Moliere is one of the most brilliant talents in neoclassical French theatre. This kind of theatre developed in the sixteenth century, when France was under the reign of Louis XIV, an absolute monarch. A lot of factors influenced the appearance of neoclassical trends, and one of them was political. Religious plays were prohibited, that is why secular theatre got a new breath. Louis XIV supported arts and liked all kinds of entertainment: performances, balls, ballets, operas. In his palace of Versailles all talented men of arts were accepted with much interest and order to make the life of Louis even more eventful and sparkling. The court required “that the scenic stage, and its presiding stage engineers, present the visual aspect of the almost divine omnipotence which is attached to the figure of the King himself” (Mccarthy 124).
Neoclassical theater at first indulged into the study of antique plays of Latin and Greek authors, then plays written in French, and certain regulations, known as “unities”, began to predominate. The basic features of neoclassical plays became unity of time, action and place, verisimilitude and decorum. Verisimilitude required the reality of life, depicted in the play. That is why fantastic characters, soliloquy, chorus, and unusual scene were prohibited. Morality was to be found in every play, so that good prevailed evil, and the task of the performance was to teach and to please. Decorum represented a convention that characters should behave appropriately to their social rank. Three unities were three pillars the theater was grounded on. They were called to maintain verisimilitude. The unity of time meant that all the events, depicted in the play, should take as long as they would take in reality: a few hours up to twenty four hours of real life. The unity of place required an unchangeable place of action or at least places could be reached during above mentioned twenty four hours of action. And the unity of action, introduced by Aristotle, an inspirer of neoclassical theatre, was represented in verisimilar actions and their duration. Comedies were presented in such genre as didactic comedy, farce.
The most popular classical playwrights were Pierre Corneille, Jean Racine and Moliere. There was something like a struggle between them to attract a larger audience that consisted mostly of wealthy young men and women. They came not to see the performance, but to be seen by others, and arrived often two hours earlier. Such public was not sophisticated, it longed for a show. Moliere is a prominent figure in neoclassical theater; he was one of the favorite playwrights and actors of His Majesty. Illustre Theatre under the rule of Moliere became one of the originators of the famous Comedie Francaise. Jean-Baptiste Poquelin (a real name of an outstanding dramaturge) influenced playwrights after his time, and they considered him to be a king of farce. But he was not only an actor, dramaturge, “…he was also a libertine – in thought…and in deed” (Scott 5). So, he could not live with any restrictions provided by the French academy to make art more limited.
Farce entertained people with extravagant and improbable situations, humor and sophistication, absurd or nonsense, stylization and bright performances, happy ending, quick and witty repartees. Characters are often depicted as vain, infantile and ridiculous. Satire often accompanies farce and vices, abuses are ridiculed. The purpose of satire is not only to make people laugh, but also attack something disapproved of by the play of a witty author. As we see from above mentioned rules of neoclassical theatre, farce neglects verisimilitude and poetic justice. And so did Moliere, when he was inspired by Commedia dell’Arte. He used farcical characters to show true-to-life characters of his times. This work is an attempt to show how Moliere violates rules of neoclassical theatre using the examples from The Bourgeois Gentleman.
This play with music and ballet was written to be performed for Louis XIV. Moliere wrote the play with much haste on the occasion of the visit of the Turkish ambassador to France. Moliere was ordered to write a satire on an oriental theme, because the King was displeased to find out that the ambassador was much refined and exquisite than His Majesty was. So the comedy served the purpose of entertainment, not moralizing, that is why it does not fit into the genre of didactic comedy. There is no development of characters, usually one or two traits of character are ridiculed. Moliere knew the class of bourgeois excellently as he was its representative. And certainly, such people could come across not only in his times, but also now. The audience knew that the comedy satirized not only the author, but also the King, who is a prototype of the play with one purpose – to be nobler and more splendid than the Turk. The King’s suite is ridiculed in the character of Dorante. Like he who seeks profit in the upper society, they seek praise of Louis XIV. “The end justifies the means” is their motto.
In this comedy the main paradox is in the very title of the play. A gentleman is noble, such a person as a bourgeois gentleman cannot exist. Oxymoron in the title of the farce introduces social climbing, vulgar snobbish personality of middle class and vain aristocracy, which are reflected in the message: though it is difficult to judge whose actions are worse, those of silly bourgeois or knave Dorante, they both deserve to be despised.
The play takes place at Jourdain’s house in Paris, and here it conforms to the unity of place. Jourdain belongs to the most typical characters of stupid husbands; he is not only silly and vulgar, but also rich, vain, simpleminded and snobbish.”Molière emphasizes Monsieur Jourdain’s desire to become a gentilhomme and does so to the exclusion of personal traits that might give the character more depth” (Koppish 142). There is no internal conflict in the souls of the characters, who are not developing. The collision of the plot is external. The only aim of Monsieur Jourdain’s life is to be accepted as a gentleman, to become an aristocrat and belong to the upper class. We understand that the elite represented by the Count is not worth being followed. The point is that Monsieur Jourdain is doing it not only for himself, but for society, which must distinguish him from the others, as he is a gentleman now. Thus, he tells: “Follow me while I go and show off my coat a bit around town “ (Act III). And he does not comply with decorum, despite the convictions of his wife. Instead he should work like every merchant does and like his father did to increase the incomes. But Monsieur Jourdain spends money like water loaning to the Count and buying unnecessary expensive trifles.
