Abstract
This book is devoted to the study of interpretations of how tragic characters should be portrayed ("mores", "ethos", "mœurs") in seventeenth-century French theories on Tragedy. The theoretical writings of Jean Chapelain, La Mesnardière, Pierre Corneille, d'Aubignac, René Le Bossu, Rapin, Saint-Évremond, Jean Racine and André Dacier are examined in detail.
Their findings are compared with the Latin and Italian commentaries on how the Aristotelian notion of "character" ought to be perceived and understood and what is its impact on dramatic action ("mythos"). The main focus is on the detailed analysis of very divergent and often incompatible interpretations of the four Aristotelian conditions outlined briefly in Chapter XV of Poetics and on how the French theorists and dramatists respond to Aristotle's requirements.
The first condition requires dramatic character to be "good of its kind" ("chrestos", "ethe chresta"). The thorough analysis of period's criticism draws us to the conclusion that there are basically two different approaches to how the French theorists conceptualize this very elusive criterion.
Whereas Chapelain in his Préface a l'Adone explicitly rejects the moral meaning of "chrestos" and thus reduces the first two of the four Aristotelian conditions (goodness and appropriateness) into a new category of le bienséant, La Mesnardière links goodness to what he calls exemplarité. La Mesnardière's conceptualization of mœurs and his lengthy polemic with Lodovico Castelvetro clearly show that his understanding of "chrestos" converges with Aristotle's Poetics, but the terminology he adopts leaves no doubt as to his preference for "upright" characters.
La Mesnardière never raises the question of whether the portrayal of a good character is useless in regards to a dramatic plot, unlike Chapelain in his Sentiments. The debate on what the notion of "chrestos" should denote and whether its meaning covers a technical ("techne", "ars") rule or rather a moral value belongs to the most controversial points amongst the seventeenth-century French dramatic theories.
Nevertheless, most theoreticians share Chapelain's view and turn to the consideration of appropriateness which is the second of Aristotle's requirements. The properties listed here draw mainly on traditional criteria such as age, gender and social status, and theoreticians refer frequently to Horatius' De Arte Poetica.
Daniel Heinsius gives a detailed account of appropriate behaviour as it is found in Terence's comedies. La Mesnardière considers the character's appropriateness closely whilst paying close attention to their arguments ("dianoia", "sentiments").
There is little disagreement on the theoretical level, but when it comes to polemics raised in the defensive prefaces, some of the criteria of appropriateness do appear in a sharper and more controversial light. How should a dramatist portray a witty suivante or an old king in love with a young princess (Corneille's Égée in Médée)? Is it appropriate to portray a young nobleman with no respect for women (Racine's Hippolyte in Phèdre) or a married queen in love with a young suitor (Mairet's Sophonisbe in Sophonisbe)? And what about a young noblewoman with little respect to her social status (Corneille's Chimène in Le Cid)? The third of Aristotle's requirements considers the "likeness" of a character, of which there are three divergent interpretations in the seventeenth-century dramatic theory.
Chapelain advocates verisimilitude, thus combining the third Aristotelian requirement with consistency. He argues that the character should resemble himself and behave consistently throughout the play.
Corneille's Chimène (Corneille, Le Cid) is the main target of his criticism. Her character of a young noblewoman does not correspond with her behaviour.
The prevailing interpretation, however, that the character should "resemble us", creates controversy as it forces us to question who the period's theatre-goer really is. We clearly see that the idea of La Mesnardière's "honnête homme" does by no means correspond with the "rozza moltidune" described by Castelvetro.
A similar differentiation can be seen in Saint-Évremond's grievance about the poor taste of the self-centred French men and women who refuse the noble qualities of foreign queens in Corneille's tragedies and prefer "les Héros amollis" who shed tears. The ultimate interpretation of likeness is that a portrayed tragic character should resemble what he "really" was or how we have perceived him traditionally, especially if it is a legendary hero or a known statesman.
Corneille therefore states in his Discours that there is an apparent contradiction among Aristotle's requirements. How does one portray a hero who does not meet the criteria of appropriateness? Corneille thus suggests that the second of Aristotle's requirements regards only fictitious characters, whereas the third (likeness, resemblance) is applicable to mythological and historical protagonists.
This seems at first sight a satisfactory solution. However, Corneille contradicts his theory with a portrayal of some of the characters in his plays.
The contemporary critics Le Bossu and Dacier have shown that Corneille has no problem in embellishing his characters if the plot demands it (Maurice in Corneille's Héraclius). The final Aristotelian requirement is that characters ought to be consistent.
There should be no contradiction between the portrayed character and the plot. This is also the main criticism of Chapelain's Sentiments, as we have seen above, and Corneille is not very convincing in his later defence against Chapelain's reprehensions.
We have tried to detect the main arguments as they are posed by the contemporary critics and we also draw some genetic lines between the texts. Especially some of Corneille's remarks seem to be adopted from Tasso, and Racine had probably known the Italian commentary by Alessandro Piccolomini.
But the main goal is to describe the theoretical frames with which the dramatists were confronted. This knowledge allows for a better appreciation of the intrinsic qualities of seventeenth-century French tragedy for today's reader and theatre-goer.