Art criticism; Dramatic criticism; Literature -- History and criticism
On Saturday I went to _Thérèse Raquin_ at the Royalty Theatre;
and while I found the piece itself--as indeed I expected to find
it--far less of a melodrama than certain of its critics had said,
I discovered that the performance, though good and creditable, was
not quite so noteworthy as it had been pronounced. The thing is
worth seeing, though--would indeed in any case be worth seeing. It
is but the second piece of M. Zola’s which has found hospitality
among us: nay, in a certain sense, it is the first, for _L’Assommoir_
was hardly seen in its nakedness and truth, though it was seen with
fulness of horror in Charles Reade’s version _Drink_. The version of
_Thérèse Raquin_--executed mainly, as I suppose, by Mr. De Mattos,
but overlooked by Mr. George Moore--does not widely depart from the
original. It is not a bad translation, though it might, with advantage,
have been a little more colloquial. It suggests nowhere that it
has been subjected to the process which I believe to be the only
satisfactory one, in translation, to a writer who is ambitious, as he
ought to be, to write the English that we talk: the process of wholly
discarding the original at a certain point--when the bare but real
equivalent of that original has once been secured--of forgetting, from
that moment, the existence of the original, and of setting oneself
solely to say well and naturally what the translation, which is still
beside one, says with awkwardness. The translation of _Thérèse Raquin_
is good enough, it may be, for most people’s requirements on the stage;
but it is not good enough to be counted as literature. The thing--that
is--has not become Mr. De Mattos’s own: he has remained its somewhat
mechanical interpreter.
_Thérèse Raquin_ occupies a middle place in M. Zola’s work. In point
of date, it is early; but I mean ‘a middle place’ in that it displays
neither the exaggerated and sterile realism of the uglier of the
writer’s books nor the abounding poetry of the finer of them. A problem
in itself less interesting than the problem of the _Page d’Amour_ is,
in _Thérèse Raquin_, treated with hardly a trace of the poetic tragedy
which gives the _Page d’Amour_ so much of its value. _Thérèse Raquin_
contains only one or two sentences--they are those in which the wicked
little _bourgeoise_ expresses her desire to live for ever in the
sunshine--which permit one to realise that its author is the author
of the passionate idyl _La Faute de l’Abbé Mouret_. But, on the other
hand, in _Thérèse Raquin_ we are not face to face with the superfluous
and unveracious hideousness of _La Terre_; and the view of humanity is
not so brutal and so gross as that which is taken in _Nana_. No; in
these respects we may rank _Thérèse Raquin_ rather with _L’Assommoir_
itself: in both a sad and ugly and degraded world, but a glimpse of the
skies. In both--as in everything, for the matter of that, that M. Zola
writes--an austere moral: the assured march of evil-doing to its own
punishment.
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