the young couple, Horace and Agnès, is mostly fortuitous and irony is the main literary device used by Molière. Ironically, Horace tells Arnolphe, the blocking character, or senex iratus, everything he and Agnès have done and everything they plan to do.
Molière has made this possible by creating a barbon who has just changed his name. Young Horace, our jeune premier, thinks his rival is Monsieur de la Souche, not Arnolphe. Our pedant, Arnolphe, is a friend of his father as well as Chrysalde’s friend. Horace does not hesitate to ask him for money no more than Arnolphe hesitates to loan him the amount he needs. He also gives him the wallet. Arnolphe knows he will be repaid. Ironically, Horace has no reason to think that Arnolphe is not supportive of him in every way. On the contrary.
In fact, after he and Agnès have fled the house in which she was kept by Monsieur de la Souche, a jealous man, Horace asks Arnolphe, his rival, to look after Agnès while he makes preparations for what we suspect is a wedding. Horace wishes to protect Agnès’ reputation and he must speak to his father’s regarding his marriage. He therefore asks Arnolphe to be Agnès’ temporary guardian. Irony suffuses the comedy and, at this point, reaches its climax.
C’est à vous seul [Arnolphe] aussi, comme ami généreux, Que je puis confier ce dépôt amoureux. (Horace, V, 2, v. 1430-5.)
[(…) and as I have trusted the whole secret of my passion to you, being assured of your prudence, so to you only, as a generous friend, can I confide this beloved treasure.] The School for Wives, p. 24.
Octave Uzanne, Le Livre, Paris, A. Quantin, 1880 [1719 edition]. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Irony also stems from Agnès’ ignorance. Arnolphe has Agnès raised in a convent, asking that she learn as little as possible about the ways of the world. That, he believes, is his very best precaution. He doesn’t want to cuckolded.
As you know, before leaving for about ten days, Arnolphe directs Georgette, Agnès’ maid, and Alain, her manservant, not to let anyone into Agnès’ house. He also directs Agnès not to see anyone. However, Arnolphe has learned from Horace that he has seen a lovely woman and that he is in love, which is why he needs the money he has just borrowed. Arnolphe is afraid and decides to speak with Agnès. He tells her that he has he has been told than an unknown young man came to her house. These people, he says, are méchantes langues, slandering tongues. He claims he is ready to bet they are not telling the truth.
Mon Dieu, ne gagez pas : vous perdriez vraiment. (Agnès, II, 5. v. 473.)
[Oh, Heaven, do not bet; you would assuredly lose.] The School for Wives, p. 10.
Quoi! c’est la vérité qu’un homme… (Arnolphe II, 5, v. 474.)
[What! It is true that a man… ]
(…) Chose sûre.
Il n’a presque bougé de chez nous, je vous jure. (Agnès II, 5, v. 475-6.)
[Quite true. I declare to you that he was scarcely ever out of the house.] The School for Wives, p. 10 & p. 11.
She has given him a ribbon, and he has kissed her arms, Arnolphe wants to know more.
Passe pour le ruban. Mais je voudrais apprendre,
S’il ne vous a rien fait que vous baiser les bras. (Arnolphe, II, 5, v. 580-1.)
[Oh! let the ribbon go. But I want to know if he did nothing to you but kiss your arms.] The School for Wives, p. 12.
Comment. Est-ce qu’on fait d’autres choses ? (Agnès, II, 5, v. 582.)
[Why! do people do other things?] The School for Wives, p. 12.
(…) Non pas. Mais pour guérir du mal qu’il dit qui le possède, N’a-t-il point exigé de vous d’autre remède ? (Arnolphe, II, 5, v. 583-4.)
[Not at all. But, to cure the disorder which he said had seized him, did he not ask you for any other remedy?] The School for Wives, p. 12.
Non. Vous pouvez juger, s’il en eût demandé, Que pour le secourir j’aurais tout accordé. (Agnès, II, 5, v. 585-6.)
[No. You may judge that I would have granted him anything to do him good, if he had asked for it.] The School for Wives, p. 12.
Chrysalde was right. Virtue is not enough:
(…) L’honnêteté suffit. (Arnolphe, I, 1, v. 106.) Mais comment voulez-vous, après tout, qu’une bête Puisse jamais savoir ce que c’est qu’être honnête. (Chrysalde, I. 1, v. 107-8.)
