Iconoclasts: A Book of Dramatists: Ibsen, Strindberg, Becque, Hauptmann, Sudermann, Hervieu, Gorky, Duse and D'Annunzio, Maeterlinck and Bernard ShawHuneker, James
History
Iconoclasts: A Book of Dramatists: Ibsen, Strindberg, Becque, Hauptmann, Sudermann, Hervieu, Gorky, Duse and D'Annunzio, Maeterlinck and Bernard Shaw
Huneker, James
Dramatists; European drama -- 19th century -- History and criticism; European drama -- 20th century -- History and criticism
Emma's departure is
logical.
With La Parisienne, Becque is once more on his own ground. Paris and
its cynical view of the relations of the sexes is embodied in this
diabolically adroit and disconcerting comedy--represented for the first
time at the Comédie-Française, September 14, 1882, and reviewed at the
Odéon, November 3, 1897. The play is full of a _blague_ now slightly
outmoded, but the types remain eternally true--those of the Parisian
triangle. Only this three-cornered, even four-cornered, arrangement
(for there are two "dear friends") is played with amazing variations.
Clotilde du Mesnil and Lafont are quarrelling over a letter when the
curtain rises. He adjures her to resist temptation. "Resist, Clotilde;
that is the only honourable course, and the only course worthy of
you." She must remain dignified, honourable, the pride of her husband.
Suddenly, in the midst of this ignoble squabble, she cries, "Prenez
garde, voilà, mon mari!" Up to this moment the audience fancies that
it has been witnessing a marital row. The shock is tremendous when the
truth is learned. Nor are your feelings spared when later you hear
Clotilde accuse Lafont of not being fond of _her_ husband. The two
wrangle over the accusation. In another speech she exclaims: "Vous êtes
un libre penseur! Je crois que vous vous entendriez très bien avec une
maîtresse qui n'aurait pas de religion, quelle horreur!" This extremely
naïve statement reveals to us the land on the other side of good and
evil in which dwell Becque's characters. Are they even cynical? Hardly,
for there is no mockery, no parade of immorality, no speeches with
equivocal meanings. The calm assumption of external decency is merely
a reversion to the baldest paganism. It is the modern over-cynicism.
These people are so bad that, paradoxical as it may sound, they are
good. Certainly they are more refreshing and infinitely more moral
than that wretched Camille, with her repentant whimperings and her
nauseating speeches about soiled doves and their redemption.
And Lafont, stupid, loving, honest according to his lights, Lafont
so marvellously presented by Antoine, is he not a being who lives!
Clotilde as incarnated by Réjane is the worldling, neither stupid nor
witty. She is simply a good-natured, vain woman, who deceives her
husband and lover as naturally as she breathes.
Clotilde takes on a new _amant_, who treats her as badly as she treated
Lafont. Deserted, she picks up the old thread and begins to live as
before. As Mrs. Craigie says of this play: "There are critics who
mistaking the situation for the philosophy have called this piece
immoral. One would as soon call Georges Dandin or Tom Jones immoral. A
true book, a true play, cannot be otherwise than moral. It is the false
picture--no matter how pretty--which makes for immorality."
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