JIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll L 3 1293 00784 1343 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled LE VERITABLE SAINT GENEST: FROM TEXT TO PERFORMANCE presented by Cynthia Osowiec Ruoff has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in French disu- Qieo Wow 60/ng Major profegop Date February 27, 1992 MS U is an Affirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0 12771 PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before dete due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ’ Twist-r éWfil usu le An Alumni». mum/Emu Opportunity Imam emu-39.1 LE VEBIIABLE SAlNI GEuESI: FROM TEXT TO PERFORMANCE BY Cynthia Osowiec Ruoff A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Romance and Classical Languages 1992 I I’f’) / c e /;.» ABSTRACT LE VEBIIABLE SAINT GENEST: FROM TEXT TO PERFORMANCE BY Cynthia Osowiec Ruoff Evaluations of a dramatic work often neglect the per- formance of the work itself as an important consideration in the evolution of meaning ascribed to it. The advantage of analyzing performance is that the analysis incorporates the interactions of the author, the actors, the director, and the audience as creators of meaning. This study investi- gates the evolution of Jean Rotrou’s dramatic text Le yeritable_§ain§_§ene§t (1645) toward Andre Steiger’s 1988 Comédie Francaise production in Paris. "Le_ye:itaple_§aint_§ege§t: From Text to Performance" examines Rotrou’s play as a product of the political, artis- tic, and dramatic climate of the time and as a commentary on the performance triangle composed of dramatic text, perfor- mance text, and the aesthetic response of the audience. Rotrou’s play emerges as a reaction against the system of dramatic rules and conventions devised by seventeenth- century French classicism. After examining the baroque and classical aesthetic visions, this study identifies Rotrou’s Cynthia Osowiec Ruoff conception of the actor’s art with the diversity, change, liberty, and creative imagination associated with baroque aesthetics. Emphasizing the life significance of the dramatic text, the actor Genest urges the spectators to assimilate his passion for God, experience a similar meta- morphosis, and spontaneously create their new beings as Christian believers in order to merit salvation and eternal glory in heaven. Original taped interviews of the director and actors in the 1988 Comédie Francaise production describe the actors’ art, reveal the function of the director, and highlight the changed life significance of the 1645 dramatic text now transformed into a 1988 production. Since the 1988 audience poses particular problems for a successful staging, testimo- ny from the actors and director, newspaper and magazine reviews, and box office statistics contribute to an under- standing of the role of anticipated audience reaction in the creation of the performance text and real audience reaction in the play’s ultimate success or failure. Copyright by CYNTHIA OSOWI EC RUOFF l 99 2 To my husband Gary and to my children Gary Stephen and Laurie Anne for their understanding, support, and unending encouragement ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to my advisor Professor Marlies Kronegger. Her knowledge, her vision, and the attention she devoted to the manuscript inspired me to enlarge the scope of this research. The critical suggestions she offered added immeasurably to the final draft. Her warmth and her confidence in my ability facilitated my progress from the initial investigations to the completed dissertation. My appreciation extends to Professor Ann Harrison for her encouragement, her advice, and her close reading of the manuscript. I also wish to thank Professor Joseph Donohoe for his attentive reading of the text, his comments, and his suggestions. My research could not have been completed without the coop- eration and assistance of Paul Rens of the Comédie Francaise in Paris. He arranged my interviews with the performers and the director of Le_yezitab1e_§aint_§ene§_. I would like to give special thanks to the director Andre Steiger and to the actors Michel Aumont, Francine Bergé, and Francois Chaumette for their invaluable contributions and insights. I am also grateful to Noélle Guibert, the "Conservatrice- Archiviste" at the Bibliotheque-Musée of the Comédie Francaise, for her discussions with me and for the atten- dance records and photocopied materials. Finally, I wish to thank Professor Benjamin Ebling of Western Michigan University for encouraging me to begin this Ph.D. program and for maintaining an active interest in my progress. vi INTRODU CHAPTER 1. 2. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SETTING THE STAGE FOR ROTROU'S CREATION OF THE TEXT . . . . . . . . . . Politics, Morality, and Spectator Reaction Artistic Climate of the Early Seventeenth Century . . . . . . . . . Dramatic Theoreticians and Performance Staging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BAROQUE AND CLASSICAL AESTHETIC VISIONS Diversity and/or Unity . . . . . . . The Baroque in Architecture and Poetry Reason or Sense Experience . . . . . FROM DRAMATIC TEXT TO PERFORMANCE . . . Primacy of the Dramatic Text . . . . The Actor’s Contribution . . . . . . The Importance of Verisimilitude in Acting Montdory: The Prototype of the Excellent Actor in Classical Theory . . . . Metamorphosis of the Actor . . . . The Actor's Interiorization of the Character's Passions . . . . . . . The Passions: Classical Internalization versus Baroque Internalization . . From Reason to Irrational Passion . . vii 14 15 19 27 50 67 68 81 90 98 99 107 110 113 121 128 132 135 Table of Contents-~Continued CHAPTER 4- THE ACTOR'S ART: IMAQIHAIIQ_QBEAIBIX AND DIVERSITY O O O O C O O C C O O O O O O O From Classical Rationalism to Baroque Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spontaneity, Improvisation, and Metamorphosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. THE 1988 PRODUCTION OF LE_¥EBIIABLE_§A_HI QEHESI AT THE COMEDIE FRANCAISE . . . . . Development of Focus and Life Significance Costumes and Staging . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of the Director . . . . . . . . . Conceptions of Character Portrayal and ACting O O O O O I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O Genest/Adrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marcelle/Natalie . . . . . . . . . . . . Diocletian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Audience Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUS I ON 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 142 143 147 167 169 175 183 187 187 191 196 201 212 232 INTRODUCTION Evaluations of a dramatic work often neglect the per- formance of the work itself as an important consideration in the evolution of meaning ascribed to a dramatic text. Keir Elam in Ihe_5emigtig§_gf_1nea§ze_ang_nrama offers a useful definition of semiotics and discusses the theoretical dif- ference between the dramatic text and the performance text. He defines semiotics as the "science dedicated to the pro- duction of meaning in society. As such it is equally con- cerned with signification and communication, that is, the means whereby meanings are both generated and exchanged."1 As a result, semiologists differentiate between drama and theatre. They identify drama as a type of fiction intended for presentation on the stage and written following certain dramatic conventions. In contrast, theatre incorporates the "complex of phenomena associated with performance-audience transaction: that is, with the production and communication of meaning in the performance itself and with the systems underlying it."2 According to semiologists, theatre also encompasses the interactions among the spectators. Since traditional performance depicts dramatic fiction, a strict differentiation between drama and theatre is problematical. Comprehensive theatrical research includes the author's l dramatic text and the performance text which consists of material produced in the theatre.3 Otakar Zich’s Aesthetics 9f the Art of Drama and Jan Mukarovsky's "An Attempted Structural Analysis of the Phe- nomenon of the Actor," both published in Czechoslovakia in 1931, laid the groundwork for a significant body of modern theatrical and dramatic theory which rejects the view that the stage spectacle is too transitory for any systematic analysis. Jan Mukarovsky determined that the sign is the theatrical performance which consists of the signifier, the work itself, and the signified, the "’aesthetic object' residing in the collective consciousness of the public."‘ A performance can be represented schematically by a triangle. The performance triangle incorporates the work itself, the theatrical performance, and audience reaction in addition to the concomitant interactions that result. An advantage of analyzing performance is that this analysis recognizes that the audience participates in the creation of meaning.5 Attention to audience perceptions and potential audience reaction surfaces as an important consideration for the dramatic author during the creative process of writing the play and for the director in the process of producing the play. Dramatic texts serve as blueprints for a performance and are incomplete; readers do not necessarily notice these voids as they themselves perhaps attempt to fill the gaps. Pierre Corneille in "Discours des trois unites," while describing the importance of including information to en- lighten the reader, points out the incompleteness of the dramatic text. In the tradition of Aristotle, Corneille wants "que la tragédie soit aussi belle a la lecture qu’a la representation, en rendant facile a 1’imagination du lecteur tout ce que le theatre présente a la vue des spectateurs."6 Performance anchors the text because it includes specific costumes, set design, a particular group of actors, and the point of view of an individual director. For example, in Le genitable_fiaint_§ene§t will the Roman royalty of Antiquity be costumed in the Roman clothes of that era, will they wear French garb of the seventeenth century, or will they wear twentieth—century apparel? What effect does this choice have on the meaning and on audience reaction? The semiotic analysis incorporates decisions of the director, in collabo- ration with his corps of actors, stage designer, costumer, and lighting designer, who chooses either to maintain the literary integrity of the dramatic text in performance or to diverge from the original dramatic text. They strive for and hope to achieve maximum audience interest and appeal and reaction. Le_yezi;§ble_§aint_§ene§t by Jean Rotrou, published in 1647 but presented at the Hotel de Bourgogne in Paris for the first time in 1645 or 1646, is an ideal candidate for a study of text to performance. Not well-known today in comparison with Corneille, Moliere, and Racine, Rotrou suc- ceeded Alexander Hardy as "poéte a gages" at the Hotel de Bourgogne. Robert J. Nelson considers him to be a "worthy companion for the great three of seventeenth-century French literature,"7 and Imbrie Buffum declares that Le veritable figint_§ene§t is "Rotrou’s undoubted masterpiece."8 In his position as "poete a gages" Rotrou had to be conscious of creating plays with audience appeal. Although Rotrou, unlike other dramatists of his time such as Georges de Scudéry, the Abbe d'Aubignac, and Pierre Corneille, did not leave a corpus of commentary on dramatic theory and prac- tice, his play Le veritable Saint genest, through its play- within-the-play structure, resourcefully integrates mid-seventeenth-century considerations concerning perfor- mance and spectator reaction and demonstrates the function- ing of the performance triangle. A real audience views the actor Genest's concerns with the performance text and also observes the reactions of the Roman audience to the perfor- mance text. This tragedy is an excellent vehicle for study because it has a limited known performance history, and it has not been analyzed from the point of View of text to performance. Unearthed by Emile Deschanel9 and resuscitated by the director and actor Bocage who played Saint Genest, Le yezit§p1e_§aint_§ene§; inaugurated the reopening of the redecorated Odéon on November 15, 1845,1° approximately two hundred years after its initial representation in Paris. Before evaluating the performance and audience reaction, Théophile Gauthier describes the difficult conditions pres- ent in the theatre during representations of the tragedy in Rotrou’s lifetime and after and contrasts these undesirable conditions with those at the renovated Odéon. He comments: Nous ne sommes plus au temps de naiveté ou 1’intérét dramatique suffisait a faire rester debout cinq heures d'horloge tout un parterre dans la plus incommode et la plus genante des posi- tions. Avec la civilisation est venue le raffine- ment: les sens exercés ne se contentent plus de plaisir simple, i1 leur faut 1e plaisir complexe; entendre de beaux vers, mal assis et dans une salle enfumée, n'est plus assez pour nous: 1a jouissance de l’esprit a besoin d’étre compliquée de colonnes a chapiteaux dorés, de decorations splendides, d’illuminations étincelantes et de banquettes bien rembourrées. C'est ce que M. Bocage a parfaitement compris.11 In spite of an audience which Gauthier describes as "la plus rebelle qu'il ait au monde: le public des premieres representations composées comme elles le sont aujourd’hui," W held the audience "en haleine. l’oreille et le col tendus."12 Gauthier concludes with a description of the play's resounding success, compares it to a Shakespearean tragedy, and places the tragedy in the "moule classique," a classification rejected by both recent directors Raphael Rodriguez in 1963 and Andre Steiger in 1988 who are fascinated by the baroque character of the play.13 Gauthier comments: on s’attendait a la solennité un peu ennuyeuse d'une tragédie chrétienne jetée dans le moule classique, et 1’on voyait un drame shakespearien avec changement de scene, double theatre, dialogue coupé heureusement d'esprit et de naturel, métaphores n’empéchant pas le mot propre et l’expression franche, details charmants, coquette- ries héroiques, une variété de ton infinie, toute 1a gamme du style depuis le grandiose jusqu’au comique. . . . Cette resurrection . . . a eu plein succes.14 Several productions followed which did not receive critical attention comparable to the 1845 representation, but they nevertheless, add some additional insight into the tragedy's performance history. Le_yeritgble_§gint_§ene§t was represented again March 22, 1874 for the Sunday "matinées" of M. Ballande at the Theatre de la Forte-Saint- Martin. A short paragraph in Le Jgurnal Des Débets notes that M. Emile Deschanel will lecture on the play at 1:30 P.M., and the "élite de la troupe" will act for both repre- sentations.15 The second performance was preceded by a lecture given by Jules Arboux. October 30, November 6, and November 9, 1899 the Odéon once again tackled the tragedy under the direction of Paul Ginisty; the last representation was preceded with a lecture by N. M. Bernardin. Le_n§;igngl of October 29, 1899 calls it a "curieuse tragédie."16 Antoine, director of the Odéon, reintroduced the play January 8, 1909: Louis de Gramont in Erange_de_figrdeaux de- scribes the tragedy in a literary introduction to the play as "pittoresque et amusant," containing "force passages eloquents."1L7 This sketchy overview of performances between 1874 and 1909 focuses on dramatic text, audience, and ac- tors. The inclusion of lectures preceding the play inti- mates a select educated audience interested in and capable of comprehending the pronouncements of literary critics, an audience far different from that of the Hotel de Bourgogne. At the same time, the directors, by incorporating lectures and literary interpretation, recognize the importance of the comprehension of the dramatic text as a means to achieve positive aesthetic response. Finally, the use of actors that form the "élite de la troupe" suggests that the play is worthy of the best actors because of its difficulty, its merit, or both. When Raphael Rodriguez, a director of Peruvian descent, presented Le_yeritable_§aiat_§ene§t at the Theatre de Paris in 1963, "la piece recut un accueil assez réservé, 1e public réagissant parfois bruyamment contre certaines fantaisies de l’adaptation."18 The Figarg concedes that the audience discovered one point of interest: "L'anachronisme piran— dellien des costumes amusa pour quelque temps les spectateurs, surpris de voir les habits Louis XIV cotoyer les uniformes second empire et les complets vestons."1° Jacques Lemarchand in Le_£igarg_Litteraire describes the production as "un spectacle fort étrange . . . qui propose an spectateur bien des raisons de s’irriter et bien des occasions d’applaudir."2° In contrast to the Figarg, Lemarchand criticizes Rotrou's actors dressed "comme le sont ou 1’étaient les acteurs francais qui interprétaient les opérettes de style Europe centrale des années 1910."21 While applauding Pierre Debauche, "un étrange et fascinant Genest," he condemns "la facon de rendre incomprehensible ou faux, qu’adoptent systématiquement les acteurs dirigés par "22 Rafael Rodriguez, les vers de Rotrou. According to Lemarchand what is worthy of applause is the dramatic text itself: "theatre dans le theatre, . . . dédoublements de la personalité qui sont grands chevaux de bataille des dramaturges contemporains, . . . une sorte de documentaire précieux sur les comédiens du dix-septieme siecle."23 Rodriguez developed Genest's religious conversion into a political theme, a man following his conscience revolts against the established power.24 In developing Genest's religious conversion into a political theme, Rodriguez markedly accentuates the differing meanings a director and a performance impose upon a dramatic text. Poirot-Delpech of La_ngnge succinctly assesses the shortcomings and strengths attached to this political interpretation: Confondant fantaisie et provocation, liberté et anarchie, Rafael Rodriguez croit bon de faire ses comédiens de facon inaudible, dos a dos ou les bras en l'air, d'habiller les empereurs en généraux d'aujourd’hui, d'aveugler la salle ou de lui seriner une musique félée. Mais, derriére cette espece de terrorisme maniéré correspondent au "pire" de Rotrou se rrevele 1e meilleur: une vraie désinvolture, une jeunesse joyeuse d'imiter 1e chaos de la vie, un gout contagieux de la beauté en liberté.25 What has motivated the two recent twentieth-century directors Rafael Rodriguez and Andre Steiger to produce this relatively unperformed play? Rodriguez who invested 50,000 francs in the 1963 production gave the following response to that question posed by a reporter from Qambat: Cette piece-la, Monsieur, est extraordinaire, en ce sens au moins qu'elle caractérise a elle seule un style: 1e baroque, et une époque: celle qui s’etend a pen pres, de 1580 a 1670. Elle en a 1’emphase et l'exagération, le gofit de l’horreur-- qui est la une approche sensuelle de la réalité-- 1e sens du theatre: illusions, contrastes, surprises, mouvements. Hélas! pendant longtemps, on n'a voulu y voir qu’irrégularité, extravagance, médiocrité. Saiat_§eae§t loin d’étre une tragédie classique mal concue, est un chef-d’oeuvre drama- tique baroque.26 Andre Steiger's overwhelming interest in the play which he produced in 1988 stems from the fact that the play is an excellent representative of baroque theatre. In an inter- view of May 12, 1988 Steiger states that he had produced this play with students at a school in Strasbourg, but he utilized "toute autre mise en scene" and "toute autre ver- sion."27 Since then, he has conversed with Jean Rousset, a specialist in the baroque who wrote a chapter on Saint Genes; in his book WW.“ Both men live in Geneva, Switzerland and according to Steiger they engaged in "conversations de repas" not "conversations de travail" about the play. Their discussion and Steiger’s reading of Rousset’s text inspired Steiger to a "nouvelle lecture" of Sain§_§ene§t, one which is "plus subtile."29 In 10 Le_Qagtidien_de_Eari§ Steiger says: "11 [Rousset] a fait naitre en moi un désir absolument insatiable de monter la piece."3° Not only literary critics such as Robert Nelson, Imbrie Buffum, and Jean Rousset recognize the importance of Rotrou and Le_yeri§able_§aint_gaae§t but also modern day directors acknowledge the relevance and importance of the play. " é ' S ' en : From Text to Performance" leads to an investigation of Andre Steiger's 1988 production at the Comedie Francaise. Although theatrical production can be studied independently of the era in which the dra- matic text was written and apart from the dramatic text, the analysis paints a more complete picture when all three aspects are studied in conjunction with one another. Chapter 1 of this study sketches the early seventeenth- century political and artistic climate which promotes per- formance and an interest in spectator reaction. This first chapter examines primarily L;Anglggia_da_theatra (1639) by Georges Scudéry. WW (1657) by the Abbe d'Aubignac, and the three "Discours" by Pierre Corneille to determine the specific interest in performance and the importance of a performance text. Chapter 2 exam- ines baroque aesthetics as a reaction against the Renais- sance ideals of order and clarity and as a proponent of liberty and diversity in opposition to the emerging system of rules devised by seventeenth-century classicism. 11 Chapter 3 analyzes the acting process itself: performance considerations in the creation of the dramatic text, the interplay of illusion and reality, and the actor's art as an expression of the spontaneous and/or rational. Illustrating baroque characteristics in Le_yari;able_§aiat_§ena§t, Chapter 4 investigates the play as a tribute to an actor’s freedom and creative imagination. After presenting seventeenth-century perspectives on actors, directors, and stage production, Chapter 5 develops a twentieth-century perspective focusing on how actors come together to act through an examination of Le_ygritable_§aint_§ene§t at the Comédie Francaise. Original taped interviews of key actors and the director contribute to an understanding of the creation of the performance text and reveal the function of the director and the effects of his role as the "premier spectateur."31 Since the 1988 audience at the Comédie Francaise poses particular problems for the director and actors, this study reveals the role of anticipated audience reaction in the director's staging of the play. NOTES 1 Keir Elam, S i ° tr a d ma (London: Methuen, 1980) 1. 