(…) Virtue is quite enough.
But how can you expect, after, all, that a mere simpleton can ever know what it is to be virtuous?] The School for Wives, p. 4.
The School for Wives combines several comic texts: the farce, the comedy of manners, and the comedy of intrigue. It is also rooted in the commedia dell’arte. Arnolphe resembles Il Dottore, an inflatedcharacter who ends up deflated.
Arnolphe has the audacity to think he can fool destiny and destiny undoes him. In LÉcole des femmes, destiny reigns supreme and Arnophe will be the trompeur trompé of farces:
(…) Oui ; mais qui rit d’autrui Doit craindre qu’en revanche on rie aussi de lui. (Chrysalde, I, 1, v. 45-6.)
[Yes; but he who laughs at another must beware, lest he in turn be laughed at himself.] The School for Wives, p. 3.
He, Chrysalde, believes he cannot control destiny. He therefore refrains from mocking others so others do not mock him. According to the laws of comedy, lashing out leads to a backlash. The deceiver is deceived.
In Act I, scene 4, Arnolphe tells Horace that watching cocus is like watching a comedy. But he is now on the same stage, as the cocus he ridiculed, thinking he could shape destiny and boasting about it.
C’est un plaisir de prince, et des tours que je voi Je me donne souvent la comédie à moi. (Arnolphe, I, 4, v. 295-6.)
[It is a pleasure fit for a King; to me it is a mere comedy to
see the pranks I do.] The School for Wives, p. 7.
In this scene, we see to what extent Arnolphe himself has caused his demise. Agnès is so innocent she “would have granted him [Horace] anything to do him good, if he had asked.” Would that she had known more! Chrysalde was right. Virtue is not enough.
(…) L’honnêteté suffit. (Arnolphe, I, 1, v. 104.) [Mais comment voulez-vous, après tout, qu’une bête Puisse jamais savoir ce que c’est qu’être honnête.] (Chrysalde, I. 1. v. 105-6.)
(…) Virtue is quite enough.
[But how can you expect, after, all, that a mere simpleton can ever know what it is.] The School for Wives, p. 4.
Arnolphe is fully undone. However, he is included in the final society, imperfect as it may be.
Allons dans la maison débrouiller ces mystères, Payer à notre ami ces soins officieux, Et rendre grâce au Ciel qui fait tout pour le mieux. (Chrysalde, V, scène dernière, v. 1775-7.)
[Let us go inside, and clear up these mysteries. Let us shew our friend some return for his great pains, and thank Heaven, which orders all for the best.] The School for Wives, p. 29.
Molière as Arnolphe (detail)
Les Farceurs français et italiens depuis soixante ans et plus, 1670
Anagnorisis
When Horace first meets Arnolphe, in Act I, he is carrying two letters addressed to Arnolphe. These indicate that Oronte, Horace’s father, will be visiting with a person Horace does not know.
We know, therefore, that there may be unexpected changes, a discovery: anagnorisis.
It so happens that the guest who will accompany Oronte, Horace’s father is Enrique, Chrysalde’s brother-in-law. It was a private marriage and a daughter was born to Henrique and Angélique. Enrique had to leave France unexpectedly, so the child was left in the custody of a woman who grew too poor to look after Agnès. This woman had to entrust her charge to a person who could afford to raise Agnès. Agnès was 4 years old. These are the circumstances under which Arnolphe became Agnès’ ward. She is now 17.
In Act V, when Enrique arrives, Agnès ceases to be Arnolphe’s ward. Suddenly, after 13 years, Arnolphe no longer has any authority over Agnès. In fact, Agnès can talk. She is not “bête.” Arnolphe therefore leaves devastated and unable to speak: “tout transporté et ne pouvant parler.”
Scholar Bernard Magné has noted that in the final discovery scene (reconnaissance) scene, Arnolphe loses the ability to speak:
(…) Dans la scène de reconnaissance finale, Arnolphe perd réellement l’usage de la parole.[1]
Earlier, when he was pulling a reluctant Agnès away, Arnolphe called her causeuse (a talker):
Allons, causeuse, allons. (Arnolphe, V, 9, v. 1726.)
[Come along, chatterbox.] L’École des femmes, p. 29.
Agnès has indeed gained the ability to speak :
Oui : mais pour femme, moi, je prétendais vous prendre, Et je vous l’avais fait, me semble, assez entendre. (Arnolphe, V, 4, v. 1510-1511.)
