_Lives of Poets_, was never printed, and burnt by
the Communards in 1871), and Claude de Lestoile (1597-1651), are as
dramatists worthy of no notice, nor were they soon followed by others
more worthy. Yet before many years had passed the examples which
Corneille had set in tragedy and in comedy were followed up by
unquestionably the greatest comic writer, and by one who long held the
position of the greatest tragic writer of France. Beginning with mere
farces of the Italian type, and passing from these to comedies still of
an Italian character, it was in _Les Precieuses ridicules_, acted in
1659, that Moliere (1622-1673), in the words of a spectator, hit at last
on "la bonne comedie." The next fifteen years comprise the whole of his
best known work, the finest expression beyond doubt of a certain class
of comedy that any literature has produced. The tragic masterpieces of
Racine (1639-1699) were not far from coinciding with the comic
masterpieces of Moliere, for, with the exception of the remarkable
aftergrowth of _Esther_ and _Athalie_, they were produced chiefly
between 1667 and 1677. Both Racine and Moliere fall into the class of
writers who require separate mention. Here we can only remark that both
to a certain extent committed and encouraged a fault which distinguished
much subsequent French dramatic literature. This was the too great
individualizing of one point in a character, and the making the man or
woman nothing but a blunderer, a lover, a coxcomb, a tyrant and the
like. The very titles of French plays show this influence--they are _Le
Grondeur_, _Le Joueur_, &c. The complexity of human character is
ignored. This fault distinguishes both Moliere and Racine from writers
of the very highest order; and in especial it distinguishes the comedy
of Moliere and the tragedy of Racine from the comedy and tragedy of
Shakespeare. In all probability this and other defects of the French
drama (which are not wholly apparent in the work of Moliere and
Corneille, are shown in their most favourable light in those of Racine,
and appear in all their deformity in the successors of the latter) arise
from the rigid adoption of the Aristotelian theory of the drama with its
unities and other restrictions, especially as transmitted by Horace
through Boileau. This adoption was very much due to the influence of the
French Academy, which was founded unofficially by Conrart in 1629, which
received official standing six years later, and which continued the
tradition of Malherbe in attempting constantly to school and correct, as
the phrase went, the somewhat disorderly instincts of the early French
stage. Even the Cid was formally censured for irregularity by it. But it
is fair to say that Francois Hedelin, abbe d'Aubignac (1604-1676), whose
_Pratique du theatre_ is the most wooden of the critical treatises of
the time, was not an academician. It is difficult to say whether the
subordination of all other classes of composition to the drama, which
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account