2 Elam 2. 3 Elam 2-3. 4 Elam 5-7. 5 Cynthia Ruoff, "Le veritable Saint Genest: From Text to Performance," Aaalegta_fla§§erliaaa, vol. 32, ed. Marlies Kronegger (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990) 211-212. 6 Pierre Corneille, or e' e: v e o ‘ , ed. Stegmann (New York: MacMillan: Paris: Seuil, 1963) 843-44. All further references, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in parentheses. 7 Robert J. Nelson, "Art and Salvation in Rotrou’s Le yeritable_&aint_§ene§t." EIQBQD_B§!i§E 30 (1957) 451- ° Imbrie Buffum. Studies_ia_the_Baregue_fr2m_Mgntaigne tg_Bgtngn (New Haven: Yale UP, 1957) 212. 9 Emile Deschanel. Le_Rgmant1sme.de§_cla§§igue§ (Paris: Lévy Freres, 1883) 274-75. He says: "Et c'est moi qui l’[the play] ai déterrée. Quand j’étais éleve a l'Ecole Normale, je la signalai a Bocage, alors Directeur de l’Odéon: 11 en fut ravi, la joua, et fit lui-meme Saint Genest." 1° Critics such as E. T. Dubois in Jean Rotrou, Le yeritable_§ain;_§ene§; (Geneve: Droz, 1972) 44 assign the date November 17,1845 for the first representation. Sanchez in Jean de Rotrou Le_yeritable_aain§_§ene§t (Paris: Comédie Francaise, 1988) 125 gives November 15,1845 as the date of the reopening of the Odéon and the first representa- tion. In any case, the first performance must be before November 17, 1845 because Théophile Gauthier reviewing the play in La_£ze§§e of November 17, 1845 states: "Une de ses tragedies oubliées . . . a tenu hier en haleine . . . 1e public. . . . 1‘ Théophile Gauthier, "Theatre," La_2;as§e, 17 novembre 1845: N. pag. 12 Gauthier N. pag. 12 13 See 9 of this dissertation. 1‘ Gauthier N. pag. ‘5 Rotrou, gaiat_§eae§t, ed. Sanchez 127. 1‘ Rotrou, Saint Genest, ed. Sanchez 127. ‘7 Cited by E. T. Dubois, ed. fiaint_§ene§t 46. 1° "Premiere mouvementée de Saint Genest au Theatre de Paris," Le_£igatg 5 avril 1963: N. pag. 1’ "Premiere mouvementée," Le Figaro 5 avril 1963. 2° Jacques Lemarchand, "Saint Genest de Rotrou, La flange de Vahé Katcha," Le Figaro Littétaite 27 avril 1963: 18. 21 Lemarchand 18. Lemarchand 18. ’3 Lemarchand 18. 2‘ Dubois 46. ’5 B. Poirot-Delpech, "Saiat_§ane§t de Rotrou," Le Mange 12 avril 1963: N. pag. 2‘ Cgmbat 20 mars 1963: N. pag. ’7 Andre Steiger, interview by author, 12 May 1988, Geneva, tape recording of telephone interview. 2° See Jean Rousset, "Le comédien et son personnage: De Don Juan 3 Saint_§ene§t." LiIn:§rieur.et_llexterieur (Paris= Corti, 1968) 151-64. 3’ Steiger, interview, 12 May 1988. 3° Patrick de Rosbo, "Le Francais en plein baroque," ngtidien_de_£aris 1 mars 1988: N- pag- 3‘ Anne Ubersfeld. LLEegle_du_§nectateur (Paris: Edi- tions Sociales, 1981) 289. CHAPTER 1 SETTING THE STAGE FOR ROTROU'S CREATION OF THE TEXT 14 15 Politics, Morality, and Spectator Reaction To a great extent politics motivated Cardinal Richelieu, who ascended to power in 1624, to promote theat- rical performance. By 1628 the number of dramatists and the yearly production of plays increased significantly.1 Excel- lent theatrical productions diverted the French and European gaze and scrutiny from such tarnishing events as Richelieu crushing the Protestants in 1628, the execution of the Duke of Montmorency in 1632, and the refusal of the Parliaments to "enregistrer" financial edicts.2 Colette Schérer de- scribes the function of the theatre: "Instrument de la propagande nationale et monarchique, un theatre brillant convaincra a la fois les Francais de l'excellence de leur systeme du gouvernement et les étrangers de la grandeur de la France."3 The clergy's eruptions of hostility toward actors and performance, eruptions still evident in the 1630’s, attempted to stifle theatrical performance. To counteract the continuing menace of church hostility Giovan Battista published “Meats: (1624) and Mimi: (1625)- In Le_1haatte_ge1e§ta he dedicates sonnets to canonized actors such as Saint Genest in order to remove the stigma attached to actors.‘ Georges de Scudéry in LLApglggie_gg theatze (1639) also describes actors in Antiquity who were martyrs and singles out as an illustrious example, "S. Ginesius, qui de la scene ou il représentoit, fit 16 1’Eschafaut de son suplice et le Theatre de sa gloire."5 In 1632 Bishop J. P. Camus lends credibility to the disapproval of some clergy: "Ce n'est pas sans raison qu’en Italie, en France et presque partout, les histrions ou comédiens sont tenus pour infames: les lois meme les déclarent tels pour plusieurs raisons que chacun sait."6 Battista's Le Mitoit, relying on theological erudition, juxtaposes a respectable but intolerant group of Fathers of the Church against an equally respectable group of Church Fathers whose opinions are "plus indulgentes" toward the theatre.7 Battista estab- lishes an important distinction between theatre based on a pagan heritage capable of corrupting both actors and audi- ence and the French modern theatre which emerges from Chris- tianity and includes an expression of noble sentiments.8 It is not surprising that Jean Rotrou, writing during the era of the justification and glorification of the theatre, chose to write a play based on the metamorphosis of the pagan actor Genest into a canonized saint. In spite of church opposition to it, the French theatre experienced remarkable development between 1630 and the early 1640's thanks to Louis XIII’s significant interven- tions9 and Cardinal Richelieu’s determined and overt promo- tion of the theatre. In 1630 the Hotel de Bourgogne, for which Rotrou was a "poete a gages,"1° and the Theatre Marais, the primary site of the performance of Corneille's plays, were the two major 17 theatrical companies in Paris. At this point in time Louis XIII interfered actively in the management of the two theatres by exchanging actors between them.11 Whether he realized it or not, Louis XIII increased competition, achieved a more equitable balance between the two theatres, and maintained a pronounced presence of excellent theatrical production through more performances and more audience exposure. His second contribution was his approval of the act of April 16, 1641 which specifically states that an actor's profession should not damage his reputation provided that he does not resort to dishonest actions or lascivious 2 words on the stage.1 The act declares: Nous voulons que leur exercice, qui peut innocem- ment divertir nos Peuples de diverses occupations mauvaises, ne puisse leur étre imputé a blame, ni prejudicier a leur reputation dans 1e commerce public, ce que nous faisons, afin que le desir qu'ils auront d'éviter 1e reproche qu’on leur a fait jusqu’icy, leur donne autant de sujet de se contenir dans les termes de leur devoir des Repre- sentations publiques qu'ils feront, que la crainte de peines, qui leur seroient inévitables, s'ils contrevenoient a la présente Declaration.13 Cardinal Richelieu focused the public eye on theatrical performance by creating new theatre space, using state funds to support writers, commissioning dramatic poems, and insti- gating the writing of theoretical work. In 1630 Richelieu transformed a room of his palace into a "salle de theatre" containing six hundred places.1‘ He inaugurated the "Theatre du Palais-Cardinal," later known as the Palais 18 Royal, in 1641 with the performance of Mitame by Desmarets of Saint-Sorlin: this theatre was the largest and most beautiful in Paris during the seventeenth century.15 Sig- nificantly, he invited the clergy to attend this representa- tion,16 most probably to encourage their leniency toward the theatre and to promote their support. Additionally, to foster continued creation of dramatic texts Richelieu used state money and allotted "pensions" to dramatic authors. As a result, Mairet in 1632, Rotrou in 1633, and Corneille in 1637 were recipients of these state funds.17 Demonstrating a keen interest in the creation process itself, Richelieu commissioned five authors, among them Rotrou and Corneille, to write MW (1635) and W Smyrna (1637) for performance at the Hétel de Richelieu. Joseph Morello suggests that the "Cinq Auteurs" utilized "a form of surrealistic machine writing,"18 and Richelieu or Chapelain chose the subject while each of the five authors wrote one of the five acts. In spite of the failure of the two plays, Rotrou remained on excellent terms with Richelieu as evidenced by the 1639 designation of the playwright as ”gentilhomme ordinaire de Monseigneur l’eminentissime Cardi- nal de Richelieu."1° Finally, Richelieu, recognizing the need for a practical manual, requested that d’Aubignac write La_2;atigna_gn_tnaatze as a directive for playwrights.’° In a retrospective look at the theatre, Chappuzeau in Le Ihéfitre_ftangai§ (1674) confirmed that drama achieved its 19 "lustre par l’estime qu'en a fait un Armand de Richelieu, et les graces que luy a données un Pierre Corneille."21 Performance emerged as one of the visible manifesta- tions of the wealth, power, and culture of France which attracted foreigners to view the spectacle. By 1647 Mme de Motteville in her Mémoizes already assumed the importance and significance of theatrical production: Comme la France n'a jamais été plus triomphante qu'elle 1’étoit alors, outre les marques de notre abondance qui paroissoit sur les theatres par les divertissemens de la cour, par les richesses des particuliers, et sur nos frontieres par les belles armees du Roi, les étrangers a l'envi des uns et des autres y abondoient de toutes parts.22 Writing to appeal to the audience not only insured increased revenue for theatrical troupes but also supported the goals of Richelieu to demonstrate publicly through performance the grandeur of France on the national and international scene. After Richelieu’s death in 1642, his successor Cardinal Mazarin, although personally more interested in the opera of his own country, recognized the importance of the flourish- ing theatre.23 Artistic Climate of the Early Seventeenth Century Unlike Renaissance art, European baroque art, serving as a forerunner of Richelieu’s preoccupation with spectator reaction, exemplifies and stresses the importance and sig- nificance of the viewer's involvement and aesthetic reaction 20 in the artist's conception of his creation. In order to include the spectator in the artistic creation, the artist integrates "real space" and "fictive space" of the painting or artistic creation by relying on trompe l'oeil tech- niques.24 According to Martin "coextensive space" rather than the Renaissance idea of a "fixed distance between the observer and the subject represented" emerges as a prominent consideration for the baroque artist.25 Caravaggio's "Sup- per at Emmaus" c. 1600, portraying the "unexpected interven- tion of divinity into the everyday world,"26 illustrates the importance of gesture in bringing the spectator from his real world into the "fictive space" of the painting. Christ's hand moves out toward the spectator, thrusts into the world, and interconnects the two realms. The basket of fruit rests precariously at the edge of the table ready to fall at our feet,27 yet seems at the same time to invite us to taste a piece of fruit. Religious artistic creation of this period often strives to achieve a penitent, contrite, and moral response from the observer. Explicit instructions given to Juan Martinez Montafiés before creating the sculpture "Christ of Clemency" (1603-1606) state that Christ must be portrayed in the following manner: with the head inclined towards the right side, looking at any person who might be praying at the foot of the Crucifix, as if Christ himself were speaking to him and reproaching him because what he is suffering is for the person who is praying: 21 and therefore the eyes and face must have a rather severe expression and the eyes must be completely open.28 It is significant, however, that the eyes appear open only if the worshipper is kneeling directly beneath the statue. Then, these eyes bring "the beholder into a state of mysti~ cal communion with the divine."29 In Rubens' "Descent from the Cross" (1611-1612) the viewer almost feels the effort exerted to remove Christ from the cross and shares the grief of those surrounding him. Although the action occurs at night, a light, undoubtedly supernatural, highlights Christ, his group, and the white shroud which by contrast exaggerates the livid color of Christ’s body and the red of St. John's clothes.3° This light extends the fictive space of the picture to include the heavenly realm beyond, and, as a result, incorporates the spectator in the added dimension and moves him to thoughts of his own death and salvation. A seventeenth- century theoretician and art historian Roger de Piles at- tests to the efficacy of Rubens' creation on the spectator: Au reste le Peintre est tellement entre dans l’expression de son sujet, que la veue de cet Ouvrage est une des choses des plus capables de toucher une ame endurcie, & d'y faire entrer 1e ressentiment des douleurs que Jesus-Christ a souffertes pour le rachepter.31 The spectators in the fictive space mirror the emotional response elicited from the viewers in the real space; the 22 real space merges with the fictive space. Marlies Kronegger, describing spectator involvement in "Descent from the Cross," states: The space we occupy seems to become an extension of the illusionistic space in the painting. The spectator becomes intimately involved in the illu- sionism of the scene. The dividing line between real and fictive space is erased: the spectator is involuntarily drawn into the scene or activity of the painted realm before him.32 Once the spectator is drawn into the realm of fictive space, he encounters an expanding world. Beginning with the Copernican hypothesis that the earth shares the solar system with the other planets, thinkers began to abandon the ancient separation between celestial 3 As a result, baroque art accentu- and terrestrial space.3 ates the flow of space from the natural world to the celes- tial. The viewer sees space opened before his eyes through the use of illusion, perspective, and light. Martin de- scribes the expected spectator response to the panorama: "the viewer is made to feel that the scene that is opened before him is accessible, but that it is at the same time only part of an immeasurably larger expanse."°‘ In Poussin's "Landscape of St. John on Patmos" c. 1644-45, contemporary to Rotrou's Saint_§ene§t (1645), the architec— tural shapes, the rock formation, the trees, the mountain, the obelisk are all pointing heavenward and some of them are mingling with the celestial space creating a feeling of 23 unity and harmony with the cosmos.35 Claude Lorrain’s "The Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba" (1648) portrays prepara- tions for the Queen's departure by boat to visit King Solo- mon. Although the foreground depicts a harbor, enclosed partially by ruins and a stately building from which the Queen is descending, the picture opens surprisingly to a vast expanse of ocean and sky at sunrise.36 In religious paintings expanding vistas often serve to integrate the supernatural and divine influence and presence in the real world. Although a certain amount of bloodshed in baroque religious paintings appeals to the artist and patrons of baroque art, a martyr’s agony demonstrates a mystical union with God which transports the saint beyond the natural world to the supernatural.37 As a result, a dual movement occurs: the introduction of the divine into the natural world and the movement of the saint, and by extension often the spectator, from the natural world to the heavenly realm. The two worlds are intermingled and per- ceived as one. Poussin's baroque canvas "The Martyrdom of St. Erasmus" c. 1628,3° an excellent example of expanding vistas and the blending of the supernatural in the natural, vividly depicts the intestines of Erasmus being wound out on a windlass. The direction of movement is diagonal and upward pointing toward the angels and the open sky. Stretched out backwards with his chest, head, and finally, his arms descending into 24 the lower left corner of the canvas, Erasmus seems to be reaching toward the spectators in the real space who com- plete the foreground of the painting and participate in the horror of the scene. The spectator’s eyes are drawn from the outstretched, crossed, and bound hands to the suffering face with tightly closed eyes, then to his chest, and final- ly, to the pulling of the intestine to and around the wind- lass. This upward diagonal direction is mimicked by the .movement from the highlighted face of the priest whose upraised hand points to the palm of martyrdom and crown of laurel held by angels in the open sky.39 Continuing from the seemingly infinite heavenly space beyond the confines of the top of the picture, rays of golden light been their supernatural light on the scene and create contrasts of Chiaroscuro. Unlike Rubens’ "Descent from the Cross" in which Christ’s presence and subtle illumination reflect the supernatural, Poussin introduces angels and distinct rays of divine light to form an explicit but natural part of the scene. Additionally, the compassionate audience in Rubens’ painting contrasts with the mixed audience reaction of Poussin’s painting. The real spectators of Poussin’s por- trayal observe the hardened dispassionate expression of the spectators, executioners, and soldier in opposition to the concerned posture of the priest in white. This spectator- priest participates in the drama enacted before his eyes by 25 attempting to focus the attention of Erasmus and of the real spectators on the angels and the man’s heavenly reward from martyrdom. Poussin has juxtaposed the pagan and the Chris- tian participant and spectator response to the martyrdom. Since spectators always huddle in front of the spectacle to see the outcome, the spectators in the real space who are positioned next to the martyred Erasmus at the bottom edge of the painting, complete the painting with their presence, balance the spectator group in the fictive space, and see before them mirrors of differing spectator response to the violent scene. Through a pictorial medium Poussin had sketched what Rotrou portrayed seventeen years later on the stage With L§_¥éIiL§Dl§_§éin§_§§n§§_- Through the use of mi§a_en_abyme and illusion Velazquez in "Las Menifias" (1656) crystallized the performance trian- gle of text, actor, and spectator as Rotrou did in Le yetitap1a_§aint_§ene§t, by depicting the artist in the process of creating a tableau and by including varied and potentially changing spectator response and subject matter in his creation. The direct gaze of the artist, ladies-in- waiting, the princess, and the dwarf draws the real specta- tors into the fictive space of the artist’s studio to ob- serve the artistic process itself and to experience the scene in its reality. Michel Foucault describes the at- traction: 26 From the eyes of the painter to what he is observ- ing there runs a compelling line that we, the onlooker have no power of evading: it runs through the real picture and emerges from its surface to join the place from which we see the painter observing us, this dotted line reaches out to us ineluctably, and links us to the representa- tion of the picture.‘° After being drawn into the studio, the spectator’s attention is attracted to the back wall where a strategically-placed illuminated mirror stands out among the poorly-lit paintings and reflects the images of Philip IV and his wife Mariana, the probable subjects of his painting. Since the front of the painter’s canvas is hidden from our view, the subject of his painting is open to changeability. Velazquez focuses attention on those royal spectators out- side the fictive space of the picture first by hiding them in the real space and then projecting their images on a ‘1 He records their presence permanently in the mirror. completed painting we see, yet he recognizes the innumerable spectators that will occupy the same real space at different. times and places by immortalizing the pair in a fickle unstable mirror reflection. The imaginary "dotted line" reaching from the gaze of the artist to the spectator and back again demonstrates the reciprocal relationship between the spectator and the art- vist. The gaze of the ladies-in-waiting, princess, dwarf, and courtiers which is focused away from the painter and his canvas points out the need for an artist, creator, actor, or 27 writer to concentrate on effective ways to capture audience attention and appreciation. Unless wealthy, the artist, writer, and actor must hope for positive spectator response and patronage: both Rotrou and Velazquez were able to achieve this. Summoned to Madrid by the count-duke of Olivares in 1623, Velazquez painted a portrait of Philip IV in August. Since the king appreciated the artist’s work and developed a personal liking to him, Philip IV appointed Velazquez the official painter to the king and monopolized the artist’s work for the rest of his life.42 By including the royal pair in his painting, Velazquez acknowledged and paid tribute to their support and importance. However, through a compression of time and the mirror’s expansion of space, the spectators of any time have been placed next to these famous seventeenth-century spectators to share in the royal pair’s appreciation of his work. Dramatic Theoreticians and Performance Although as the twentieth century progresses critics increasingly realize that the author, actor, director, and audience together create meaning, this semiotic approach is sown in seventeenth-century French literary theory. Steeped in the performance climate promoted by Richelieu, influenced by the baroque artistic vision, literary theoreticians such as Georges de Scudéry, the Abbe d’Aubignac, and Pierre Corneille delineated and propagated the performance 28 triangle. As a result, verisimilitude, "bienséances," instruction versus delight, directing, staging, and acting emerged as key concerns, and all were consistently evaluated under the aegis of reason. Rene Bray, who contends that the classical doctrine formed in France around 1630,‘3 in La Egzmatign de la docttine giassigue, establishes reason as a cornerstone of classical aesthetics and poetry: La raison determine la mission sociale du poete, guide 1e genie, legitime la regle et dicte les préceptes: c’est la piece maitresse de l’édifice. Son importance croitra meme a mesure que les autres principes seront ébranlés.