[Yes; but I meant to take you to wife myself; I think I gave you to understand it clearly enough.] The School for Wives, p. 26.
Oui : mais à vous parler franchement entre nous, Il est plus pour cela selon mon goût que vous. (Agnès, V, 4. v. 1512 – 1513.) [You did. But, to be frank with you, he is more to my taste for a husband than you. With you, marriage is a trouble and a pain, and your descriptions give a terrible picture of it; but there—he makes it seem so full of joy that I long to marry.] The School for Wives, p. 26.
Vraiment, il en sait donc là-dessus plus que vous ; Car à se faire aimer il n’a point eu de peine. (Agnès, V, 4, v. 1539-1540.) [Of a truth then he knows more about it than you; for he had no difficulty in making himself loved.] The School for Wives, p. 26.
Le moyen de chasser ce qui fait du plaisir (Agnès, V, 4, v. 1527.)
[How can we drive away what gives us pleasure?] The School for Wives, p. 26.
According to the laws of comedy, lashing out at someone leads to a backlash: trompeur trompé, deceiver deceived.
Honour is fragile
In Act I, Arnolphe expresses a view of marriage according to which a wife is dependent on her husband. He is glad that Agnès will owe him everything.
Je me vois riche assez, pour pouvoir, que je croi, Choisir une moitié, qui tienne tout de moi, Et de qui la soumise, et pleine dépendance, N’ait à me reprocher aucun bien, ni naissance. (Arnolphe, I, 1, v. 123-6.)
[I think I am rich enough to take a partner who shall owe all to me, and whose humble station and complete dependence cannot reproach me either with her poverty or her birth.] The School for Wives, p. 4.
However, after realizing that he nearly lost Agnès, Arnolphe tells Agnès that he has difficulty making himself loved and that his honour is fragile. Horace knows how to make himself love:
Que ne vous êtes-vous comme lui fait aimer ? (Agnès, V. 4, v. 1535.)
[Why did you not make yourself loved, as he has done?] The School for Wives, p. 26.
Car à se faire aimer il n’a point eu de peine. Agnès. (Agnès, V, 4, v. 1540.) [For he had no difficulty in making himself loved.] The School for Wives, p. 26.
In Act III, Arnolphe says:
Songez qu’en vous faisant moitié de ma personne ;
C’est mon honneur, Agnès, que je vous abandonne :
Que cet honneur est tendre, et se blesse de peu ;
Et qu’il est aux enfers des chaudières bouillantes,
On l’on plonge à jamais les femmes mal vivantes.
Ce que je vous dis là ne sont pas des chansons :
Et vous devez du cœur ces leçons. (Arnolphe III, 1, v. 721-728.)
[Remember, Agnès, that, in making you part of myself, I give my honour into your hands, which honour is fragile, and easily damaged; that it will not do to trifle in such a matter, and that there are boiling cauldrons in hell, into which wives who live wickedly are thrown for evermore.] The School for Wives, p. 14.
In short, Arnolphe is like Orgon who needs Tartuffe to be a tyrant. He also resembles Alceste who preaches truthfulness so he can believe those who praise him. If Arnolphe’s honour depends on marital fidelity, it is best he remain unmarried in a world that is at the complete mercy of destiny.
The problem with this play is the overwhelming power of destiny. The reconnaissance scene he is recourse no one should have to use. But Arnolphe’s précaution was useless. In fact, knowing everything Agnès and Horace were doing, Arnolphe loses Agnès. However, he does not lose her because he asks Arnolphe to look after her, he loses her because a real father arrives after a very long absence. Enrique suddenly replaces Arnolphe and does so fortuitously. Arnolphe loses his ability to speak, which, in the eyes of most people, is a privilege given human beings only.
Molière borrowed his École des femmesfrom Paul Scarron (c. 1 July 1610 in Paris – 6 October 1660 in Paris), the author of the Roman comique (1651-1657) who also translated Spanish stories, one of which was La Précaution inutile.