Moreover, he learns all the arts a real gentleman should know: fencing, dancing, music, philosophy, but during learning he is constantly making a fool of himself. Even dressing, he wants to add much splendor to himself and meditates over the “philosophical problem” in what way it is better to listen to the music: “Give me my gown so I can hear properly … Wait, I think I would be better without the gown… No, give it back to me, that will be better” (The Bourgeois Gentleman, Act III). Stupidity of Jourdain cannot be overcome by his teachers, who see in him only a source of enrichment: “He’s giving us a chance to make ourselves known in society; and on behalf of the others he will pay for what the others will praise for him” (Act III). So they do not follow the decorum and real vocation of teachers either. The teachers of dance and music are not much cleverer than Jourdain. They come to the false conclusion that wars could be prevented, if everybody indulged in music and dance.
The rivalry between four teachers, Music Master, Dancing Master, Fencing Master and a Master of Philosophy, is crowned by a simple fight between them. Even a wise Master of Philosophy cannot overcome the calls of rivalry and attack the others. Jourdain is infantile and genuinely glad to get to know that he was speaking prose all the time. The Master of Philosophy was confused by himself producing a silly massage for Dorimene – “Beautiful marchioness, your lovely eyes make me die of love” (Act II). Nicole, his servant, easily defeats her master, even without the slightest notion, how to fence according to the rules. The absurdity of above mentioned situations prove violation of verisimilitude in this comedy.
The development of the plot introduces the next character to be despised – Dorante, although a nobleman, but vain and parasitic. He cheats Jourdain and wheedles a considerable sum of money out of him in addition to his huge debt: “The sum total is exact: fifteen thousand eight hundred livres. To which add two hundred pistoles that you are going to give me, which will make exactly eighteen thousand francs, which I shall pay you at the first opportunity” (Act III). We may assume that Jourdain pays for flatter and gestures to praise his efforts to become higher in his social rank: “You look very smart in that coat, and we have no young men at the court who are better turned out than you are” (Act III). Dorante is also a violator of decorum, though noble by birth, acts according to his vile motives. He tries to mislead both Jordan and his mistress Dorimene, hoping to marry her because of her richness. The Count is an embodiment of hypocrisy.
Jourdain is doing his best to make his dream, which turned into obsession, to come true. He wants to marry a Marchioness and make his daughter Lucille marry an aristocrat. His love for Dorimene is not inspired by pure feeling, but for the sake of social status: “A woman of quality has ravishing charms for me, and it’s an honor I would buy at any price” (Act III). He does not understand that his better friend Dorante is his rival. Dorante convinces Dorimene that he is the host of the feast, and Jourdain sticks to this “truth” responding to fair reproofs of his wife. The situation turns to be comic and comes to absurd with two men courting the same woman. We feel that disclosure can happen every minute and forgery hangs by a thread from disaster. Monsieur Jourdain tries to deceive his wife, but she is full of common sense, sharp-tongued, thus complying with decorum. She is a representative of bourgeoisie. Madame Jourdain objects all the efforts of her husband and puts direct meaning to the words without giving any attention to whether they are prose or verse.
Typical characters of young lovers, Lucille and Cleonte, contradict neoclassical theater, as they were taken from Italian tradition and are typical to farce along with bold and witty servants, like Covielle, Cleonte’s servant, and Nicole, whom we can see in The Bourgeois Gentleman. The love of two young people and their desire to marry is declined by Jourdain. But Covielle finds out a solution. Cleonte is disguised into a Turkish prince, Jourdain is eager to become a father-in-law of a noble Turkish man, thus getting to the upper ranks of society, and gives his daughter to Cleonte.
The desire to become a Mamamouchi rules Jourdain and makes him satirized. The situation with the Turkish Prince is obviously improbable, and contradicts the reality. The last ceremony is full of extravagance, humor, sophistication, bright performance and represents one more example of the difference between the requirements of three unities and the play itself. Moreover, we see that the last part is plotless and does not bear any coherence with the beginning of the play. This is the result of Moliere’s haste and effort to unite two plays into one. The divergence between neoclassical theatre and the play can be proved by the language used in the last act. The words are not Turkish, but French. Phrases are devoid of meaning. The rank of Mamamouchi lacks meaning itself. We see that violation of verisimilitude of language converts into breaking into an absurd situation. It is called to increase difference between Jourdain and common sense. In the words of Covielle we see pretense in its highest peak: “…all this is done only to accommodate ourselves to the fantasies of your husband, that we are fooling him under this disguise” (Act V).
Moliere also uses the mode of deus ex machina to provide a happy ending. It means that a thing or a person (like in The Bourgeois Gentleman) appears out of the blue and provides closure of the story. In The Bourgeois Gentleman Covielle disguises Cleonte. Fortunately, the son of a noble Turk comes “all of a sudden” and “the family’s problems are resolved, but only for as long as the Turkish fantasy lasts” (Koppish 153). The curtain falls before hard reality comes, that is before the notary arrives. It is proof that this play pulls down the regulations of the theatre of the time. The authenticity cannot burst out in the characters of Jourdain’s family, servants, friends. “Even while laughing, they are forced, collectively, to play according to Jourdain’s rules” (Koppisch 153).
So we see that not a piece of real life was represented in the story. The audience is under the spell of make-belief through the play. Moliere tried to reduce the distance between the mocked and the mocking, and escape any break of imagination at the same time. The play was a success because its primary purpose was to entertain. And he achieved it with much skill.
Works Cited
Koppish Michael S. Rivalry and the Disruption of Order in Moliere’s Theater. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2004.
Mccarthy Gerry. The Theatres of Moliere. London: Routledge, 2002.
Moliere. The Bourgeois Gentleman. NY: Dover Publishers, 2001.
Scott Virginia. Moliere: A Theatrical Life. Cambridge University Press, 2000.