“ Relying less and less on the Ancients as models, writers felt the effects of Descartes’ "rationalisme radical,"45 and theoreticians succumbed to its influence in performance considerations. To what extent were the major theoreticians involved in the promulgation of the performance triangle? Georges de Scudéry in LLAanQgi§_Qn_Lhé§;L§ (1639), his "éloge veritable" (99) of the theatre, begins his tract with a suc- cinct description of the interactions between the component parts of the performance triangle: the dramatic text, the performance, and aesthetic reaction. Furthermore, he in- cludes in his commentary the admonition that authors and actors may incite audience members to commit crimes similar to the ones portrayed on stage if reason and justice are not 29 dominant forces in dramatic poems and in performance. He states: dans les Poémes dramatiques les passions bien representées, ayant premierement atteint le Poéte, passent de luy a l’Acteur qui recite, et de l’acteur au peuple qui l’escoute: si bien qu’il s'en peut faire un enchainement de crimes, si la raison et de la justice, ne regnent dans tous les ouvrages. (6-7) A well-written dramatic text and a well-acted theatrical performance function as powerful stimuli not only to aes- thetic response but also to spectator action. For this reason, Scudéry and d’Aubignac insist on the dual purpose of theatre: instruction and delight. Implicit in Scudéry’s conjecture is the idea that spectators bring their own background, individuality, and meanings to a play: conse- quently, these spectators can interpret plays differently than authors and actors conceive them. Acknowledging the supremacy of performance, Scudéry bases the entire organiza- tion of his tract on the performance triangle, and near the end, explicitly outlines the format of his work: "Mais apres avoir parlé de la Comédie, de ceux qui la composent, & de ceux qui 1a representent, il faut dire un not de ceux qui l’escoutent" (88). His astute division of the audience into "Scavans," "preocupez" and "ignorans," who are not limited to the "Parterre" but exist also in the "Galleries" (88), demonstrated that he is well aware of differing spectator reSPonse- The Abbe d'AubiqnaC's W. 30 published in 1657 but instigated by Richelieu’s command before his death in 1642, was the first study of dramatic technique and the laws of the theatre.‘6 In a letter dated March 8, 1640 Chapelain wrote that the Abbé d’Aubignac is composing La_£tatigge_gg_thaatte which "le sieur de la Mesnardiere attend patiemment afin de faire contre de quoy je me resjouis pour ce que cela sera delectable et peut- estre aussi utile."47 Pierre Corneille in the "Discours de l’utilité et des parties du poeme dramatique" also describes the aesthetic reaction of the audience upon viewing the good fortune of an "honnéte homme." When "1a vertu y est couronnée, nous sortons avec plein joie et remportons une entiére satisfaction, at de l’ouvrage, et de ceux que l’on represente."‘° Although Scudéry, Corneille, and the Abbe d’Aubignac do not specifically name a dramatic text and a performance text, they allude to a distinction between the two. Accord- ing to Scudéry the actor’s misinterpretation of the dramatic text leads to a faulty performance text and requires an attentive and perceptive audience to detect the flaws. In a concrete example of poor acting Scudéry describes the Greek actor Pylades: qui en prononcant un vers d’Euripide, ou il y avoit le grand Agamemnon, se guindoit, & se levoit sur le bout des pieds, jusqu’a souhaiter d’estre monté sur des Eschaffes: lors qu’un Spectateur judicieux, luy cria qu’il le faisoit nantt_§_ngn pa§_gzand: comme en effect, ce devoit estre par la maieste grave de la prononciation, qu’il faloit 31 exprimer la grandeur de ce Prince, & non point par cette posture alongée & ridiculle. (87) Corneille, in the quotation cited at the end of the previous paragraph, breaks down the aesthetic response of the audi- ence into two components: response to the work itself, the dramatic text, and response to the actor’s representation of it. However, the Abbe d’Aubignac’s guide for playwrights most completely describes the difference between a dramatic text and a performance text, includes guidelines to insure consistency of performance, and explains how an actor’s interpretation of a role may modify the author’s perception of the role. While establishing the difference between the two texts, d’Aubignac first points out distinctly separate recipients of the two texts: spectators and readers. Then he exhorts the dramatic poet to include specific staging information within the poetic lines not only to inform the reader but also to guide the actors in their performance. He comments: 0r soit qu’une Comédie se voie sur le theatre, ou seulement sur le papier, il faut qu’elle soit connué par les Spectateurs, & par ceux qui la lisent. Elle ne peut étre connue par les Spectateurs sinon autant que les Acteurs la feront connoitre en parlant: & ceux qui la lisent, n’en peuvent avoir aucune connoissance sinon autant que le vers la leur peuvent donner, si bien que toutes les pensées du Poéte, soit pour les decorations du Theatre, soit pour les mouvemens de ses Personnages, habillemens & gestes necessaires a l’intelligence du sujet, doivent étre exprimées par les vers qu’il fait reciter. (46) 32 Since the readers and the audience may not be capable of following the dramatic text or the performance text without these instructions, the playwright’s responsibilities dictate that he indicate scenery, costumes, movements, and even the gestures necessary to assist the readers and spec- tators. Generally speaking, d’Aubignac’s treatise does not address the needs of readers. In this case, however, he indicates that stage directions placed in the margins inter— rupt the reading of the poetic lines and the flow of mount- ing passions, dissipate images in the process of formation, and consequently "diminuent de beaucoup" the resultant "plaisir" (48). During the representation of a play, the performance text typically does not incorporate a narrator who announces stage directions and background information such as this scene occurs in Nicomédie.5° Therefore, d’Aubignac advises the writer to include stage directions as part of the poetic line. Since this information should flow freely and realis- tically from the actor, reason and verisimilitude emerge as primary considerations in the dramatic construction of these informative poetic lines. He cautions: il ne se faut pas seulement contenter de faire dire ce qui doit étre connu: il faut que ce soit avec adresse, & trouver en la bouche de l’Acteur un prétexte qui serve si raisonnablement a l’expliquer, que la personne qu’il représente ait pu vraisemblablement le dire. (49) 33 In the process of insisting on the inclusion of expli- cit directions in the dramatic text, the Abbe d’Aubignac attempted to reduce a possible and probable disparity be- tween a dramatic text and a performance text and to estab- lish conformity from representation to representation. He anticipated the criticism that typically actors rehearsed in the author’s presence and, therefore, conveyed the author’s meaning and intent: "on me dira que nos Poétes ont accoutumé de faire repasser leurs Pieces en leur presence, & d’avertir les Comédiens de tout ce qu’il faut faire; mais cela ne peut pas empécher que la representation ne souffre beaucoup de défauts . . ." (46-47). This, of course, is true for Moliere who wrote specifically for his own troupe and created roles for particular actors in his troupe.51 Although the author’s presence at rehearsals may pro- vide some control of interpretation, the Abbé d’Aubignac acknowledges that some troupes prefer to perform without the direct influence of the playwright, and in many cases, the author is too far from the performance site to explicate the text or to direct the proper evolution of the performance text (47). Corneille, for example, came to Paris from his native Rouen in 1630 to view audience reaction to his first play Méli§§:°’ consequently, he was not involved in the direction and control of his play. 34 In spite of an author’s on-the-spot involvement, the vigilant d’Aubignac recognizes at least three major diffi- culties in the direction and representation of a play: 1. Negligent actors do not necessarily follow the author’s direction. 2. Actors may focus on the development and aggrandize- ment of their own roles. 3. Actors may not be able to visualize and share the author’s meaning of the play, and they may not recognize how the creation of their roles relates to the overall signifi- cation. He explicitly points out that the author’s presence at rehearsals ne peut pas empécher que la representation ne souffre beaucoup de défauts, parce que les Comédiens sont souvent assez negligens, pour ne pas executer exactement ce que le Poéte leur ordonne, & que chacun d’eux, ne s’attachant qu’a son rolle, ne croit pas qu’il soit necessaires de faire toutes ces observations, dont il ne voit pas le rapport avec le reste de la Piece. (47) Conscious of the tremendous impact actors exert in creating signification, d’Aubignac targets the actors themselves as responsible for creating a disparity in meaning between the dramatic text and the performance text, and, at the same time, he establishes the importance of conformity between the two texts. While focusing on the required conformity between the dramatic text and the performance text, the Abbé d’Aubignac testifies to the primacy of the well-written dramatic text 35 in eliciting an enthusiastic reception from the public. His very conception of La_£ratigue_du_theatre. envisioned as a practical guide for dramatic authors, supports this view. Corneille’s "Epitre" to La_§gite_dg_flentegt, published in 1645 and contemporary to Le_yeritable_fiaint_§ene§t. states unequivocally that the play’s poor reception is not the fault of the actors nor of the audience. In his critique he accepts full responsibility because during the creative process he had not carefully considered the tastes of his audience: Ce n’est pas que j’en veuille accuser ni 1e défaut des acteurs, ni 1e mauvais jugement du peuple: la faute en est toute a moi, qui devais mieux prendre mes mesures, et choisir des sujets plus répondants au gout de mon auditoire. (363) Samuel Chappuzeau’s Le_1naatta_txangai§ (1674), a retrospec- tive view of seventeenth-century French theatre, confirms the position of d’Aubignac and Corneille: Les autheurs doivent estre considérez comme les dieux tutélaires du theatre: ce sont eux qui le soutiennent: ils en sont les grans apuys, et 11 tomberoit avec tous ses ornemens et ses pompeuses machines si de beaux vers et d’agréable intrigues ne chatouillent l’oreille de l’auditeur, a mesure que sa veue est divertie par la beauté des objets qu’on luy présente. Je scais que la comédie ne demande pas seulement un autheur qui la compose, qu’elle veut aussi un acteur qui la recite, et un theatre on elle soit représentée avec les embellissemens qu’il luy peut donner. Mais l’invention du poete est l’ame qui fait mouvoir tout le corps, et c’est de la principalement que le monde s’attend de tirer 1e plaisir qu’il va chercher au theatre.53 36 Pleasure and positive audience reaction preoccupy the writings of the theoreticians. Scudéry proclaims: "Ainsi lors que la Comedie sera composée, recitée, & escoutée, d’une facon aprochante, de celle dont i’ay parlé, . . . elle est l’Obiet de la veneration de tous les Siecles vertueux . . ." (99). Throughout the "Discours de l’utilité et des parties du poeme dramatique" Corneille speaks of the "auditeur" and the "spectateur" rather than a "lecteur." Corneille emphatically states "la poésie dramatique a pour but le seul plaisir des Spectateurs" (822) while the Abbe d’Aubignac affirms that "Le poete . . . fait tout ce que son Art et son Esprit luy peuvent fournir pour la rendre [sa tragédie] admirable aux spectateurs: car 11 ne travaille que pour leur plaire . . . " (38). In the famous "Querelle du Cid" Chapelain, Scudéry, and La Mesnardiere defend the position evolving from Horace and espoused by the Italian Renaissance that the function of art is not only to please and to delight but also to instruct: therefore, the authors must include "l’utilite morale." Scudéry, in fact, wrote LLAanggi§_Qn_Lh駣Ie to demonstrate the utility of drama,5‘ and be specifically describes the function of "Comédie": Elle conduit les hommes vers l’instruction, feignant de ne les mener qu’au divertissement: Ainsi cette charmante & sage Mestresse, travaille a les rendre sages euxmesmes, lorsqu’ils pensent qu’elle ne songe qu’a leur plaire . . . cette fidelle, mais adroite guide, les jette insensible- ment, dans le chemin de la vertu. . . . (4-5) 37 The Abbe d’Aubignac, who supports the dual function of drama, explains how to achieve this subtle moral instruc- tion: "La principale regle du Poéme dramatique est que les vertus y soient toujours recompensées, ou pour le moins toujours lofiées, malgre les outrages de la Fortune, et que les vices y soient toujours punis, ou pour le moins toujours en horreur, quand mesme ils y triomphent" (8-9). Of partic- ular interest to d’Aubignac is the effect of performance on young people who are inexperienced theatregoers and vulnera- ble to the conversations, events, machines, and spectacle. Even if performed by "forts mauvais Acteurs" the combination of visual and auditory impact creates a feeling of admira- tion and regard especially in young spectators "parce qu’ils n’en ont jamais vue de meilleures et qu’ils ne sont pas capables d’en examiner les défauts" (30). By extension, the statement also implies that their theatrical incompetence may lead them to perdition if the plays do not demonstrate the correct moral path to follow. However, in La_£tatigne gg_thaatze, he is concerned too with usefulness to society in general: soit par la consideration de la joie, qui fait le plus grand bien des hommes . . . soit pour faire paroistre la grandeur d’un Estat . . . soit pour inspirer au Peuple le courage ou pour l’instruire insensiblement en la connoissance des vertus, soit pour remedier a l’oisiveté . . . " (10).55 While Scudéry and d’Aubignac deem "utilité morale" essential, "Discours a Cliton," written by an unknown author 38 in approximately 1632, considers moral instruction optional as demonstrated by the words "si" and "veut": 51 1e Poéte veut donner quelque instruction moralle, 11 1e doit faire subtilement, et comme en passant, par le jeu, et par le recit de ses Acteurs, et non par une lecon estudiée et par un choeur attaché a sa piece."56 The author’s advice probably results from a realistic as- sessment of contemporary audiences. Since the theatre and playwrights were subsidized and patronized by noblemen and especially Richelieu, attending the theatre became fashion- able. However, when one considers the occupants of the "parterre" in the 1630’s and 1640’s, it is not surprising that the author of "Discours a Cliton" urged veiling moral instruction in the "jeu" and in the "recit." Scudéry refers to these spectators as "cette multitude ignorante que la 'farce attire a la comédie" (98) and indicates that some members of the "Galleries" are of the same caliber as spec- tators in the "Parterre" (88). The Abbe d’Aubignac de- scribes their poor taste and penchant for farce: La populace, elevée dans la fange et entretenue de sentiments et de discours deshonnetes, se trouve fort disposée a recevoir pour bonnes les méchantes bouffonneries de nos farces, et prend toujours plaisir d’y voir les images de ce qu’elle a accou- tumé de dire et de faire. (75) Lancaster claims that the "parterre," the flat area usually with no seats except perhaps stools or chairs, contained that part of the audience that was "the largest, the most 39 unruly, and the most influential in determining the fate of the play."57 Since the aristocrats during the time of Louis XIII and Louis XIV formed a significant and influential segment of the theatre-going public, drama reflected their viewpoint. However, the playwrights recognized that perfor- mances had to appeal to a much larger group, and neither the aristocrats nor the large majority of the audience was a a Boileau criticizes Moliere because he learned group.5 "dérogeait souvent a son génie noble par des plaisanteries grossiéres, qu’il hasardait en faveur de la multitude au lieu qu’il en faut avoir en vfie que les honnétes gens."59 In conformity with the nature of the "Discours a Cliton" Corneille separates himself from Scudéry, La Mesnardiere, and Chapelain who insist on a dual purpose: instruction and delight. Corneille explicitly states that if authors have not pleased the audience they have sinned "contre les bonnes moeurs et contre leur auditoire" ("Epitre" La_§nita_dg_nentegt, 364). In a letter dated November 15, 1637 to Boisrobert Corneille’s defense of Le Cid against its detractors in "La Querelle du 91a" rests totally on spectator response to the play: ‘ J’ai fait Le_§ig pour me divertir, et pour le divertissement des honnétes gens, qui se plaisent a la comédie. J’ai remporté le témoignage de l’excellence de ma piece par le grand nombre de ses representations, par la foule extraordinaire des personnes qui y sont venues, et par les accla- mations générales qu’on lui a faites . . . La_§id sera toujours beau et gardera sa reputa- tion d’étre la plus belle piece qui ait paru sur 40 1e theatre, jusqu’a ce qu’il en vienne une autre qui ne laisse point les spectateurs a la trentieme fois. . . .‘° Box office appeal surfaces as Corneille’s primary consider- ation in his analysis of the play’s success. Furthermore, in the 1645 "Epitre" to La_§gita_ga Mentagt Corneille points out unequivocally the author’s responsibility to please the audience rather than to focus on and propagate morality. He contends: Si j’étais de ceux qui tiennent que la poésie a pour but de profiter aussi bien que de plaire, je tacherais de vous persuader que celle-c1 [La_§aita ga_uentagt] est beaucoup meilleure que l’autre, [Le_Mentagt], a cause que Dorante y parait beau- coup plus honnéte homme, et donne des exemples de vertu a suivre; au lieu qu’en l’autre, il ne donne que les imperfections a éviter: mais pour moi, . . . notre art n’a pour but que le divertisse- ment, j’avoue qu’il est ici bien moins a estimer qu’en la premiere comédie [La_flentagz], puisque, avec ses mauvaises habitudes, il a perdu presque toutes ses graces, et qu’il semble avoir quitté sa meilleure part de ses agrements lorsqu’il a voulu se corriger de ses défauts. Vous me direz que je suis bien injurieux au métier qui me fait connaitre, d’en ravaler le but si bas que de réduire a plaire au peuple. . . . (363) Corneille’s contemporary critics denounce Le_uantaa; because Dorante’s actions according to Corneille himself, are "fourbes," and he is prone to "menteries," (234) yet he succeeds in obtaining Lucrece. If one bases the merit and success of a play on moral utility, Le_uentegt has failed. In fact, however, in spite of the viewpoint of the Academy, Le_nantenz was successful while audiences rejected La_§nita 41 gg_nentagz which was a "dismal failure."61 Finally, Corneille’s 1660 "Discours du poeme dramatique" once again emphasizes pleasure as the goal of drama and the liberty to interpret Aristotle according to his understanding: Je tache de suivre toujours le sentiment d’Aristote dans les matiéres qu’il a traitées: et comme peut-étre je l’entendes a ma mode, je ne suis point jaloux qu’un autre l’entende a la sienne. Le commentaire dont je m’y sers le plus est l’expérience du theatre et les réflexions sur ce que j’y ai vu plaire ou déplaire. (830) Although Corneille does not deny that plays may have moral value, moral instruction is not a primary goal of theatre.62 Corneille states: Le succes heureux de la vertu en dépit des traverses et des perils nous excite a l’embrasser; et le succés funeste du crime on de l’injustice est capable de nous en augmenter l’horreur naturelle, par l’appréhension d’un pareil malheur. (823) Marie Odile-Sweetser concludes that the spectator must extract the lesson himself: "s’il est honnéte homme et possede un instinct de droiture et de générosité, il sera porté spontanément a trouver dans un tel spectacle une invitation a pratiquer la vertu et a hair le vice."