Antoine Le Métel d’Ouville also wrote a Précaution inutile. (See Molière 21.) Moreover, the full title of Beaumarchais’ Barbier de Séville is Le Barbier de Séville ou la Précaution inutile. The useless precaution is an archetypal mythos (story). It has affinities with Spanish and Italian comedies and the sketches of the commedia dell’arte. It seems Molière had read L’Astuta simplicitá di Angiolo.[2]
Conclusion
To conclude, I will quote Britannica:
The delicate portrayal in Agnès of an awakening temperament, all the stronger for its absence of convention, is a marvel of comedy, as are Arnolphe’s clumsy attempts at lover’s talk. Meanwhile, a young man, Horace, falls in love with Agnès at first sight.[3]
In Molière’s comedies, the one fault that dooms a marriage or a possible marriage is jealousy. In this regard, Molière’s École des femmes is our most celebrated example.It was first performed on 26 December 1662 at the Palais-Royal. Molière’s troupe was at the time la Troupe de Monsieur, frère unique du Roi, the company of the Duke of Orleans, the only brother of Louis XIV. It is une grande comédie and it created a controversy. Molière response was in the form of a short play entitled: La Critique de l’École des femmes.
In Molière’s theatre, jealousy affects most barbons, because its stems from the same flaw in character that blinds Orgon and allows Tartuffe to dispossess Orgon’s family. French scholarPaul Bénichou has labelled this flaw a vanité inquiète, vanity combined with insecurity.[1]Were it not for Tartuffe, it would be difficult for Orgon to force his daughter Mariane to marry Tartuffe. Yet, Orgon would not take Tartuffe into his home if he did not wish to be a tyrant with impunity.
In the case of Arnolphe, fear of being cuckoldedis an obsession and, as Chrysalde—the plays raisonneur—tells him, he should not laugh atthose whose wives are not faithful because humans are at the mercy of destiny. Molière lived in the century that opposed casuistes and Jansenists. In the eyes of Jansenists, humans could not ensure their salvation.
Another French scholar, René Bray[2] entitled one of the chapters of his Molière, homme de théâtre (1954) Molière pense-t-il ? Molière theatre is rooted, first and foremost, in comedy, including farces and his own comedies. In earlier days, biography was used to “explain” Molière’s plays.
We cannot dismiss Zeitgeist, but it is important to study Molière using other criteria such as the dramatic structure of his plays, its “types,” and other organizing principles. According to Northrop Frye, one should study a work of literature using a “conceptual framework.”[3] Moreover, there was a time when Molière’s plays were not read as plays but as texts. Molière thinks, but he does so within a genre, comedy, that constitutes, in and of itself, a “conceptual framework.”
The commedia dell’arte troupe of the Gelosi in a late 16th-century Flemish painting (Musée Carnavalet, Paris). The woman is usually identified as Isabella, after Isabella Andreini (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Arnolphe, or Monsieur de la Souche
Agnès,une ingénue, raised by Arnolphe
Horace, the jeune premier whose father is Oronte
Oronte, Horace’s father and a friend of Arnophe
Chrysalde, the raisonneur and Arnolphe’s friend
Enrique, Chrysalde’s brother-in-law
The dramatis personæ also includes a notary, a maid (Georgette), and a valet (Alain).
The Plot
At one level, the plot is that of farces: the trompeurtrompé. But, combined with the trompeur trompé, the plot of L’École des femmes is also the archetypal struggle between the eirôn(the young lovers) and the alazṓn(the blocking character or personnage-obstacle). Le blondin berne le barbon.
In this post, I am telling the plot of the School for Wives, l’École des femmes and write an analysis in a second post. The plot itself is significant. Genre is the starting-point.
Act I
Arnolphe adopted Agnès when she was four years old. He wants to marry her, but fearing he might be cuckolded, he had his ward raised in a convent where she was taught as little as possible about the ways of the world. He thinks that a wife who is sotte and bête, stupid or a beast, will be faithful. He is 42 years old and Agnès, 17.
As the curtain rises, Chrysalde is warning Arnolphe not to boast. Despite his precautions, he may be cocu and people would laugh at him outloud. A cocu is a man whose wife is unfaithful. It is best, expains Chrysalde not to make fun of others. If one does not laugh at others, their laughter will be hushed if destiny strikes a blow, which it often does (I, 1).
Arnophe returns from a trip (I, i). He tries to enter his house, but Georgette and Alain do not seem to know that they should open the door (I, 2).
Arnolphe talks to Agnès who has been sewing (I, 3). Arnolphe also meets Horace, the jeune premier, who tells Arnophe that his father will soon have a visitor, Enrique, and he asks for money which Arnolphe provides (I, 3).
Horace tells Arnolphe that he has met a lovely woman who is being kept in a house by some sort of senex iratus who is very jealous, Arnolphe is 42 (I, 4).
Horace does not know that Arnophe has changed his name to Monsieur de la Souche.
Act II
Arnolphe expresses his feelings. He is in pain (II, 1). He talks with his valet and maid who let a man enter the house (II, 2). Alain explains that Arnolphe is jealous and that Georgette would also be jealous if someone took the soup she is eating (II, 3).
Arnolphe is thinking (II, 4).
Our senex iratus confronts Agnès, thinking she can deny what Horace has said. She cannot. On the contrary, she has been polite, obedient and truthful, as she was taught. Horace waved at her and she waved back, not to be impolite. He waved again, and she waved back again. Agnès had been told not to see anyone, but she had also been taught civility. She did as she was taught.
Arnolphe is alarmed. He was to know if Horace touched Agnès. Again she tells the truth. He did. He caressed her hands and arms. Arnolphe wanders if he has caressed anything else. She hesitates, but says that she gave Horace the ribbon Arnolphe had given her (II, 3).
Arnolphe says she will marry that very evening. She thinks her spouse will be Horace, but Arnolphe’s intentions are different. He will be the spouse.
Act II ends with a famous verse, borrowed from Corneille’s Sertorius(V. 1867-1868):
Je suis maître, je parle : allez obéissez. [I am the Master, I speak : go obey.]
Act III
In Act III, Arnolphe instructs Agnès on how to be a good wife: she must be docile because the husband is in charge, etc. L’une est moitié suprême, et l’autre subalterne[.] (III, 2.) [The one half is supreme, and the other subordinate.] (The School for Wives) He describes the boiling cauldrons of hell.
Et qu’il est aux enfers des chaudières bouillantes Où l’on plonge à jamais les femmes mal vivantes. (III, 2.)
[There are boiling cauldrons in hell, into which wives who live wickedly are thrown for evermore.]
He then has her repeat:
« Les Maximes du Mariage ou les devoirs de la femme mariée, avec son exercice journalier. » [The Maxims of Marriage ; or the Duties of a Wife ; together with her Daily Exercise.] (III, 2).
Arnolphe speaks alone, a soliloquy (III, 3). Soliloquies are frequent in L’École des femmes.
Horace tells Arnolphe that Agnès has managed to attach a message to a rock she was to thrown at him. (III, 4).
Arnolphe speaks alone (III, 5: a soliloquy).
Act IV
Arnolphe cannot believe that Horace should be confiding in him. Horace is doing very well. He tells Arnolphe that Agnès has seen him and let him into her room. When she heard Arnolphe, she put Horace in a closet. They will be meeting that evening (IV, 7).
Chrysalde visits. There will be no supper, i.e. no wedding (IV, 8).
Act V
In Act V, Arnolphe thinks that Georgette and Alain have killed Horace, but they haven’t. In fact, Horace is quite well and Agnès is with him. To protect her reputation, he wishes for Arnolphe to look after her. Agnès thinks he loves her less than she loves him (dépit amoureux).Ironically she is being returned to Arnolphe.
Anagnorisis
Enrique is Agnès’ father. Her real name is Angélique. He has made arrangements to marry her to Oronte’s son. Oronte’s reaction is the following:
(…) Si son cœur a quelque répugnance, Je tiens qu’on ne doit pas lui faire résistance. (V, 7.)
[If it is repugnant to him, I think we ought not to force him. I think my brother will be of my mind.]
Horace learns that Arnolphe is now called Monsieur de la Souche, which is why he told him about Agnès. It turns out, however, that Enrique would like Oronte’s son Horace to marry Agnès. Arnolphe leaves.
Nature claimed its “rights.” Horace intended to marry the woman who happens to be Enrique’s daughter. So, all’s well that ends well.
Conclusion
I will break here, without a conclusion. It is too long to be posted with the plot. Moreover, this play was controversial.
[1] Paul Bénichou, Morales du Grand Siècle (Paris : Gallimard, 1948), p. 295-296. [2] René Bray is the author of La Formation de la doctrine classique en France. [3] Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971 [1957]), p. 6.