‘3 Although not in agreement on moral utility as a major goal, Scudéry, the Abbe d’Aubignac, and Corneille concur that to please the audience is a major goal of theatrical production. How does a dramatist accomplish this goal? Verisimilitude or "vraisemblance" based on reason emerges as 42 a key issue for the critical writers.64 It underlies both the necessary moral effect of a play and serves as the cornerstone for the "bienséances" and the unities.65 What is verisimilitude? D’Aubignac’s shape of the word "vray- semblance" highlights its definition as "something having the semblance of truth, what we would accept as the truth: the norm is provided by the sum of our experience, not by individual, often exceptional cases."66 The theatrical piece must appear believable to the audience, and credibili- ty depends to a degree on the background, theatrical compe- tence, and composition of the audience. Verisimilitude includes "la fable" or "la conduite de l’action," then the "moeurs des personnages introduits dans l’action," and, finally, "la representation dans laquelle elle est une des bases de la regle des unites. . . ."67 It is evident that verisimilitude extends to the staging and performance of the actors. Bray notes the "moeurs des personnages introduits dans l’action": however, equally significant are the "moeurs" of the audience and the willingness and the ability of the audience to understand, appreciate, and even value the actions and decisions of the main characters. The question of illusion versus reality, a dominant dramatic theme reflected in Lilllgsign_ggmigue and La_yatitapla_§aint Genest, stems from concerns about verisimilitude. Verisimilitude adds credibility to the moral truths contained in a dramatic work: consequently, it governs the 43 critical thought of Scudéry, Chapelain, and d'Aubignac. In his "Observations sur le 91a" (1637) Scudéry differentiates the work of the historian from that of the poet and emphati- cally states his position on verisimilitude: Aussi ces Grands Maistres anciens, qui m’ont apris ce que je monstre icy a ceux qui l’ignorent, nous ont tousjours enseigné, que le Poéte, et l’Historien, ne doivent pas suivre la mesme route: et qu’il vaut mieux que le premier, traicte un Sujet vraysemblable, qui ne soit pas vray, qu’un vray qui ne soit pas vray-semblable.68 Since it is not believable that a young woman in Chiméne’s position would agree to marry Rodrigue, the murderer of her father, Scudéry attacks La_§ig: "Ce sujet ne peut estre vraisemblable: Et par conséquant il choque une des princi- pales regles du Poéme."6° For the Abbe d’Aubignac the "vrai" is not the subject of theatre as is so aptly demon- strated by his example of Nero’s strangulation and cutting of his mother in order to see the place inside her where he had been carried for nine months. Although history docu- ments this account, the subject is not acceptable as theat- rical material. Audiences consider the strangling and desecration of a mother’s body as both repulsive and unbe- lievable in spite of its historical authenticity. Neither is "Le Possible" within the realm of verisimilitude. Al- though it is possible for a person to die from "un coup de tonnerre," to unravel a plot by eliminating a lover by lightening is not an effective theatrical device (66-67). 44 The Abbe d’Aubignac moves beyond the Academy members, who focus on creating an atmosphere of believability to promote morality, to concentrate on the creation of the illusion of reality on stage. D’Aubignac states: "la vraisemblance est, s’il le faut ainsi dire l’essence du Poéme Dramatique, sans laquelle il ne se peut rien faire ni rien dire de raisonable sur la scene" (65). To achieve this end, he stresses the importance of an effective, efficient dramatic text: a simple plot, very clear motivation for every action both on stage and off stage, close adherence to the unities of action, time, and place, and the parallel between performance and a trompe-l’oeil painting.’° His emphasis on simplicity, clarity, and illusion facilitates the spectator’s ability to understand and enjoy the play. These recommendations demonstrate that he recognizes the hardships of spectators who attempt to comprehend and to follow the theatrical performance under difficult if not impossible conditions. A noisy, intrusive, disruptive audience can distract a spectator’s attention from the performance and, consequently, make the spectator aware that the performance is illusion not "reality." D’Aubignac’s aesthetic aim is to motivate the specta- tors to believe that the theatrical production is reality: the spectator must forego his disbelief, his view that the .71 O theatre is make-believe 45 Je scay bien que le Theatre est une espece d’illusion, mais il faut tromper les Spectateurs en telle sorte qu’ils ne s’imaginent pas l’estre encore qu’ils le sachent; il ne faut pas tandis qu’on les trompe que leur esprit le connoisse, mais seulement quand 11 y fait reflexion. Or, en ces rencontres, les yeux ne seroient point decefis, et l’imagination par consequent ne le pourroit l’estre, parce qu’on ne la peut decevoir si les sens n’en facilitent les moyens. . . . (192-93) He strives for narrowing the distance between what Martino calls "la scene réelle, telle qu’on pourrait la voir sans les acteurs et sans le décor:" and "la scene idéale, avec les suggestions du décor, des costumes, de la voix, de la poésies, telle qu’il est nécessaire qu’elle se crée pour que se déroule la piece que l’on y a portée."72 The limitations of stage representation become more evident when contrasted with cinema. In film production there is a scenario and a studio: hopefully, the author does not create scenes that extend beyond the capabilities of the studio. However, the director may devise deceptions to create the necessary illusions or special effects much more easily than in live stage performance because the audience is not present to observe and to scrutinize.73 During d’Aubignac’s time special effects were not sophisticated and frequently were not skillfully done. As a result, the spectator’s illusion of reality is attacked by obvious malfunctions, distortions, and mistakes. The spectator remains conscious of the reality of the actual stage and its limitations. 46 In order to reduce the distance between the ideal stage and the real stage the Abbe d’Aubignac emphasizes the uni- ties of place and time. Consequently, he decries the prac- tice of simultaneous setting which places France in one corner of the stage, Turkey in another, and Spain in the middle (30-31). Mahelot describes a multiple setting used in one of Rotrou’s comedies La_Bagga_da_ingbii (1629): Il faut un palais au milieu du theatre qui soit en rotonde avec des balustres. Il faut une chambre garnie d’une table . . . Pour l’autre c6té du theatre il faut qu’il ait une grotte, fontaine . . . A c6te du jardin et du palais, i1 faut un échafaud tendu de noir qui soit cache: il s’ouvre au cinquiéme acte, a la premiere scéne." Since he must avoid reminding the spectator that he is witnessing a theatrical illusion, d’Aubignac urges the poet to choose one place where all action can logically occur. To create immediacy of action and by extension the reality of the situation on stage d’Aubignac proposes three hours, (114), the ideal time for the duration of a representation, as the amount of time necessary for a similar real-life event to unfold. He states: 11 seroit meme a souhaitter que l’action du Poéme ne demandast pas plus de temps dans la verité que celuy qui se consume dans la representation: mais cela n’estant pas facile, ny meme possible en certaines occasions, on souffre que le Poéte en suppose un peu davantage: A quoy la Musique qui marque les intervalles des Actes, 1e Recit d’un Acteur sur la Scene durant qu’un autre travaille ailleurs, et l’Impatience naturelle a tous les hommes d’apprendre promptement ce qu’ils desirent scavoir, aident a tromper l’imagination du 47 Spectateur: et sans qu’il y fasse de reflexion, il se laisse persuader qu’il s’est passé un temps convenable pour faire toutes les choses representées. (123) Although he concedes it is not always possible to achieve this goal, le Poéte doit presser son esprit, et faire effort sur son imagination pour si bien ordonnor tous les evenemens de son Theatre dans la mesure du Temps, quoy qu’essentielle, qu’il ne blesse point la vray-semblance qui doit toujours en estre la prin- cipale regle, et sans laquelle toutes les autres deviennent déreglées. (127) Since d’Aubignac does not credit the spectator with a great deal of imagination, "I1 n’y a donc que le Vray-semblable qui puisse raisonnablement fonder, soustenir, et terminer un Poéme Dramatique" (67). Corneille, unlike d’Aubignac and the members of the Academy, relegates much greater importance to historical truth than to verisimilitude. In the first paragraph of "Discours de l’utilité et des parties du Poeme dramatique" he comments: mais les grands sujets qui remuent fortement les passions et en opposent l’impétuosité aux lois du devoir ou aux tendresses du sang, doivent toujours aller au-dela du vraisemblable, et ne trouveraient aucune croyance parmi les auditeurs, s’ils n’étaient soutenus, ou par l’autorité de l’histoire qui persuade avec empire, ou par la preoccupation de l’opinion commune qui nous donne ces memes auditeurs déja tous persuades. (822) 48 Corneille reduces verisimilitude to an attribute of the ’acheminements’ of the plot which could be invent- ed by the poet--plausible motives and incidents leading up to an event (gn_effiet) which, being extraordinary, constitutes the ’beag_§njet’ and requires the authority of history to make it credible.75 Since the extraordinary and the exceptional form the basis of "le beau sujet," flexibility of rules governs his critical thought. For example, in La_§ig, instead of strictly adhering to the unity of place, Corneille alter- nates the action between the King’s apartment, the Infanta’s, Chimene’s home, and the street. Although he adheres to the unity of time, Scudéry accuses Corneille of cramming too many events into a small period of time. Somewhat ironically he says: "je vous laisse a juger, si ne voila pas un jour bien employé, et si l’on n’auroit pas grand tort d’accuser tous ces personnages de parresse?"" Since Corneille avoids specific mentions of time and has confidence in the spectator’s imagination, he assumes that the viewer does not dwell on the inordinate number of hap- penings which occur in an unbelievably short span of time. The principle of "bienséances" is closely associated with verisimilitude and is also based on reason. During the sixteenth century in France the rule of "bienséances" was in embryonic form: it was not until 1630 that it was finally 49 established.77 To comply with the rule of "bienséances," a play must not shock the audience: it should not conflict with the tastes and moral outlook or prejudices of the audience . . . and in practice playwrights were often compelled to alter the historical or legendary data on which their tragedies were based so as not to come into con- flict with the taste and moral outlook of their age.78 In "Observations sur le gig" Georges de Scudéry vividly explains the terms through his descriptions of Chimene’s violation of the principle: L’on y voit une fille desnaturée ne parler que de ses follies, lorsqu’elle ne doit parler que de son malheur: pleindre la perte de son Amant, lorsqu’elle ne doit songer qu’a celle de son pere: aimer encor ce qu’elle doit abhorrer: souffrir en mesme temps, et en mesme maison, ce meurtrier et ce pauvre corps: et pour achever son impieté, joindre sa main 3 celle qui dégoute encor du sang de son pere.79 Chimene’s behavior tarnishes the image of the seventeenth— century authoritarian French father who deserves the obedi- ence, continued devotion of his daughter, and retaliation against his murderer. In conformity with Scudéry’s think- ing, d’Aubignac rejects Nero’s strangulation of his mother as unsuitable for a dramatic text. Although the incident is historically accurate, he also criticized Corneille for the murder of Camille in Hazage. The Abbe d’Aubignac recommends manipulating the plot to comply with the rule of 50 "bienséances" and with the final historical event, Camille’s death: pour sauver en quelque sorte l’Histoire, et tout ensemble la bienseance de la Scene, que cette fille desesperée voyant son frere l’épée a la main, se fust precipitée dessus: ainsi elle fust morte de la main d’Horace, et luy eust été digne de compassion, comme un mal-heureux Innocent, l’Histoire et le Theatre auroient esté d’accord. (68) Corneille loosely interpreted the rules or broke them in order to support his aesthetic vision: to please the audi- ence. Staging While the "décorateur" Mahelot was working at the HOtel de Bourgogne, dramatic poets began to think of the unities of time, place, and action; consequently, after 1635 the multiple decor slowly became dated.°° The notes of Michael Laurent, a successor of Mahelot, in La_uemgita_ga_nahalgt prove that plays performed in a single setting were more 81 numerous. However, what remains significant throughout the first half of the seventeenth century is the use of the "merveilleux." Deierkauf—Holsboér comments: Tous les auteurs de la premiere moitié du XVIIe siecle ont tenu compte du gout du public, de sa passion pour le merveilleux, lorsqu’ils composent leurs pieces dramatiques. Ainsi des anges apparaissaient sur la scene, une voix est entendue, des ceremonies magnifiques avaient lieu dans un temple . . . les spectateurs assistaient a une cérémonie pompeuse, etc. Le succes de 51 certaines pieces fut souvent d0 a ces elements spectaculaires, qui faisaient accourir la foule des spectateurs. Le_2:iage_geggi§e (1632) de Scudéry, la Medea (1635) de Corneille, lifletggle mggtant [1634] de Rotrou et d’autres pieces en sont des exemples frappants.82 Mahelot while describing the setting of Rotrou’s itnezggla mggtant (1634) highlights its magnificence, the importance of painting, and the "merveilleux." He states: Le theatre doit estre superbe. A un des costés, il faut le temple de Jupiter, bastit a l’antique et enfermé d’arcades autour de l’autel, et que l’on puisse tourner autour de l’autel. Dessus l’autel, une cassolette et autres ornemens. Il faut faire le pied destail rond comme l’antique, ou est pose Jupiter. Sur l'autel care, quatre petittes piramides garny de leurs petits vases ou sont des flammes de feu en peinture. Le temple doit estre cache. De l’autre costé du theatre doit avoir une montagne ou l’on monte devant le peuple et descendre par derrierre. Laditte montagne doit estre en bois de haute futaye, et dessous la montagne, doit avoir une chambre funebre remplie de larmes, le tombeau d’Hercule superbe. . . .93 Machine plays such as Corneille’s Angtgmege (1650), Claude Abraham calls it a "divertissement on a grand scale," that "has little to do with Cornelian drama,"84 not only reflect a sumptuous decor but also demonstrate the baroque use of coextensive space intermingling the supernatural presence in the real world. The Italian Torelli designed the scenery: the temple, the square in front of it, and the heavens.85 Through trompe l’oeil the architectural columns recede and lead the spectator’s eye to a large and prominent dome located at the center and protruding into the space of the 52 sky. The spectator’s eyes follow the vertical and curved lines on the dome to its summit and discover that the curved dome is framed by three distinct groups of clouds graced with the presence of gods. Torelli further accentuates the pull of the spectator’s eyes toward the heavens by the continuous repetition of vertical columns on both sides of the stage. Finally, statues with hands stretched toward the gods, top the columns. In the foreground of the square in front of the temple, actors, who themselves are spectators to the heavenly scene, are imploring the help of the gods. Within the temple itself another spectacle occurs. Céphée’s sacrifice to the god Jupiter for her daughter’s marriage reinforces the intermingling of the human and supernatural realms. A detailed description of the stage decoration includes the comment: On y verrait Céphée sacrifiant a Jupiter pour le mariage de sa fille, n’estoit que l’attention que les spectateurs presteroient a ce sacrifice les déstourneroit de celles qu’ils doivent a ce qui se passe dans le parvis que représente le Theatre.86 In view of Corneille’s overriding concern for positive audience reaction, his lack of personal interest in the staging itself is surprising. Although he recognized the importance of music and stage decoration in productions, Corneille frees the poet’s attention from these decisions, delegates the responsibility of staging to others such as the "décorateurs" and "ingénieurs," and bases his decision 53 on the precedent set by Aristotle. In his "Discours du poeme dramatique" he states: La decoration du theatre a besoin de trois arts pour la rendre belle, de la peinture, de l’architecture, et de la perspective. Aristote pretend que cette partie, non plus que la precedente, ne regards pas le poete, et comme il me la traite point, je me dispenserai d’en dire plus qu’il ne m’en a appris. (827) Apparently, since he was a successful playwright beginning with his initial play Melite performed for the first time in 1629 and since he was associated with the Theatre of the Marais until the mid 1640’s,87 he had confidence in his ability to write a play that could be well-staged, and he had faith in the theatre company’s ability to stage his plays effectively. The Abbe d’Aubignac concedes that unusual and magnifi- cent stage decoration and the use of the miraculous draw crowds to the theatre because of their widespread appeal not only to the masses but also to the refined spectators. Stage decorations add to the performance because they are "agreables a voir, car c’est par ce charme que le peuple s’y laisse attirer" (360). While admitting "le peuple fasse foule a toutes les occasions de voir quelque chose de semblable," (357) and "la Cour ne les ait pas desagreables" (357) d’Aubignac contends that too many risks jeopardize the effective use of elaborate staging and machinery. Since he is writing a manual to improve the representation of 54 dramatic works and, consequently, to enhance aesthetic reaction, he admonishes the poets for their lack of knowl- edge about staging and assigns them primary responsibility for defects: j’ajoute que les Autheurs memes ont ete si peu soigneux de s’instruire en la connoissance de ces vieilles merveilles et aux moyens qu’on a de les bien executer, qu’il n’est pas étrange que souvent le plus grand defaut soit dans les mauvaises in- ventions. (357) Furthermore, if the "ornemens" do not contribute "au Noeud des Intrigues du Theatre on au Denouement . . . les gens d’esprit pourront estimer les Ouvriers qui les auront bien faits; mais le Poete n’en sera pas estime" (361-62). The poet’s creativity and worth will be relegated to a secondary or even negligible role while that of the "Ingenieurs" and "Decorateurs" will capture the spotlight. The Abbe d’Aubignac reduces his concerns to three major categories: the ineptitude of the "ingenieurs" and "decorateurs," the additional problems imposed on actors, and the tendency to violate the rules of theatre. Reason and judgement control d’Aubignac’s directives: as a result, he prefers minimal staging characteristic of the classical theatre. A primary consideration which leads d’Aubignac to prefer minimal staging is the dependence of elaborate stag- ing and machines on the proficiency of the engineers. Their ineptitude leads directly to a "decalage" between "la scene reelle" and "la scene ideale,"°° Therefore, he specifically 55 points out that the theatrical engineers must work with stage devices that are "faciles a executer," and he dis- counts the opinion of the "Ignorans qui croient tout impos- sible" (360). The engineers must manipulate the machines "si bien . . . qu’il ne soit pas besoin d’avoir un grand nombre d’hommes pour les remuer, et que les Engins fassent leurs mouvemens a poinct-nommé (361). His concern bears directly on audience reception and reaction. If the specta- tors wait too long for the appropriate theatrical effect to occur, "le peuple impatiente" (361). Poor timing and badly executed staging introduce additional opportunities and moments for disruptive audience response such as boos, inappropriate laughter, shouts, diversion, and inattention that all contribute to breaking the tone of the play. Since the audience already, by nature of its composition, tends toward disruption, d’Aubignac’s concerns are well founded. When creating a dramatic poem, the author has to fore- see staging problems that tax the actors’ financial resources and dramatic skill. Since the actors are respon- sible for the expenses incurred in staging a play, according to d’Aubignac the author’s responsibility includes a careful consideration of staging and decoration: Premierement, il faut qu’elles soient necessaires, et que la Piece ne puisse estre jofiée sans cet ornement: autrement les Spectacles ne seroient jamais approuvez, quoy qu’ils fussent ingenieux; on estimeroit le Poete peu judicieux de les avoir introduits dans un Ouvrage qui s’en pouvoit 56 passer: et les Comédiens imprudens, d’en faire la depense. (359) The tendency toward a "decor unique," which outnumbers the "decor multiple" at the Hetel de Bourgogne according to Michel Laurent’s testimony, was readily accepted by the actors because the former required a smaller sum of money.89 As an example of superfluous staging d’Aubignac criticizes Angzgmege (1650) in which two large buildings of different architecture are used unnecessarily in the first and fourth acts: "car ces deux Actes pourroient estre jofiez avec les Decorations de tel des trois autres qu’on voudroit choisir, sans blesser l’intention du Poete, et sans contredire aucun incident, ny aucune action de la Piece" (360). In addition to the actors’ limited financial resources available for staging a play, d’Aubignac warns authors that complicated staging also requires especially versatile and proficient actors. Because of the malfunction of stage machinery, poor timing, or both, actors may have to vary the timing of their discourse or to add or subtract lines. The actor’s improvi- sational skills, which may or may not be adequately devel- oped, become invaluable tools to assure successful and credible performance. When the author includes a remarkable feat in the dramatic text comme se precipiter dans la Mer, ou tomber d’un chariot en combattant . . . il faut que l’Acteur l’etudie avec soin, avant que de la faire sur le Theatre: ce que je dis, pour avoir veu de mauvais evenemens de la negligence de nos Comédiens, et ce n’est pas le moindre obstacle qui trouble souvent 57 l’effet des Machines, et la beaute des Decorations. (362-63) While d’Aubignac cautions authors of the risks inherent in a dramatic text based on elaborate or complicated staging, agility, improvisational skills, study, and practice surface as important components of acting expertise. To insure less interference from the audience during the actor’s delivery of lines and to maximize the actor’s potential for excellent performance, the Abbe d’Aubignac proposes several guidelines for the proper utilization of decoration and machinery. Permanent stage props should appear from the opening of the theatre so that the "murmure du peuple, qui s’emeut tofijours en ces apparitions, soit finy avant que les Acteurs commencent le Recit" (362). The earliest reference to the existence of a stage curtain in a public theatre is recorded in a contract for the remodeling project undertaken at the Theatre of the Hetel de Bourgogne in 1647, two years after the performance of L§_!éIiL§Dl§ Saint_§ene§t.’° The stage curtain was raised at the begin- ning of the performance and lowered at the end so that the stage was visible to the spectators between acts.91 The Abbe d’Aubignac advises that decorators complete changes in scenery during the intervals between acts because workers have time to set up the new staging and/or props. Most importantly, before beginning the next act, the actor will have allowed sufficient time for the spectators to converse 58 about the new props and to express their approval or discon- tent before the continuation of the performance (362). If a prop or a set change must occur during the course of an act, the dramatic poet must build in words or lines of admiration or astonishment to provide some time for the audience to express emotions and reactions. D’Aubignac presupposes, through experience undoubtedly, a vocal and critical audi- ence. Throughout his analysis, d’Aubignac presents a prag- matist’s view of the creation of a theatrical performance based on reason and the known or calculated audience re- sponse during his time. The Abbe d’Aubignac has little faith in the improvisational skills of actors: every move- ment, word, and stage effect is planned in advance to assure a well-orchestrated performance. Bray succintly defines French classicism: Et le classicisme, c’est la doctrine de la raison. C’est aussi le besoin des regles, c’est l’admira- tion des anciens, c’est 1e souci d’un art utilitaire, . . . c’est peut-etre avant tout le culte de la ’souveraine raison.’92 The Academy, Scudéry, and the Abbe d’Aubignac advocate strict adherence to the rules based on reason. Bray con- tends that La_£1atigge_gg_tneatte codifies all the doctrines that a generation of critics attempted to establish, but "a laquelle l’oeuvre du grand tragique s’averait trop souvent infidele."93 In spite of this emphasis on reason during the formulation of the doctrine and after, dramatic poets did 59 not immediately and completely conform to the code. Both the baroque vision and the classical vision co-existed. For example, the highly successful dramatic poet Pierre Corneille contests the slavish adherence to a set of rules, and as late as 1660 in the "Examen" of Melite he attributes the success of his first play Melite to his common sense: Cette piece fut mon coup d’essai, et elle n’a garde d’etre dans les regles, puisque je ne savais pas alors qu’il y en efit. Je n’avais pour guide qu’un peu de sens commun, avec les exemples de feu Hardy dont la veine etait plus feconde que polie, et de quelques modernes qui commencaient a se produire, et qui n’etaient pas plus reguliers que lui. (28) Andre Stegmann notes that Rotrou is one of the Moderns who does not follow the rules.9‘ In the face of a political and artistic climate which focuses on representation and audi- ence response, positive spectator reaction surfaces as a key consideration for Scudéry, Corneille, and the Abbe d’Aubignac in the creation of the dramatic text itself. Scudéry and d’Aubignac envision strict adherence to the rules as a necessary means to achieving excellent audience response. In spite of the theorists’ emphasis on reason, the unities, verisimilitude and "bienséances," with Rotrou, instantaneous intuition and the eruption of spontaneity sometimes subvert reason. Appearances and imagination can undermine reason and make it an ineffective guide. The baroque vision agrees with Pascal’s view: "Notre raison est 60 toujours decue par l’inconstance des apparences"95 and "la vie humaine n’est qu’une illusion perpétuelle."96 Before venturing into an analysis of Jean Rotrou’s "La_yetitable Saint_§ene§t, let us first examine the differences between the classical and the baroque, two contrasting aesthetic visions which evolve from the Renaissance. NOTES 1 Henry Carrington Lancaster, A Hieto oty 9f Eteneh Dramatie Litetatnte in the Seventeenth Centuty, part 2, vol. 1, The_£ezieg_et_§e1neille (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1932) 5. Lancaster concedes that the Wars of Religion slowed down the development of French drama in comparison to its development in Spain and England. 2 Colette Scherer, (Paris: Nizet, 1983) 20. 3 C. Scherer 19. ‘ Marc Fumaroli. "Notice." LLIllusign_cgmigue. by Pierre Corneille (Paris: Larousse, 1970) 12. 5 Georges de Scudéry. W (Paris: Courbe, 1639) 83-84. All further references, unless indi- cated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in parentheses. 6 Fumaroli 10. 7 Fumaroli 12. Fumaroli 12. 9 Lancaster, in getneiiie, thinks that Louis XIII had "only a moderate interest" in theatre. He attended a few dramatic programs at court, but only three plays were dedi- cated to him (6). 1° Henri Chardon. La_yie_QeIRQtron_mieux_chnue= Dean: ' 't ' ' so s t ments_1ned1_s_sur_la_s9c1ete_polie_de___n_temp__e__la Qnezelle_gn_gig (Paris: Picard, 1884) 38. Chardon proposes 1632 as the date for Rotrou’s service to the Hetel de Bourgogne as "poete a gages." Wilma Deierkauf—Holsboer suggests 1629 in the more recent work L_nieteize_ge_1a_miee (paris; Nizet,1960) 4o: ;' i i t * ... 11 C. Schérer 19-20. 1’ Lancaster, getneille 6. 1’ Cited by Lancaster, Qezneille 7. 1‘ C. Scherer 22. 61 15 C. Scherer 22. 1° C. Scherer 19. 1’ C. Scherer 19. 1° Joseph Morello, Qean_Retten (Boston: Twayne, 1980) 15. 1’ Morello 16. 2° Lancaster, gezneille 8. 2‘ Samuel Chappuzeau. Le_Iheatre_francais (1674: n-p-= Editions d’aujourd’hui, 1985) 15. ’2 Cited in Lancaster, Qezneille 5. 62 23 Lancaster. Corneille 6. 2‘ John R. Martin, Sategne (New York: Harper, 1977) 157. 25 Martin 2‘ Martin 2’ Martin 2° Cited by Martin 56. 2’ Martin 3° Martin 157. 157 O 157. 57. 19. 3‘ Roger de Piles, Q9nyersati9ns_sur_la_connaissance_de la_peintnze (1677; Geneve: Slatkine, 1970) 135. 3’ Marlies Kronegger, "Games of Perspective in Baroque Art and Poetry," atnte 8.15 (1981): 277-78. 3’ Martin 3‘ Martin 35 Martin 3‘ Martin 3’ Martin 155. 175. 180-81. 177. 112. 63 3‘ Konrad Oberhuber, ' ' (New York: Hudson Hills, 1988) 195-96. Poussin completed two paintings entitled "The Martyrdom of St. Erasmus": the first in 1628 and the second larger one for the Vatican in 1628-29. Oberhuber refers to the first, which I describe, as baroque, but he states that in the second painting Poussin "mitigates the baroque quality" of the first and gives it "a more classical character." Martin also calls the second of the two a "baroque religious" painting (112). 3’ Oberhuber 196. ‘° Michel Foucault, Ihe_gtget_efi_1hing§ (New York: Pantheon, 1970) 4. Chapter I analyzes "Las Menifias." ‘1 Foucault 7-8. ‘2 Alfonso E. Perez Sanchez, "Velazquez and his Art," yelazgnez, by Antonio Dominguez Ortiz, Alfonso E. Perez Sanchez, and Julian Gallego (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1989) 31-32. ‘3 René Bray. La_E9rmatign_de_la_dgetrine_classigpe_en Ezanee (Paris: Nizet, 1966) III. “ Bray 19. ‘5 Bray 126. ‘6 Georges Mongrédien. Daily_Life_in_tne_£rench Iheatte, trans. Claire Eliane Engel (London: Allen, 1969) 33-34. ‘7 Jean Chapelain. Lettres_de_Jean.§hapelain_de_lLAcad: emie_Ezaneaiee, ed. Tamizey de Larroque (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1880) 1, 581-82. ‘° Corneille. Qeuyres_completes 823. " L'Abbé d'AubignaC. La_£ratigue_du_theatre (Amster- dam: Bernard, 1715) 46. All further references, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in parentheses. 5° In the twentieth century Thorton Wilder’s Qn:_Ignn, which is directly contrary to d’Aubignac’s guidelines, includes a narrator who is a main character. ”1 Hallam Walker, Melieze (New York: Twayne, 1971) 74- 75. . 64 52 H. T. Barnwell, ed., introduction, Writing§_en_the Theatre, by Pierre Corneille (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) xiii. 53 Chappuzeau 47-48. 5‘ Bray 63-67. 55 Barnwell in the "Introduction" of Corneille’s Writ; ing§_en_the_theatre suggests that certain passages of La Eratigne_gn_theatre indicate that d’Aubignac was expecting a type of official appointment as an administrator of a state theatre (xxv). Although Barnwell does not quote passages or indicate their location, this passage may be one of them. 5‘ "Discours a Cliton." La_Querelle_du_gid1_21eces_et Eamphlete, ed. Armand Gaste (1898; Geneve: Slatkine, 1970) 261- 62. Barnwell in the "Introduction" of Corneille’ s flritinge_en_the_1heatre, agrees that the "Discours a Cliton" staunchly supports aesthetic response, not moral instruc- tion, as the goal of art (xxii). 5’ Lancaster. A_HistQry_9f_Erench_nramatic_Literature in_the_§eyenteentn_§en_ury part 5 Recapitulatign1_1§19: 17 99 (1942: New York: Gordian, 1966) 16. 5° John Lough Seyenteenth:Qentury_Erench_Drama1_the Saekgrenng (Oxford: Clarendon 1979) 98. For a more detailed analysis refer to his entire chapter "Audiences" (76-98). Although the aristocrats were fewer in number, their seats cost more so there was a financial incentive to please them. 5° Nicolas Boileau. Belaeana_en_hen§_mete (Amsterdam: L’Honore, 1742) 50. 6° Pierre Corneille. Qenyres_de_£ierre_ggrneille. éd- Marty Laveaux (Paris: Hachette, 1862) 430, Vol. 10 of Lee ‘1 Claude Abraham, Eierre_gerneille (New York: Twayne, 1972) 83-85. ‘2 Bray states that moral utility is "d’une necessité secondaire, peut on dire" (71). Barnwell goes farther by saying: "But Corneille denies, as he always will, that the moral function is of primary (even if of any) importance" (xviii). ‘3 Marie-Odile Sweetser. Les_Q9asepticns_dramatiques_de Qgrneille (Geneve: Droz, 1962) 100. 6‘ Bray 115. 65 ‘5 Barnwell xvi. ‘6 Barnwell, footnote #1, xvi. ‘7 Bray 192. 6° Georges de Scudéry, "Observations sur le gin," La Qnerelle gu cia; Piecee, et Pamphlets, ed. Armand Gaste 75. ‘9 Scudéry, "Observations," 75. 7° Barnwell xxvi. 71 Barnwell xxvi. 7’ Pierre Martino, preface, La Pratigue an theatre, by L’Abbe d’Aubignac (Paris: Champion, 1927) xvii. 73 Martino xvii. 7‘ Henry Carrington Lancaster, ed. Le_heneire_ge i ‘1 9-1‘ . MICQ‘A a. reg - d’.u es .- . g --_- .- 1 Hetel ge Bourgogne (Paris: Champion, 1920) 66. ’5 Barnwell xviii. Scudéry, "Observations" 77-78. ’7 Bray 218. 7° Lough 109. Scudéry, "Observations" 80. °° Lancaster, Le_uengire 25. According to Lancaster, Mahelot finished the first part of this manuscript, describ- ing the decorations used in the plays at the Hetel de Bourgogne, slightly before the Carnival of 1634. He began it approximately in January of 1633. 548 60. 67. ’1 Deierkauf-Holsboer. LLHistQire_de_la_mise_en_scene 58. ‘2 Deierkauf-Holsboer. LLHistoire_de_la_mise_en_scene ‘3 Lancaster, Le_Memgire, 102-03. “ Abraham 99. °5 Deierkauf-Holsboér. LLHistQire_de_la_mise_en_scene 66 3‘ Cited in Deierkauf-Holsboer, L’fiistgire ge ia niee en_eeene 67. This description is included in the edition Pierre Corneille . AW W in the Bibliothegue Nationale, Y5564. 9’ Abraham 16. 9° Martino, preface, La_2ratigne, by L’Abbe d’Aubignac xvii. 8’ Deierkauf—Holsboer, ’ ' t ' e e i e e 59. Lancaster establishes 1678 as the year Laurent writes, not 1673 as indicated on the title page (Le Memoire 28-29). 9° Deierkauf—Holsboer, Le Theatre de 1’netei ge Senrgegne, vol. ii (Paris: Nizet, 1970) 184. ’1 Lough 63. 9’ Bray 139. ’3 Bray 203. 9‘ Corneille, Qerneille;_genyree_egnhletee 28, note 8. 9’ Blaise Pascal, Benseee (Paris: Garnier, 1962) 91. 9‘ Pascal 104. CHAPTER 2 BAROQUE AND CLASSICAL AESTHETIC VISIONS 67 68 Diversity or/and Unity Although Wilfried Floeck in Eethétigne de la diyereite states that the literature of the mid-seventeenth century in France, the period of time incorporating the representation of Le_yeritahie_Saint_Seneet, "est indeniablement marquee par le style baroque," he points out that a baroque literary vision and a classical aesthetics coexist and stimulate artistic creation.1 Ther=-ore, to determine how each of these might influence the art of the actor and, in particu- lar, Rotrou’s conception of the actor’s art as revealed in Le_yeritah1e_Saint_Seneet, we shall begin by contrasting the two aesthetic visions. Evolving from the Renaissance crisis of knowledge and from principles of rhetoric, the baroque exists in France as an independent literary and artistic vision between 1575-85 and 1650-602 and manifests itself in particular works rather than in a developed, organized, and established theory written at that time. The absence of such a codified mani- festo is the logical consequence of the nature of the baroque, an aesthetics promoting liberty, diversity, imagi- nation, and change. In contrast, classical aesthetics, in- sisting on order, clarity, proportion, and reason, consists of homogeneous rules, first codified by Jean Chapelain in 1620,3 and reaches its height in the literary texts written between 1660 and 1680. Emerging as a reaction against the Renaissance ideals of order and clarity and then continuing 69 its rebellion against the system of rules devised in reac- tion to contemporary notions of diversity and liberty by seventeenth-century French classicism, the baroque releases imprisoned imaginative forces activated by sense experience and liberty. Order, proportion, and harmony form the foundation of Renaissance perceptions and appreciation of beauty, nature, and Antiquity. In rhetoric and in poetics beauty without order and harmony is impossible to envision. Neo-Platonic inspiration reinforces this conception by seeing in an artistic work an expression of divine beauty and its concom- itant concrete representation of the harmony and order of the universe. In this way, the beauty of the macrocosm is reflected in the microcosm of the work of art.4 Further contributing to its emphasis on clarity and order, Renais- sance humanism seizes the "entite du monde" through a selec- tion of what is most representative, and it suppresses an abundance of details and seemingly insignificant elements.5 Ronsard’s "Hymne de la justice," for example, praises nature as a harmonious whole directed and controlled by reasonable laws. However, if the order of nature is not perfect, man, through artistic intervention, exercises his power to cor- rect, improve, and ennoble nature. Since the Renaissance humanists believe that the works of Classical Antiquity already imitated nature perfectly, the poet simply has to turn to Antiquity for his inspiration and models. 70 Consequently, the Renaissance humanists transform the imita- tion of nature into an imitation of the Ancients.6 During the second half of the sixteenth century a "crise de conscience"7 undermining the unity of the civi- lized world prompts the development of a divergent aesthetic vision. Prior to the Renaissance, the medieval Christian believed that every man came from God, and, by avoiding sin, every creature could earn eternal salvation in a final return to God. This religious outlook reflects the per- ceived unity and order of the universe. Although the goal of Copernicus was to demonstrate this harmony in the perfec- tion of the universe, in reality, he brought about a break with this Aristotelian conception and with the Scholastic and Christian perspective reflected in the Senna_1heelegiea of Thomas Aquinas. The surge in knowledge, the result of scientific and geographic discoveries, creates a tension in man difficult to resolve. As a result of the expansion of knowledge and the development of reason, to know and to believe no longer are synonymous. Man still believes in God, but his belief is not instinctive.8 Montaigne confesses: "c’est la foi seule qui embrasse vivement et certainement les hauts mysteres de notre religion."’ When one speaks of a scientific and rationalist "esprit" at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, skepticism and pessimism characterize this out- look in which man no longer exists as the highlight and 71 center of a closed universe.1° As late as the mid- seventeenth century, Pascal, in Lee_2en§eee, says that man cannot acquire certain knowledge outside of his own experi- ences, and he describes man as existing in an incommensura— ble infinity of eternal silence. According to Pascal, man bases his uncertain certainty on uncertainty.11 Although baroque discourse attempts to lead the readers/audience to Absolute Truth, it still reflects the changing and uncertain world which the baroque man inhabits. Gisele Mathieu-Castellani points out: Au coeur de tout grand texte baroque, nait une incertitude, masquee par la parole d’autorite, guinde, un peu trop sfire d’elle-meme pour qu’on ne puisse y lire, a de fragiles indices, une interro- gation secrete. Le questionnement produit un texte divise.12 Her quotation emphasizes the speaker’s own uncertainty and internal conflict masked by an air of authority. Sponde’s Sonnet XI "Et quel bien de la mort" emphasizes the poet’s recognition of the illogical pattern of life. The poet’s voice is divided between resignation and rebellion as he questions: "C’est benediction que de vivre, pourquoy nous fais-tu mourir?" The query’s basic contradiction is over- come only by an act of faith which bypasses reason and exists as an uncertain certainty.13 In Le_yeritah1e_Saint Seneet the pagan actor Genest’s belief in God and conversion to Christianity are also based on faith, not reason, and his 72 faith is born from his own uncertainty and receptivity to sense impressions. Baroque aesthetics, an international phenomenon emerg- ing from the "crise de conscience" and man’s uncertainty, is rooted in the last third of the sixteenth century, and it evolves as a reaction against the normative and rational precepts of order and harmony emphasized by the European Renaissance and modeled on Classical Antiquity.14 While replacing Aristotelianism, Neo-Platonism provides for the baroque a differentiation between a harmonious world of ideas, representing absolute good and a disordered material 15 world representing evil: it opens the way for an aes- 1‘ Literary depictions thetics based on questioning reality. of the chaos of the universe and a display of ambiguity, change, uncertainty, and abundance reflect the upheaval of traditional Renaissance values. In "Le Chaos," the poet Du Bartas describes the beginning of the world as a "forme sans forme" and "une pile confuse . . . sans reglement" which, through time and the course of nature, changes "de laid beau, de mort vif, et parfait d’imparfait. . . ."17 Theophile de Viau’s ode beginning "Un corbeau devant moi croasse" portrays this "monde a l’envers" by including images of blood flowing from a rock, a stream flowing back to its source, and a serpent destroying a vulture (Rousset 2, 72-73). Disorder and confusion become the basic catego- ries of baroque beauty, and perceptions of beauty, formerly 73 judged against a universal standard, become relative since beauty differs according to country, region, and even individuals. This new outlook invites the creation of an aesthetics based on diversity, change, and liberty. In addition to the influence of Neo-Platonism, since Petrarch, imitatie through variatig, a traditional concept of rhetoric important for sustaining listener interest, gains prominence and allows the poet to develop his own style.1 In "Elegie a une Dame" Theophile de Viau writes "La regle me deplait, j’ecris confusément, . . . J’approuve que chacun ecrive a sa facon"19 while Corneille in his "Dedicace" to La_Sniyante (1637) comments "Chacun a sa methode: je ne blame point celle des autres, et me tiens a la mienne . . ." (126). As a result of the erosion of confidence in the correlation between knowledge and faith and the apparent dissolution of a unified and harmonious universe, writers insist on freedom and turn to the diversi- ty and disorder displayed in nature as the path to follow in their quest for permanence. Influenced by these perceptions of freedom and diversity, Rotrou’s actor Genest, for exam- ple, in mid-performance effectively rejects the rehearsed dramatic text, "The Martyrdom of Adrian" and freely creates and enacts his new role in God’s theatre. By diversity these baroque authors mean "une abondance anarchique et un mouvement continu de changement et d’insta- bilite."2° Since an aesthetics of diversity dissociates 74 itself from the order, harmony, and permanence represented by God, in an attempt to reunite God’s representation with that of the world, theologians in the first half of the seventeenth century, such as Yves de Paris in Theelegie natnrelle, locate the roots of diversity in the divine essence composed of three Persons in one God: for them, the diversity seen in this world is an expression of God’s infinity and omnipotence based on multitude. For these theologians, the variety in nature reflecting God’s diversi- ty justifies the aesthetics’ propensity for moving and ephemeral subjects, a proliferation of objects, a disinte- gration of clearly ordered composition, the irrational, extensive description in baroque poetry, 8 mixture of genres and styles, an alternation of themes, and increasing struc- 1 tural complexity,2 such as the use of the play-within-the- play in Le_yeritahle_Saint_Seneet. While Renaissance humanism focuses on man’s appreciation of order and harmony, the baroque aesthetics emphasizes man’s enjoyment in the surprising and changing diversity in nature which God cre- ates for man’s pleasure. In Peintnree_meralee (1640-1643) the Jesuit priest Pierre Le Moyne, for example, prefers the naturalness of a spring landscape in flower to an artisti- cally arranged bouquet of flowers.22 Each new day presents to the artist or poet the possibility of dazzling the spectator/listener/reader with a new palette of colors and a novel unexpected arrangement and distribution of flowers in 75 nature’s spontaneous and creative demonstration of its beauty. The classical movement reacts against the diversity, disorder, and liberty characteristic of the baroque aes- thetics, and it establishes an analogy between nature and reason: according to Floeck, "le classicisme est né d’une confrontation deliberee avec le baroque. . . ."23 In place of the baroque writer’s detailed description of