Étude pour La Critique de l’École des femmes by François Boucher, sanguine
“Tendre Amour” (Jean-Philippe Rameau) – YouTube
Jean-Philippe Rameau by Carmontelle(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Gesualdo di Venosa or Gesualdo da Venosa (March 8, 1566 – September 8, 1613) was a fine musician: a virtuoso lutenist and a composer. However, he is an example of what I would call the tormented self.
The Murders
On October 16, 1590, Carlo murdered or had servants murder his wife, Donna Maria d’Avalos, the daughter of the Marquis of Pescara, and her lover, Fabrizio Carafa, the Duke of Andria. He also murdered or had servants murder his second son because he suspected the little boy was the son of the Duke of Andria. Moreover, to avoid revenge, he murdered or had servants murder his father-in-law, the Marquis of Pescara.
Gesualdo had married Donna Maria d’Avalos in 1586 and, although others knew about the affair, he did not. When he was apprised of the relationship, he made believe he was going on a hunting trip, had keys made, and caught his unfaithful wife and her lover in the act. The murders took place at the Palazzo San Severo in Naples.
As an aristocrat, Gesualdo was immune from prosecution, but, for his own protection, he nevertheless settled in Ferrara for a few years to escape vengeful relatives. Moreover, in 1594, Carlo married Leonora d’Este, the niece of Duke Alfonso II.
The Human Condition
We have discussed “l’humaine condition,” or the duality of human beings. Remember that Pascal thought humans were both grands and misérables. We are mortals, which belittles us, but we know that we are mortals, which gives us nobility. Each one of us is a “roseau pensant” (a thinking reed). Michel de Montaigne (February 28, 1533 – September 13, 1592) described humanity in similar fashion. So did Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650).
However, although these writers spoke of humankind’s duality, that duality was not the juxtaposition in one individual of a good human being and a bad, or beastly, human being.
The Werewolf: lycanthropy
No, the concept of duality does not point to the kind of division that is the fate of fictional werewolves or the loup garou, humans by day, wolves by night. However, Robert Louis Stevenson‘s (13 November 1850 – 3 December 1894) The Strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, first published in 1886, is a mostly human (as opposed to Beast Literature’s lycanthropy) version of a loup garou story. Moreover, there is a mental disorder called clinical lycanthropy and all of us have heard of split personalities.
But what of Gesualdo…
As for Carlo Gesualdo, I do not see in him a split personality but I do see insane jealousy and uncontrolled anger: rage. In other words, we may be looking at a non-fictional “tragic flaw” that has fascinated generations. It does not seem possible that Gesualdo, an artist, would kill or order servants to kill on his behalf.
First, Gesualdo was Principe da Venosa, a prince, as well as a count, the Count of Conza. Unspeakable crimes have been committed by aristocrats, but we tend to believe that, as aristocrats, these persons are or should be morally equal to their rank. There was, however, a Marquis de Sade (2 June 1740 – 2 December 1814). He was an aristocrat, but he was not immune to prosecution.
Second, the Principe de Venosa and count of Conza was a musician. He was a virtuoso lutenist and an excellent composer. It is difficult to reconcile musicianship and cruelty.
In fact, Gesualdo’s second marriage was not a happy marriage. It appears he was an abusive husband, but despite her family’s entreaties, Eleanore would not divorce of husband. She tried to help him, but some believe that she ended up murdering the murderer. It all seems a mystery.
But the deeper mystery lies in Gesualdo’s ability to continue playing and composing music after the murders. How could he write and play music after committing horrible crimes? Music requires sensitivity, not to mention serenity. So we will never know what happened to Gesualdo. Again, it all seems a mystery.
Could it be, for instance, that his music reflects a tormented and guilt-ridden soul? We will listen to some of his compositions. His music is very ornamented and chromatic (he used semitones, the smallest space or interval between two notes). As well, he composed complicated polyphonic works, using up to seven voices.
Gesualdo wrote six books of madrigals, some of which were settings of the poetry of Torquato Tasso (11 March 1544 – 25 April 1595), another tormented self. He also wrote galliards (the gagliarda), a court dance, and sacred music:
Sacrarum cantionum liber primus (5 voix). Naples 1603;
Sacrarum cantionum liber primus (6, 7 voix). Naples 1603);
Responsoria et alia ad Officium Hebdomadae Sanctae spectantia (6 voix). Gesualdo 1611.