terrestrial phenomenon, the classical creator concentrates on man’s moral and psychic nature and searches out what is typical, unchangeable, and universal. This switch in focus results from a basic difference in the concept of beauty for the two aesthetics. In reaction to the baroque diversity and liber- ty, classicism dissociates sensual beauty from spiritual beauty, and as in the Renaissance, defines beauty in terms of simplicity, order, clarity, and regularity. In both the Renaissance and the classical period, if nature does not follow these criteria, the artist must improve and perfect nature.24 Although in the sixteenth century Ronsard in "Abregé de l’art poétique francais" prefers a carefully ordered and clearly disposed composition, it is seventeenth- century classicism which establishes rules of poetics and absolute norms based on philosophical rationalism, not 5 Jean Chapelain, an simply on the imitation of Antiquity.2 influential spokesman and promoter of classical aesthetics for the Academy, who examines the legacy of Aristotle and 76 Italian doctrine,26 first codifies classical literary doc- trine around 1620 in his "Preface" to Agenie. In it, Chapelain emphasizes respect for rules, the importance of reason, dependence on models from Antiquity, poetry as a means of moral instruction, principles of verisimilitude and "bienséances," and the unities of time, place, and action. Ten years later, around 1630, these rules begin to attract 27 the attention of writers. that Rotrou in We; addresses the conflict between reason and sense experience. Therefore, it is not surprising Both writers and art critics associate rules, reason, and regularity with classical aesthetics, and they highlight freedom, diversity, and sense experience in baroque aes- thetics. The dramatist Racine, in his discourse of January 2, 1685 on the occasion of Thomas Corneille’s acceptance to the Académie Francaise, describes the French theatre at the beginning of the seventeenth century and places it in direct opposition to classical aesthetics: Quel desordre! quelle irregularité! Nul gofit, nulle connaissance des véritables beautes du theatre. Les auteurs aussi ignorants que les spectateurs, la plupart des sujets extravagants et denues de vraisemblance, point de moeurs, point de caracteres: . . . en un mot, toutes les regles de l’art, celles meme de l’honnetete et de la bienseance, partout violees.2° Marcel Reymond summarizes the essential distinction between the classical aesthetics based on the authority of reason and the baroque, an expression of freedom and spontaneity: (11 ii Cr to) the the 77 Les classiques sont les defenseurs du principe d’autorite, de la tradition, du maintien des formules: le Baroque, c’est la liberte. De tous les mots qu’il a dits: beaute, joie, tendresse, feminite, et ceux de santé robuste, de force et de majeste, le mot qui nous reste le plus cher est celui de liberte.29 The baroque writer or artist unfolds freely his creative imagination in new potential visions of reality in architec- ture, art, literature, and performance. Sense perception rather than reason expands baroque vision. In the baroque perspective, images "transmitted by the senses from the exterior world or produced by the imagination, unquestion- ably possessed a real value. . . ."3° Critics also contrast the classical principle of "vrai- semblance" with the baroque vision of the "merveilleux." For Jean Chapelain, the marvelous, defined as "contre l’attente et contre l’ordinaire," is the antithesis of verisimilitude: "une poétique axee sur le merveilleux sera le contraire d’une poétique axee sur le vraisemblable."31 Littre confirms Chapelain’s perceptions and defines "merveilleux" as "ce qui dans un evenement, dans un recit, s’éloigne du courant ordinaire des choses: ce qui est pro- duit par les etres surnaturels: ce qui suscite l’admira- tion."32 In baroque aesthetics the greatest artist is the creator of the most marvelous illusions. Implied in the word "merveilleux" is a spectator or reader who responds to the creation by expressing astonishment or surprise. Since the verb "mirer," to look, is the stem for "admirer" 78 "admiration," "miracle," and "merveilleux,"33 the marvelous is a key element of the artist’s and spectator’s creative imagination. The concept of "gloire," a multi-faceted term with religious and political associations, promotes the baroque aesthetics’ propensity for the marvelous and the need to display. Moliere’s poem "La Gloire du Val-de-Grace" (1669) glorifies baroque aesthetics34 and Louis XIV. In Moliere’s poem "gloire" refers to Pierre Mignard’s baroque fresco in the dome, a representation of the divine Persons in God, the angels, and saints which surprises "l’esprit" and enchants "l’oeil," but the author also directly praises "le grand" Louis XIV. While this baroque church was built as a thanks- giving for the birth of the king, it stands as a perpetual reminder of his "gloire." The absolute monarch of this era identifies himself in terms of glory:35 however, its acqui- sition is not limited to the ruling class. Since death is common to all, even the common man such as Genest in his insistence on martyrdom, can realize aspirations for glory. Extraordinary manifestations of the grandeur of the king and the marvelous reach their height in the seventeenth century "fetes de cour baroques," such as Lee_£1ai§ir§_ge 1LI§1e_Enehantee (Versailles, 1664), and the festivities celebrating the marriage of Leopold Ier (Vienne, 1666-68), which display the originality and fantasy of the artistic directors. In order to demonstrate their political 79 superiority and repress their feelings of insecurity on the theatrnm_enrgpgenn, each monarch, even the prince of a minor state, attempts to imitate and surpass the magnificence of all other "fetes de cour," especially those at Versailles, by introducing the spectacular or "jamais vu" to elicit the astonishment and admiration of the viewers, particularly 36 heads of state and foreign dignitaries. Magnificence, the "merveilleux," heroic actions, and "un deguisement mytholo- gique, allegorique ou romanesque" make each "fete de cour baroque" an elevated and imaginary representation of the court itself"'7 which testifies not only to the grandeur of the reigning monarch but also to the "gloire" of the baroque aesthetics. While staging the spectacular and the marvelous, the artistic directors of the "fetes de cour baroques," in reality, create substitute universes for the European mon- archs. Germain Bazin identifies the essence of the baroque with man’s creation of substitute universes.38 These ba- roque festivals reveal an outlook on life in which man’s identity exists in seeming rather than being, a perspective characteristic of the seventeenth century. The desire to escape through make-believe into an ideal existence has its roots in man’s anxiety over Divine Grace and the uncertain- ties attached to the concept of life after death. Man projects himself into an imaginary world and becomes an actor portraying his life as he envisions it: as a result, 80 the actor represents the entire baroque age. The Chevalier de Mere (1610-1684), a French moralist and critic of Voiture, advises that one should be a "’good actor in life,’" "’regard what one does as a play,’" and "’imagine one is acting a part.’"39 Genest, an excellent example of the Chevalier de Mere’s commentary, freely relinquishes his role on the Roman stage and recreates himself to become an actor once again, but this time an actor in God’s theatre. This mindset encourages spontaneity, creativity, change, and freedom as man replaces one mask with another. During the seventeenth century there is a continual tension between classical restraint and the baroque desire for creative freedom. Even in classical writers baroque tendencies emerge when they refer to "new" and "bizarre" aspects of beauty. Boileau confesses the importance of "nouveaute": "Quand je fais de vers, je songe toujours a dire ce qui ne s’est point encore dit dans notre langue"‘° while La Rochefoucauld affirms: "On voit . . . des femmes d’une beaute eclatante, mais irreguliere, qui en effacent "‘1 Bazin recognizes souvent de plus veritablement belles. the interplay between these two aesthetics in his perceptive comment: "For ’classical’ and ’baroque’ are not opposites. More reason enters into the composition of the one, more fantasy into the composition of the other: but both are facets of a lost world of make-believe."" 81 A direct relationship exists between the baroque plas- tic arts and literature. Rubens, the Flemish painter, for instance, was deeply inspired by the poet Du Bartas. Here, in this analysis of Rotrou, a frame of reference for theat- rical performance is established based on the interrelation- ship of poetry and architecture. We will first investigate the nature of the baroque in architecture and poetry in order to contrast the classical aesthetics’ art of acting with the actor’s creative and spontaneous versatility Springing forth from Rotrou's Le_yeritable_§aint_Genest. The Baroque in Architecture and Poetry The theorists and critics of the century of rational- ism, the eighteenth century, first applied the term baroque to the new, irregular art forms.43 According to the 1690 edition of Furetiere’s dictionary, "baroque" means "111- formed pearl": fifty years later, the 1740 edition of the Dicti9nnaire_de_liacademie_francaise includes a second figurative definition: "Baroque se dit aussi au figure pour irregulier, bizarre, inegal."“ In 1788 an architectural text, LLEneyelepegie_methedigne, applies the term to build- ings which are bizarre, excessive, or ridiculous.‘5 Present-day critics still refer to the art as excessive or irregular, but not in a pejorative sense. In a lecture entitled "Some Uses and Misuses of the Terms Baroque and Rococo as Applied to Architecture," Anthony Blunt delineates 82 the characteristics of High Roman Baroque: preference for large scale, irregular forms, movement, daring illusionism and directed light, and ornate materials.“ More recently Yves Bottineau in L;grt_harggne (1986) describes the ba- roque: dynamisme, jaillissement, ascension, deséquilibre, sinuosites, arabesques, instabilite, torsions en- core le noeud, tumulte, ondulation, agitation, dilatation, courbes et contre-courbes, vertiges et convulsions . . . mise en scene, illusion, leurre . . ., accumulation, ostentation, ornements, arti- fices, faste, surcharge, extravagance, redondance, exuberance, eloquence, débouche de decor . . . extase, pamoisons, ephemere, fugitif, instant, passage.“7 His description can be reduced to five major characteris- tics: movement, change, theatricality, decoration, and illusion. These elements we wish to illustrate with Val-de- Grace, a highlight of baroque architecture and fresco painting, celebrated by both Moliere and Roger de Piles, spokesmen of baroque creativity.‘° Since Minguet labels it "l’eglise la plus baroque parmi celles qui subsistent a Paris,"‘9 we can describe Val-de- Grece as an expression of liberties typical of the baroque. Significantly, the young Louis XIV laid the foundation stone in 1645, the same year that Rotrou’s Le_yeritah1e_Saint Seneet was performed at the Hetel de Bourgogne in Paris. Val-de-Grece exemplifies novelties and liberties, such as twisted and irregularly-spaced columns, which baroque archi- tects introduced by adapting artistic forms from the Greeks 83 and applying them to Christian churches.5° Although Bernini’s "colonnes torses" were criticized greatly, Reymond comments that trees rarely grow straight and round like a column and are often wrapped in ivy. He continues "la beaute, la tradition et les exemples de la nature"51 support its use. In the seventeenth century architects designed the antique colonnade as a portico in front of the church. Rather than designate the same amount of space between each of the columns, they widened the space between the central columns, thus marking the main entrances and inviting the participant/spectator to enter.52 As dramatic evidence of the baroque style in Val-de- Grace, framing the altar, the monumental baldachin, with six twisted columns delineating a stage for the enactment of the divine ritual, directs the spectator/participant’s attention to the magnificent cupola decorated with a fresco in which Mignard painted two hundred figures each one three times lifesize. The increased space between the columns in front of the alter encourages the spectator’s eyes to converge in that space causing the observers to marvel at the elaborate staging and to participate in the re-enactment of their salvation. Incorporating the spectator/participant in the dramatic action as the baroque architects do through their structural and artistic designs, Rotrou, in Le_yeritah1e Saint_§eneet, includes on stage the Roman spectators/ participants who instigate the representation of "The 84 Martyrdom of Adrian" and interact with the actors in this interior play. Pierre Charpentrat explains that in the seventeenth century "l’homme dans une ville, devant une facade de palais, dans une nef d’eglise devient avant tout specta- teur."53 In the design of the baldachin the spectator sees that in a dizzying movement the columns spiral upward as the curves glide one into another until the movement is stopped momentarily by six pedestals supporting lifelike angels. Once again the eye is enticed to continue looking up along the arches emerging from behind the angels and forming an airy, light, openwork dome which crowns the six columns. While the arches of the openwork dome repeat the curved lines of the columns, the designer changes them by enlarging them: consequently, he creates new vibrancy and life. With some of their hands gesturing toward the heavens, the tall angels reinforce the vertical directionality of the balda- chin, introduce the celestial realm into the structure itself, and lead the eyes to the decorative spike topping the crown. Finally, the spike points to Mignard’s fresco in the dome. By highlighting the altar and the fresco, light, radiating from the sky through the windows in the dome, accentuates the paradise Christians aspire to reach and reinforces the influence of the heavens on the world. Everything suggests movement, theatricality, and illu- sion: the twisted columns, the winged angels, the trompe 85 l’oeil dome, and the repetition of curves gracefully slip- ping into different sizes and forms. Central to the move- ment is the spontaneous change evidenced by the freeflowing transformation of curves and lines as they repeat, enlarge, contract and shift form. Although architecture, painting, and sculpture enjoy a more remarkable reputation in the seventeenth century, baroque water poetry also aptly reveals inconstancy, illu- sionism, and metamorphosis through its reflections, fluidi- ty, movement, shadows and light, reversible images and split images. The baroque poets suppress rigidity, control, and reason: spontaneity and freedom dominate their creative output and produce new and surprising interpretations of realitY- In W Marlies Kronegger points out: With them [the baroque poets] thinking and sensing live, move, and have their being within the vital medium of intuition. Their poetics takes us back into the one real world that was always there in its undivided wholeness. Their vision in its essence is the art of seeing into the nature of man’s own being, and it points the way from bond- age to freedom. Freedom for them is giving free play to all the creative impulses inherently lying in their hearts.54 Certain images in baroque water poetry illustrate the actor who, guided by intuition, spontaneously and flippantly slides from metamorphosis to metamorphosis while creating dramatic illusions. 86 In the ode "La Her" (1628) Tristan l’Hermite’s descrip- tion of the readily changing visible manifestation of water and its inherent potential to change and create new illu- sions to awe the spectators parallels the actor’s creative intuition and his facility and spontaneity in moving from one role to the next. Reinforcing this facile adaptation and change, Tristan the poet/protagonist, seeking consola- tion in nature for the death of his friend, shifts the temporal and spatial perspectives by including his remem- brances and visions of the sea linked in a free and even 5 incoherent manner.5 Tristan states his method at the beginning of his meditation: Nul plaisir ne me peut toucher Hors celui de m’aller coucher Sur le gazon d’une falaise on mon deuil se laissant charmer Me laisse rever a non aise Sur la majeste de la mer.56 Through this technique based on reverie, he paints pictures of the sea affected by lighting shifts from fiery sunlight to chiaroscuro to shadowy darkness by focusing on different moments of the day and on various days. Although viewing the sea from the height of a cliff, he precipitously plunges us to the bottom of the sea by evoking images of Neptune and Proteus, themselves activators of the changing mood of the sea.57 In addition to the spatial and perspective changes, the very nature of water invites visualization as a fluid susceptible to transformation in its common forms of lake, 87 river, and rain. Thus, the title "La Mer" immediately evokes a flowing liquid image, but, similar to the actor capable of switching roles from one performance to the next and even within the same performance, water continuously changes shape and form. Tristan quickly dispels the flowing liquid image and replaces it with a moving but solid mineral depiction of cut green jasper. He temporarily obliterates the fluidity associated with water and creates the illusion of a petri- fied world in continual movement and change: Le soleil a longs traits ardans Y donne encore de la grace, Et tasche a se mirer dedans Comme on feroit dans une glace: Mais les flots de vert emaillez Qui semblent des jaspes taillez S’entrederobent son visage: Et par de petits tremblements Font voir au lieu de son image Mille pointes de diamants. (108) While crystallizing the reflections of the sun on the water in "Mille pointes de diamants,"58 he introduces yet another metamorphosis. Once in contact with the water, the sun’s rays transform themselves into a thousand diamond fragments encrusted on the moving green jasper and become part of the solidified water image. Although the sun attempts to View itself in the water/"glace," the sun can see itself only in its new disguise through elusive shifting appearances which are other than the vision expected by the contemplator himself. Also personified, the waves, represented by the 88 enameled green jasper, now act as thieves stealing the sun’s image from each other. Transformations, caused by changing temporal and spa- tial perspectives, continue with dizzying rapidity in the course of the poem. At sunrise, the reflection of the sun, "ce grand flambeau," on the water gives birth to the image of water as flames, producing an array of bright colors, causing the viewer’s "etonnement," while on an overcast day water is reduced to water vapor condensed to fine particles as fog. Images of chiaroscuro emerge when the sun’s rays attempt to penetrate "un nuage epais et sombre" producing "montagnes d’ombre / Avec des sources de clarte" (109). The momentum of change continues, but the pace quickens. Nature cries: water evaporated into the air becomes rain. At the end of a shower, through the interplay of air and drops of water in refraction and reflection, Iris, the ephemeral rainbow, displays her magnificent spectrum in a colorful spectacle based on vapor and inconstancy and, in the pro- cess, she delights the spectator. Tristan remarks that she "vient etaler dans la nue / Toutes les delices des yeux" (109). Since the rainbow slowly vanishes, the spectator is faced also with a diminishing intensity of colors. Rapidly shifting perspective, Tristan describes water transforming itself into waves of glass and silver breaking on the shores, and once again water attests to its fragility, 89 inconstancy, and facility in substituting one form for another. Plunging us to the depths of the sea for a view from yet another perspective, stanza 3 firmly establishes the inherently fickle and mutable nature of the sea by introduc- ing Neptune/Poseidon, the sea’s ruler who resides in a splendid palace beneath the sea. His son Proteus, another undersea inhabitant, changes his shape at will. Neptune activates the sea’s temperament shifts; shaking his three- pronged spear, he causes earthquakes, tidal waves, and storms. While driving his golden chariot over the seas, he calms them and produces favorable winds. Water and sea incarnate fluidity, plasticity, incon- stancy, movement, and reflections. Using an oxymoron to describe its evasive nature, La Fontaine in "Le Songe de Vaux" defines water as a "liquide cristal" existing in "plus de cent formes differentes" (Rousset, 1, 219). Rousset in W equates water with a chameleon: "l’eau se change en mille et mille formes, . . . C’est un cameleon qui s’habille de toutes les couleurs."59 An actor is like water and the sea which, according to Tristan, can "dissimule[r] son insolence" (108) by wearing thousands of varied masks in order to portray different characters and assume multiple shapes. However, as in the case of the illusion of water as a petrified mineral jasper, water can return to its original state: ice 90 flowing water. An actor also conceals himself and reveals himself as he moves in and out of roles, but ultimately is capable of easily recovering his own identity. Reason or Sense Experience Rotrou’s Le_yeritahie_Saint_Seneet resourcefully inte- grates the classical demand for action generated by rules and reason only to highlight the baroque aesthetics based on sense experiences, diversity, novelty, liberty, and facile metamorphosis. .During the interior play "The Martyrdom of Adrian," the Roman actor Flavie/Sergeste, addressing Adrian/ Genest in regard to rumors of his alleged conversion, presents the prevailing Roman perspective and explanation for Adrian’s possible defection to Christianity. He criti- cizes sense impressions and elevates reason: Les uns, que pour railler cette erreur s’est semee, D’autres, que quelque sort a votre eme charmee, D’autres, que le venin de ces lieux infectes Contre votre raison a vos sens revoltes.‘° This Roman perspective negatively views sense experience and Adrian’s conversion as the product of a magic spell or of a poisonous venom. However, in the principal play, Genest, in reaction to hearing a voice from heaven, reveals his suscep- tibility to being touched by sense impression and the marvelous: 91 Qu’entends-je, juste ciel, et par quelle merveille Pour me toucher le coeur me frappes-tu l’oreille? (2.4.425-26). Finally prompted by divine intervention and responding to his sense impressions, Genest, an experienced, talented, and highly-acclaimed pagan Roman actor known for his ability to transform himself, annihilates the dramatic text, subverts logic and reason, and spontaneously transforms himself into a Christian believer who has come to life in order to tran- scend earthly reality. He succumbs to his irrational pas- sions, which according to Wilfried Floeck,61 determine the movement of the baroque theatre, and he becomes an actor in God’s theatre. In reaction to this baroque emphasis on sense experi- ence, liberty, spontaneity, and change demonstrated in Le yeritahie_Saint_§eneet, classical aesthetics insists there is no "genie" or talent without art. For classical aes- thetics, art consists of ”un code de regles, dicte par une raison immanente, qui a travers les individus assure la continuite de la doctrine et de la critique."62 Rules, order, and control attempt to suppress the liberty and the free-flowing movement and change evident in representations of baroque artistic expression such as Val-de-Grece, the ode "La Mer," and Le_yeritahle_Saint_Seneet. According to classical theory, only a well-written dramatic text based on the classical rules and relying on verisimilitude as its backbone facilitates and enhances the actor’s "jeu" and 92 consequently, contributes to the positive aesthetic reaction of the audience. Supporting this aesthetics, Scudéry, d’Aubignac, and Corneille attribute some of the shortcomings in an actor’s performance to the dramatic poet who has not analyzed and prepared for the actor’s potential successful metamorphosis and dramatizations through the creation of a believable and actable text. For these theorists, once the author has written an actable text, the actors must carefully study and evaluate the text to understand it and then plan and prepare their portrayals to coincide completely with the dramatic text and to achieve verisimilitude. Let us examine this classical aesthetics of acting sketched in the theoretical works of Scudéry, d’Aubignac, and Corneille and in the critical praise of Montdory, the reputed greatest actor of the seventeenth century. We shall then see how the classical aesthetics underscores and undermines Rotrou’s vision of acting which reflects baroque artistic and liter- ary expression by incorporating the primacy of sense experi- ence, spontaneity, improvisation, and facile metamorphosis as revealed in W NOTES 1 Wilfried Floeck, Esthetigne de la diyereite; Eonr nne histeire gu haregne litteraire en France, trans. Gilles Floret (Paris: Papers on French Seventeenth Century Litera- ture, 1989) 24. 1 Floeck 24. 3 Bray 359. ‘ Floeck 45. 5 Floeck 35. 6 Floeck 57-59. 7 Floeck 72. 9 Germain Bazin, a o ' Megee, Themes (New York: Norton, 1968) 8-9. 9 Cited in Floeck 72. 1° Floeck 74. 11 See Pascal 85-139 for a discussion of man’s belief in God. 1’ Gisele Mathieu-Castellani, "Discours baroque, discours manieriste Pygmalion et Narcisse," Qneetiennenent dn_haregne, ed. Alphonse Vermeylen (Louvain-la-Neuve: College Erasme, 1986) 71. 13 Mathieu-Castellani 71. 1‘ Floeck 136-37. 15 Bazin 9. 1‘ Jean Rousset, "Peut-on definir le baroque?", Ereneh Saregne by Philippe Minguet (Paris: Hazan, 1988) 388. 17 Jean Rousset. ed. Anth2lQgie_de_la_poesie_harogue. vol. 2 (Paris: Colin, 1968) 11-12. All further references, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in parentheses. 1° Floeck 56-57. 93 94 19 Cited in Floeck 47. 2° Floeck 59. 21 Floeck 56. 22 Floeck 55. 23 Floeck 245. 2‘ Bray 151-57. 25 Floeck 142-43. See Bray 49-62 for a discussion of the cult of Aristotle and 34-48 for an examination of Italian theorists. 27 Bray 359. 2° Floeck 245. 29 Marcel Reymond, "De Michel-Ange a Tiepolo," Eranee Sarggne by Philippe Minguet (Paris: Hazen, 1988) 386. 3° Giulio Carolo Argan, The_Saregne_Age (New York: Rizzoli, 1989) 9. 31 Fernand Hallyn, E9rmes_metaphgrigues_dans_la_peesie lyrigue_de_liege_barcgue_en_firance (Geneve: Droz, 1975) 41. 32 E. Littre, "Merveilleux," Dictiennaire de la langne frangaiee (Paris: Hachette, 1875) 528. ’3 Kronegger. "Games," Bapers_gn_Erench_§eyenteenth Century_Literature 272- 75- 3‘ Moliere, Qenyree_eemplete§, ed. Pierre-Aime Touchard. (Paris: Seuil, 1962) 665-68. Moliere glorifies baroque aesthetics by praising Mignard’s fresco in Val-de- Grace for its invention, diversity, movement, chiaroscuro effects, and the ability to dazzle the spectator. 3’ See E. Leonardy, "Les Fetes de cour baroques," ' , ed. Alphonse Vermeylen (Louvain- la-Neuve: College Erasme, 1986) 121-28 for a discussion of "Repraesentatio et glorificatio majestatis." Don Diego Saavedra Fajardo, a Spanish diplomat in the court of Philippe IV and author of "Idea de un Principe Politice Cristiano" (1640) considers the glory of the prince as proof of the prestige and power of the country he represents. In France, Louis XIV, writing his Memeirea during the ’Classical Age’ states that the first duty of the prince is 95 the realization of "sa propre splendeur et sa propre magnif- icence . . ." and the rulers’ first goal always must be "la conservation de notre gloire et de notre autorite" (124-25). 3‘ Leonardy 119. Each "fete de cour" is an original work of art orchestrated by an artistic director who draws from past traditions, genres, and forms, looks for inspira- tion in the "fetes de cour baroques" of other European countries, and then relies on his freedom and creative imagination to outshine the others. Incorporating fire- works, water, theatre, ballet, tournaments, and "le trionfo," he strives to produce a unified spectacle from these diverse components. Theatrical machines and trompe l’oeil devices create an atmosphere of illusion and enchant- ment to dazzle both the spectators and the participants. 37 Leonardy 119. 3° Bazin 11. During the sixteenth century man estab- lished and maintained his identity through the exercise of power in continual conquest symbolized by Hercules chained to his interminable tasks and exemplified by Charles V. During the ’Classical Age’ represented by Louis XIV, the prototype of the royal idea, power belongs to the king by divine right. For the monarch the "fetes de cour baroques" filled the void left by divine-right monarchs who exercise classical restraint and avoid displays of power and grandeur through conquest. In the shift to the divine-right theory of ruling, the Olympian god Apollo replaced the demi-god Hercules as the symbol of power and monarchy. 3’ Bazin 47-48. ‘° Cited in Minguet 46. ‘1 Cited in Minguet 45. ‘2 Bazin 12. ‘3 Argan 7. 1‘ Victor Tapié, Le_Saregne (Paris: Presses universi- taires de la France, 1968) 6. ‘5 Tapié 6. ‘6 Anthony Blunt, "Some Uses and Misuses of the Terms Baroque and Rococo as Applied to Architecture," Bmceedings gfi_the_flriti§h_Aeagemy, vol. 58 (London: Oxford UP, 1974) 219. ‘7 Cited by Minguet 22. 96 ‘3 See Bernard Teyssedre, Reger_ge_2ilee (Paris: La Bibliotheque des Arts, 1957) 92-120 for a commentary on Moliere’s poem "Gloire du Val-de—Grece" and the conflict between the Academy and Roger de Piles who supports baroque aesthetics by contending that color, light, and shading are as important as drawing in a painting. ‘9 Minguet 52. Anne of Austria, at 37, was married twenty-three years and did not have any children. In return for a child, she promised God to have a magnificent church constructed. After Louis XIV’s birth she kept her vow. Francois Mansart drew the plans for Val-de-Grece. In 1646, dissatisfied with the slow pace of construction, Anne re- placed Mansart with Le Mercier who followed Mansart’s plans. Upon his death in 1655 Pierre le Muet and Gabriel 1e Duc completed the church in 1667. 5° Reymond, "De Michel-Ange a Tiépolo. EIQDQ§_B§IQQn§. 385. 51 Reymond 385. Reymond 385. 53 Cited by Minguet 18. 5‘ Marlies Kronegger. WM Saregne_Beetry (New York: Lang, 1988) xv-xvi. 55 Floeck 97. 56 F. Tristan L’Hermite, Egeeiee, ed. Philip A. Wadsworth (Paris: Seghers, 1962) 107. All further referenc- es to this work will be included in the text. ”7 Floeck 98. 5“ Today through a special photographic process each diamond can be identified as different from every other diamond. This system aids police in identifying stolen or lost diamonds. As a result, the diversity involved in the change is magnified when one considers that each diamond is absolutely unique. 5’ Jean Rousset. WW Eranee (Paris: Corti, 1954) 143. 66° Jean Rotrou. WW. magnum xyTT__eiee1e, ed. Jacques Scherer (Paris: Gallimard, 1975) 2.8.539-42. All further references, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in paren- theses. 61 Floeck, 198. 6’ Bray, 355. 97 CHAPTER 3 FROM DRAMATIC TEXT TO PERFORMANCE 98 99 Primacy of the Dramatic Text Before beginning his discussion of what constitutes an excellent actor, Scudéry, as early as 1639 in LLADQIQgi§_QQ theatre, re-establishes the relevance of the "performance triangle": the inter-relationship of dramatic text, perfor- mance, and aesthetic reaction. Then relegating actors to a secondary role with a striking visual image from Antiquity, Scudéry compares actors to the statue of Memnon because "11 falloit que le Soleil regardast pour la faire parler" (84). To reinforce this concrete simile and to eradicate any possible misinterpretation he reaffirms the actors’ predica- ment, "ne pouvants rien dire sans les Poetes" (84). In the forefront of his acting theory is the actor’s dependence on both author and dramatic text and, by extension, the para- mount importance of author and text. Without the dramatic text there is no actor. For the Abbe d’Aubignac, who was already in the process of writing La_2ratigne_gn_theatre in 1640 according to a letter of Chapelain dated March 8, 1640,1 excellent acting begins with an aware author recognizing and utilizing dra- matic techniques which facilitate the actor’s performance. Since the poet expresses himself through "la bouche des Acteurs: i1 n’y peut emploier d’autres moiens . . ." (45), d’Aubignac places the initial burden of producing good acting directly on the dramatic poet and establishes the actor as the voice of the poet. He explicitly states: 100 On ne doit pas attendre ici des instructions pour ceux qui jouent la Tragedie, ou la Comédie; je regarde en ce Discours le Poete seulement, & non pas les Histrions: ce chapitre est compose de quelques observations tree-necessaires pour une parfaite disposition du Poeme Dramatique, & qui conveniennent aux Personnages que l’on y veut introduire. (245) By visualizing the enactment of his lines and scenes as he constructs the dramatic text, the poet can incorporate safeguards that will propel the actors toward acceptable and believable stage representation. D’Aubignac expresses complete dependence on a dramatic text, anticipates poten- tial problems actors may encounter in stage representation, and suggests solutions. Rather than opt for spontaneity and improvisation, d’Augibnac bases his approach on logic and reason. How does a dramatist promote the spectator’s apprecia- tion of the actor’s performance? D’Aubignac focuses on plot comprehension, the character’s presence on stage, and his psychological state. By including the names, locations, situations, and gestures in the poetic lines delivered, the poet can shift the viewer’s attention from a struggle to comprehend the plot to the recognition of the beauty of the poetic lines, and the spectators can begin to easily lose themselves in the illusion (251). When the main character or actor appears on stage from the beginning, as Genest does, the audience has ample time to develop a relationship with the character.2 101 The main actor’s presence dominates the stage time and draws the spectators into the reality of the drama because these principal actors are "les mieux vetus," and in speak- ing they are "les plus agreables au peuple, . . . ils ont les plus belles choses a dire, & les plus grands sentimens a faire eclatter [sic], en quoi consiste a vrai dire, toute la force & tous les charmes du Theatre" (256). He urges the poet: "De ne point faire par recit, ce que les principaux Acteurs peuvent vraisemblablement faire eux-memes sur la Scene, & de no point cacher derriere la Tapisserie les discours & les passions qui peuvent eclater par la bouche" (257). The spectators lose contact temporarily with their own reality and become absorbed in the "reality" of the actors and the theatrical illusion to the point that "le spectateur espere & craint pour eux, 11 se rejofiit & s’afflige avec eux . . ." (256). Thus, the actor becomes another and the audience empathizes with the reality of the transformed other, as in Le_yeritahle_Saint_Seneet. According to d’Aubignac the author’s responsibilities include the creation of the appropriate psychological state for an eXperienced actor’s first appearance. Two preferred states emerge from his discussion: (a) "un sentiment fort modere & sans emotion" which reflects the natural state of the actor "dont l’eme est en quelque tranquilité & sans emotion," or (b) "un sentiment impetueux" because experience has demonstrated to what point "leur voix & leur geste se 102 doivent emporter pour exprimer une grande & violente agita- tion" (258). Both the principal play in Le_yeritah1e_Saint Seneet and the interior play "Le Martyre d’Adrian" are consistent with d’Aubignac’s expectations. When Genest appears for the first time in the main play, the audience has already learned of Valerie’s appreciation for Genest’s acting. Consequently, Genest enters an accepting environ- ment and is in a state "sans emotion." In his initial appearance of the interior play, Rotrou places Genest, playing Adrian, in the state of a "sentiment impetueux" which is once again compatible with the directives d’Aubignac later publishes. Genest indicates his resolve to become a Christian and to suffer valiantly tortures and martyrdom. Genest/Adrian says: Si la gloire te plait, l’occasion est belle: La querelle du Ciel a ce combat t’appelle: La torture, le fer et la flamme t’attend. (2.7.479-81) In the 1988 production Michel Aumont, playing Genest screams out these lines, releases Genest’s repressed emotions, and admirably demonstrates d’Aubignac’s point. D’Aubignac cautions authors to avoid depicting an actor’s initial appearance in a mental state of "un juste milieu" or what he calls a "demi-Passion . . . qui sorte un peu de la tranquillite naturelle de l’esprit, & qui ne s’eleve pas neamoins jusqu’a la derniere violence . . ." (258). If an actor must present himself in a state of 103 "demi-Passion," it is important that the actor include several verses or lines of "un sentiment plus tranquille avant que de le porter dans la demi-Passion, afin que son esprit s’echauffe pen a peu, que sa voix s’eleve par degrez, & que son geste s’emeuve avec son discours" (259). In d’Aubignac’s opinion, since the dramatic poem controls the success of the actor’s performance, the dramatic poet must consciously write an actable text, and the actor must follow it. Corneille, similar to d’Aubignac, places responsibility on the dramatic poet to create an actable dramatic text: he emphasizes compatible beliefs, language choice, and a clear concise text. Corneille cautions poets to establish confor- mity between the "moeurs" of the spectators and those of the actors to prevent a "decalage" between the two groups. In "Discours de la tragédie" he states: "pour bien reussir il faut interesser l’auditoire pour les premiers acteurs" (827). Since actors are not themselves necessarily poets, language "net" and versification "aisee et elevée au dessus de la prose" (827), but not attaining levels of epic poetry, facilitate the actors’ delivery. In addition, overloading the spectator’s mind with past background information de- tracts from spectator comprehension and attention: Ces narrations importunent d’ordinaire, parce qu’elles ne sont pas attendues, et qu’elles genent l’esprit de l’auditeur, qui est oblige de charger sa memoire de ce qui s’est fait dix ou douze ans 104 auparavant, pour comprendre ce qu’il voit representer . . . (842). Not having the luxury of rereading that the reader enjoys, the spectator is compelled to continually progress with the movement and plot of the play. For example, as we shall see later, because of their cultural conditioning the Roman spectators miss or misconstrue clues which would predispose them to suspect Genest’s impending conversion. Corneille recognizes that the actor recites and performs: no instant replay updates the audience on lost or misinterpreted infor- mation or cues. Corneille, unlike d’Aubignac, emphasizes that excellent performance compensates for deficiencies in the dramatic text because the visual and auditory components contribute to audience comprehension. In agreement with Aristotle, Corneille contends, however, that the dramatic author must insure that a dramatic text be "aussi belle a la lecture qu’a la representation," (844) and he has to make "facile a l’imagination du lecteur tout ce que le theatre présente a la vue des spectateurs" (844). Through his "jeu" an actor can in reality make the audience understand what needs to be inserted in marginal notes in the dramatic text to increase reader comprehension. He states: Le comédien y supplee aisement sur le theatre, mais sur le livre on serait assez souvent reduit a deviner, et quelquefois meme on pourrait deviner mal, a moins que d’etre instruit par la de ces petites choses. (843) 105 Although Corneille credits talented and creative Parisian actors with the ability to comprehend, interpret, and sup- plement a dramatic text correctly, he criticizes actors in the provinces for their misinterpretations, their "étranges contre-temps" (844). Since these actors have little if any contact with the author, his stage directions in the margin or descriptions within the poetic lines contribute to ac- ceptable performances. Corneille attests to the importance of the actor’s gestures, movements, tone of voice, and appearance to convey meaning: nevertheless, the dramatic text remains significant. Like Corneille, Rotrou, through Diocletian, recognizes the powerful impact of an actor’s voice, body movements, and gestures on viewer reaction. Diocletian explains: Qu’un seul mot, quand tu veux, un pas, une action Et, par une soudaine et sensible merveille Jette la joie au coeur par l’oeil ou par l’oreille. (1.5.247-50) In this quotation, Rotrou elevates sense experience, the performer’s voice and body language acting on the spectator, by equating it with the marvelous; then he describes how this sense experience produces an emotional response. In these lines from act 1 Rotrou already prepares the viewer for Genest’s initial spontaneous acceptance of the Voice in act 2 as a miraculous one from heaven. Although Genest rejects this thought a few lines later as a "vaine creance 106 et frivole pensee" (2.4.433), his first reaction demon- strates his receptivity to sense experience in his role as spectator/actor in God’s theatre. Although Rotrou agrees with Corneille’s appreciation of the importance of gestural rhetoric, Rotrou reveals his baroque orientation through Genest’s initial spontaneous acceptance of God’s interven- tion in his life. Corneille, reflecting the classical aesthetics, points out the beneficial effects of an actor’s voice and gesture, which the reader lacks, on audience comprehension: Rotrou focuses on the actor’s ability through sense experience to create emotion in the spectators. While Corneille addresses the danger posed by incompe- tent actors, Rotrou, years before Corneille’s "Discours," points out that an actor, talented in gestural rhetoric, improvisation, and metamorphosis, can mislead the audience as easily as gaps or deficiencies in the dramatic text. For example, although Genest attempts to reveal his conversion to Christianity, his departure from the dramatic text, through the expression of his real feelings and thoughts, results in additional praise from the Roman spectators who believe he is realistically portraying illusion. Diocletian comments: Voyez avec quel art Genest sait aujourd’hui Passer de la figure aux sentimens d’autrui. (4.5.1261-62) 107 In Diocletian’s opinion, Genest’s metamorphosis into the Christian Adrian is not only successful on the surface level of exterior appearances, but also on the level of his por- trayal of feelings. Since Genest is improvising the text while revealing his own conversion, the Roman audience is deceived precisely because Genest is an outstanding actor capable of spontaneity and improvisation. The Actor’s Contribution In spite of their insistence on the dramatic text as the cornerstone upon which excellent productions are creat- ed, seventeenth-century classical theorists and critics admit that actors contribute markedly to the success of a play. In addition to crediting the actor’s "jeu" with the function of providing additional information for audience comprehension, Corneille, in "Discours du poeme dramatique," associates much of the success of Tristan’s Mariane (1636) to the actor Montdory’s portrayal of Herod: Et quoique son auteur eut bien merite ce beau succes par le grand effort d’esprit qu’il avait a feindre les desespoirs de ce Monarque, peut-etre que l’excellence de l’acteur qui en soutenoit le personnage y contribuoit beaucoup. (829) Although Scudéry attacked Le_§ig° and wished to discredit Corneille in "Observations sur le gig," his comments on the actors highlight his recognition that talented actors 108 contribute to successful productions and compensate for a poor dramatic poem. For him, however, talented actors are undoubtedly ones who think through their roles and then carefully rehearse. His "Lettre a l’Academie Francaise," written before June 16, 1637 when the Academy met, comments: je remarque tant de deffaux, qui n’avoit de beautez que celle que ces agreables trompeurs qui la representoient luy savoient prestees, et que Mondory, la Villiers, et leurs compagnons n’estans pas dans le livre comme sur le Theatre, le gig imprime n’estoit plus 1e Cid Que l’on a creu vo1r . . . Que trois ou quatre de cette celebre Compagnie, luy ont corrige tant de fautes, qui parurent aux premieres representations de son Poeme . . .‘ Jean-Louis Guez de Balzac, a member of the Academie Francaise known for letters dealing with general, moral, literary, and philosophical problems, zeroes in on the actor as creator. Prior to the representation of Le_§ig (1637) in a letter dated April 3, 1635 from Balzac to Boisrobert, Balzac designates the actor a "second pere" and elevates the actor to a creative role comparable to that of the author: la grece dont il prononce, donne un degre de beaute aux vers qu’ils ne peuvent recevoir des poetes vulgaires. Ils ont donc quelquefois plus d’obligation a celui qui la recite qu’a celui qui les a faits, et ce second pere, pour le dire ainsi, les purge par son adoption de tous les vices de leur naissance.s The actor gives birth to a new work not only by removing defects but also by bringing it to life with his delivery. 109 Nevertheless, the actor is not creating his own text as we see Genest do in Le_yeritahie_Saint_Seneet. Unlike Scudéry, who might be accused of inflating the contribution of actors to a so-called inferior dramatic text as Le_gig in order to deflate Corneille’s literary stature, in a later letter, Balzac supports Corneille’s literary talent and is not attempting to detract from his creative genius by acknowledging the contributions of actors as superior to those of the playwright. In "Lettre de Monsieur de Balzac a Monsieur de Scudéry sur ses ’Observations du eia'" (1638) Balzac retorts: C’est ce que vous reprochez a l’autheur du gig, qui vous advouant qu’il a viole les regles de l’art, vous oblige de luy avouer qu’il a un se- cret, qui a mieux reussi que l’art mesme; . . . 6 Balzac’s comment demonstrates that at the time Corneille wrote Le_gig, he was not steeped in classical aesthetic theory and was not concerned with following the rules. In fact, his comedies of the 1630’s are examples of a baroque aesthetic vision.7 Significantly, in addition to acknowl- edging the actor’s creative contribution to the dramatic text in performance, Balzac recognizes that conformity to rules and accepted practice does not always insure a great work of art. 110 The Importance of Verisimilitude in Acting Even though the classical theorists do not specifically list the characteristics of an excellent actor in their theoretical writings, Corneille’s and d’Aubignac’s descriptions of Montdory and Scudéry’s portrait of the "mauvais comédiens" in Antiquity highlight the importance of an excellent actor’s forethought, preparation, and planning before performance. All three theorists and other critics praise Montdory as the ideal, best, most-admired actor of their time; therefore, we can assume that those qualities they praise shed light on their aesthetics of acting. Corneille refers to Montdory as Roscius,8 the celebrated Roman actor emulated and revered in Antiquity, while the Abbe d’Aubignac calls him "le Premier Acteur" (259) and illustrates several of his acting techniques in La_2ratigne gn_theatre. Although Scudéry refuses to enumerate contempo- rary fine actors to avoid embarrassment to the inferior ones not listed, he does contend that "le fameux, MQDQQIY. a certainement eu peu d’esgaux, dans les Siecles passez ny dans le nostre . . ." (89). In the same way, the Roman emperor Diocletian, speaking to Genest, confirms that this successful actor also has reached the pinnacle of fame: Le theatre aujourd’hui, fameux par ton merite, A ce noble plaisir puissamment sollicite: Et dans l’etat qu’il est ne peut sans etre ingrat, Nier de te devoir son plus brillant eclat. (1.5.229-30) 111 What forms the basis of Montdory’s and Genest’s reputations and what is the desired goal of actors studying the blunders of the "mauvais comédiens" in Antiquity? The primary principle emerging from the theoretical evidence is that the actor's "jeu" must incarnate verisimil- itude: illusion must seem to be reality. The classical aesthetics demands that the dramatist create an illusion of reality based on reason and rules, choose a believable subject, and construct a dramatic text according to the unities of time, place, and action. This requirement of verisimilitude extends to the actor’s realistic portrayal of his character which incorporates his total adherence to the dramatic text. In conformity with this aesthetics, Genest initially explains to the newly elevated Roman emperor Maximin, a witness to Adrian’s martyrdom, that he intends to portray Adrian’s martyrdom so realistically that the Roman audience will not be able to distinguish the play from reality. He comments: Elle sera sans peine, Si votre nom, Seigneur, nous est libre en la scene: Et la mort d’Adrian l’un de ces obstines Par vos derniers arrets naguere condamnes, Vous sera figuree avec un art extreme, Et si peu different de la verite meme Que vous nous avouerez de cette liberte on Cesar a Cesar sera represente, Et que vous douterez si dans Nicomedie Vous verrez l’effet meme ou bien la comedie. (1.5.297-306) 112 In contrast, however, as the interior play "Le Martyr d’Adrian" progresses, Genest/Adrian, a baroque protagonist, through his metamorphosis into a Christian, abandons the dramatic text, terminates the representation, and ultimately subverts the principle of verisimilitude by actually con- verting illusion into reality. While classical aesthetics emphasizes verisimilitude, Rotrou, through Genest’s real conversion, finally, undermines the classical aesthetics and points out the danger to the actor inherent in successful imitation. Jean Rousset describes Rotrou’s warning: Aux yeux d’un Rotrou, on n’entre pas impunement dans un rele. Le theatre detient un étrange pouvoir: le personnage s’empare de la personne et l’annule pour la creer a son image . . . Au con- tact de la scene, aire magique, le comédien court le danger mortel de l’absorption.9 Only after his conversion does Genest’s expressed intention of portraying Adrian’s martyrdom "si peu different de la verite meme" reveal the threat to the actor who makes illu- sion seem reality. Ignoring this potential threat to the actor, Corneille, d’Aubignac, and the critics focus on four significant fac— tors in their praise of Montdory’s ability to blur the distinction between illusion and reality while Scudéry condemns incompetent performers because of their disregard for these guidelines: (a) comprehension of and adherence to the written text, which involves forethought, reason, plan- ning, and rehearsal, to effectively convey the author’s 113 meaning: (b) effective use of language and compatible use of body movements, gestures, and tone of voice to facilitate audience comprehension and appreciation; (c) the actor’s carefully designed and rehearsed portrayal of emotions consistent with the role he plays and the transfer of emo- tion to the spectator; (d) the actor’s planned transforma- tion into the character he plays. In addition, Rotrou bases the Romans’ praise of Genest’s acting on his creation of verisimilitude: in fact, we witness a partial rehearsal in which Marcelle asks Genest to critique her portrayal of the required emotional state. However, Rotrou’s baroque vision highly values the marvelous and sense experience, spontaneity, improvisation, and facile transformation in order to demonstrate Absolute Truth while the classical aesthetics focuses on reason, rules, and plan- ning. MQDLQQI¥1__ThR_2IQIQIYRS_Q£_Ih§_EXQ§ll£nL_AQLQI_in QiassieaLIheer Corneille’s Latin "Excuse," written years before the "Discours du poeme dramatique," praises Montdory and defines his excellence in terms of one of the four criteria which support verisimilitude. The dramatist insists on the actor’s attention to body movements, delivery, and his entire person: 114 Mais d’ailleurs la scene est 13, et le geste et le debit nous secondent, et, 51 l’oeuvre est impar- faite, Roscius la complete. Les passages languis- sants, il les releve, toute sa personne contribue au succes, et de la peut-etre viennent, aussi a mes vers et leur feu et leur grace.1° The specific word "debit" the delivery of an orator, re- flects the strong influence of rhetoric and oratory on the typical acting style of the time. Although he never at- tained his goal, Bellerose, actor and orator of the troupe of the Hotel de Bourgogne, tried to reform acting by at- tempting to approach a natural state in recitation and to eliminate the false, artificial, inflated, and bombastic 1 While Corneille confirms that oratorical style in vogue.1 an actor functions as a corrective to a possibly ineffective or deficient dramatic text, he emphasizes "toute sa personne," including facial expressions, eye movements, body movement, and voice, combine to add fire and grace to his verses. In the course of complaining to Genest about the "faux courtisans" she abandoned in her dressing room, Marcelle describes her fans’ adoration and love by focusing on the gestural acting criteria for which both Montdory and Genest are famous. The rhetoric of gesture emerges as such a significant part of the actor’s art that it colors percep- tions of her everyday experiences and interactions with people. She comments: 115 Par combien d’attentats j’entreprends sur les sens! Ma voix rendrait les bois et les rochers sensibles: Mes plus simples regards sont des meurtres visibles: Je foule autant de coeurs que je marche de pas: La troupe, en me perdant, perdrait tous ses appas. (2.3.352-56) Not only does Rotrou highlight the importance of voice, eye movements, and gestures in the art of the actor, he reaches beyond classical aesthetics and once again emphasizes that sense experiences can create an emotional and irrational reaction in the spectator. Marcelle’s simple looks at her ardent admirers become "meurtres visibles": they are com- pletely overwhelmed by passion for her. In this way, Rotrou prepares us for Genest’s irrational reaction to the Voice, flames, and angels. In the seventeenth century la parole n’a rien d’abstrait et ne se concoit pas sans l’intervention du corps d’ou elle est issue: les preceptes de la rhetorique sont sur ce point en convergence totale avec les theories drama- tiques.12 While language is paramount, language works most effectively in conjunction with body movement to complete its meaning. Rotrou capitalizes on this collaboration of language and body movement to spotlight man’s irrational response to sense experience. Although d’Aubignac’s treatise primarily advises play- wrights on dramatic construction, he, too, proposes as a prototype for actors the experienced and admired Montdory, proficient in the creation of verisimilitude. D’Aubignac 116 also describes Montdory’s effective use of gesture, but he surpasses the commentaries of Scudéry and Corneille by picturing how Montdory utilizes body movements to create a "demi-Passion" when it is his first appearance on stage during a performance. The creation of a "demi-Passion," or "un mouvement un peu plus agité que l’assiete ordinaire de notre ame, & moins qu’un transport violent" requires much more study and talent than either "un sentiment fort modere & sans emotion" or "un sentiment fort impetueux" (257). Therefore, consistent with his belief in the primacy of the dramatic text and its foundation in planning and reason, d’Aubignac advises playwrights to avoid introducing actors on stage for the first time in a state of "demi-Passion." Nevertheless, Montdory, as d’Aubignac demonstrates, mastered the technique of portraying the "demi-Passion": car avant que de parler dans ces occasions, 11 se promenoit quelque temps sur le Theatre comme revant, s’agitant un peu, brandant la tete, levant & baissant les yeux, & prenant diverses postures selon le sentiment qu’il devoit exprimer: ce qu’il faisoit, a non avis, pour s’animer un peu & se mettre au point de bien representer une demi- passion se tirant par ce moien de la froideur naturelle avec laquelle i1 entroit sur la Scene [sic], & se donnant a lui-meme la retenue necessaire pour ne se pas emporter trop violemment. Tout cela se connoitra veritable par les reflexions que le Poete pourra faire au Theatre, & par la conversation de nos Comédiens qui l’ont plusieurs fois experimente. (257) There is a very definite preparation time leading up to the representation of this passion. In addition to the author’s 117 apparent planning in writing the text, the outstanding actor too reflects and develops the appropriate mind set to real- istically imitate and reproduce the difficult "demi- Passion." What characterizes a "passion" in the seventeenth century? In the classical View, it is "une emotion declen- chee par la perception d’un spectacle lorsque celui-c1 agit assez fortement sur les sens pour creer au moins l’amorce d’un desordre physiologique."13 In this interpretation passion includes joy, pity, fear, anger and so on. Des- cartes in W states: Ainsi ceux qui sont portes de leur naturel aux emotions de la joie et de la pitie ou de la peur, ou de la colere, ne peuvent s’empecher de pamer, ou de pleurer, ou de trembler, ou d’avoir 1e sang tout emu, en meme facon que s'ils avaient la fievre, lorsque leur fantasia est fortement touchee par l’objet de quelqu’une de ces passions.1‘ Throughout the seventeenth century, artists, who patterned their techniques on those of the classical rhetoric of Cicero, Quintellian, and Aristotle, vividly demonstrate this expression of passion.15 In contrast, in "The Ecstacy of Saint Teresa" (1645-52) Bernini follows the account of the Spanish mystic herself describing the angel who thrust a spear into her heart which produced her burning love of God. The artist depicts St. Teresa’s spontaneous and passionate response to the intervention of the "merveilleux chretien" in her life. Bernini, using the rhetoric of gesture to 118 highlight her passion, portrays the saint in a "collapsed attitude" with "her mouth Open as if moaning" and "a pas- sionate expression on her face," while her garments in "turbulent agitation" also reflect her state of bodily and spiritual transport."16 According to Germain Bazin this gestural rhetoric was popular with artists of the seventeenth century, and they "probably borrowed it from the art of acting."17 When an actor incorporates this physiological response, it is ex- tremely difficult to present himself for the first time on stage at an emotional midpoint. Bernini’s baroque interpre- tation of gestural rhetoric focuses on Saint Teresa’s in- stantaneous and spontaneous passionate response to the "merveilleux," while d’Aubignac’s classical orientation singles out Montdory’s reliance on thought and reason in recreating an emotional state. In d’Aubignac’s estimation, why is Montdory successful in creating the "demi-Passion" and, by extension, any other emotional state? He achieves verisimilitude by reflecting and carefully planning and warming up to the appropriate gesture and movement. The emotional state Montdory creates coincides with the perceived emotional state of the charac- ter he portrays. Through control and experience and talent he attains the middle ground; he begins with "la froideur naturelle avec laquelle il entroit sur la Scene [sic]," and reaches "la retenue necessaire pour ne se pas emporter trop 119 violemment." Often actors do not perfect their depiction of a "demi-Passion": consequently, their acting seems false, unreal, and precipitates in "les risees du peuple dans les plus serieux endroits d’un Poeme" (258). Such laughter disrupts the play, detracts from the tragic tone, and breaks the illusion of reality. In a letter dated April 3, 1635 Balzac claims Montdory’s powerful acting ability moves even the most recalcitrant spectator to believe that an illusion is reali- ty. He writes: "I1 n’est point d’ame si bien fortifiee, contre les objets des sens, a qui il [Montdory] ne fasse violence, ni de jugement si fin, qui se puisse garantir de l’imposture de sa parole."1° In this quotation, conquest imagery and Balzac’s use of negatives emphasize that Montdory deludes even the most discriminating spectator characterized by a "jugement si fin." Alluding to military imagery and incorporating the force of "ne . . . point," Balzac emphasizes that no spectator’s soul is "bien forti- fiee" against Montdory’s attack. During the seventeenth century "ne" is considered sufficient negation while the use of "pas" or "point" intensifies the negation considerably. The repetition of the negative "ne" with "point" reinforces the inability of the spectator to escape from Montdory’s influence. Consequently, through his voice, gesture, body movements, creation of believable emotional states, and 120 overall excellent acting Montdory forces the spectator to suspend his disbelief and to witness a "real" slice of life. Contributing to the aura of verisimilitude, this rheto- ric of gesture, significant in the praise of Montdory and important in the art of Genest and Marcelle, loses signifi- cance in the twentieth-century production as we shall see in the testimony of the actor portraying Genest. Unlike Corneille, d’Aubignac, and other critics whose views of exemplary acting emerge from their analysis of Montdory’s acting, Scudéry in LLAanQgi§_dn_Lhé§LI§ sketches his profile of an excellent actor through his depiction of a "mauvais comédien" and his descriptions of admired actors in Antiquity. His detailed descriptions of acting blunders are vivid and jarring reminders of the incompetency of the unprepared actor. In agreement with the theorists’ and critics’ contentions that planning and reason govern the actor’s creation of verisimilitude, Scudéry also emphasizes the importance of the actor’s understanding of the text, his attention to appropriate delivery and gestures, and the actor’s well-orchestrated physiological response to passion. Ultimately, Scudéry expects the actor to use every means possible to identify with his role and to engage in a diffi- cult to accomplish but credible metamorphosis which arouses an appropriate emotional response in the audience. Signifi- cantly, he stresses the role of an alert and competent audience as a means of immediately noticing and pointing out 121 to the actors performance discrepancies which detract from their metamorphosis, and consequently, from verisimilitude. Metamorphcsis_gf_the_Act9r For Scudéry the actor’s study and understanding of the text, his willingness to follow the dramatic text, and implicitly the necessity of a playwright or a director to regulate and control the production surface as key elements in the creation of verisimilitude during the performance.19 Reason and control shape the evolution of performance. Scudéry emphasizes: "les_Q9mediens_dans_la_representatien .- qo' -. .zn,: .o' 7.mfl- '7 --m e g’. nq.r ._,'._ eemme_ie_enhiet_ie_demange" (85). By using contrasting visual images which focus on the disparity between the unexpected and the expected, he appeals directly to the senses and succinctly etches portraits of obviously "mau- vais" actors who fail to understand the dramatic text or who simply neglect the importance of the complementary correla- tion and harmony between word and body response. This "mauvais" actor laughs when he should cry, shows anger when he should laugh, puts his hat on his head when it should be in his hand. In a series of diptychs, functioning almost as flashcards for the reader, Scudéry, highlighting emotional response, gesture, and body response, admonishes: Ils scauront que ce n’estoit ny en riant quant il faut pleurer: ny en se mettant en colere quand il faut rire: ny en se couvrant quand il faut avoir 122 le chapeau a la main: ny en parlant au peuple quand il faut suposer qu’il n’y en a point: my en n’escoutant pas l’Acteur qui parle a eux, ny en faisant qu’Alphesibee, songe bien plus a quelqu’un qui la regarde, qu’au pauvre Alchmeon qui parle a elle. . . . (84-85) The accumulated and repetitive negatives "ne . . . ny" and the juxtaposition of the correct acting posture next to the incorrect reinforce the image of the actor’s incompetence and slipshod interpretation of the role. Since the "mauvais" actor does not understand nor attempt to identify with his role, he has no feeling for the character he is playing. He is unable to experience meta- morphosis. One can imagine a Scapino or an actor from the ecumedia_delliarte gesturing and mimicking and sliding from laughter to tears to anger in a recreation of Scudéry’s descriptive paragraph into dramatic form. Forestier be- lieves, however that Scudéry did not appreciate the Italian troupe because improvisation was the foundation of Italian 20 comedy. Although Genest does not use his improvised lines as a means to return to the dramatic text and continue his performance immediately after his conversion, Rotrou credits Genest with the talents of spontaneity and improvisation and acknowledges their potential value in maintaining the veri- similitude of a metamorphosis and in sustaining a perfor- mance. Lentule remarks: Il les fait sur-le-champ, et, sans suivre l’histoire, Croit couvrir en rentrant son défaut de memoire. (4.5.1259-60) 123 For Scudéry, forethought, reason, preparation, and strict adherence to the dramatic text, such as seen in Genest’s and Marcelle’s rehearsal in Le veritahle Saint Senest, collabo- rate to form an excellent actor and present a dramatic production showcasing the theorist’s insistence on verisi- militude. Scudéry’s descriptions of the Greek actor Pylades single out the lack of correlation between the dramatic text and the actor’s delivery and body movements, and consequent- ly, the actor’s inability to achieve an easy and successful ‘transformation to deceive the public. While also commenting on audience behavior and competency, Scudéry presents Pylades as the prototype of the "mauvais Acteur." Pylades’ acting jars the audience and contrasts directly with that of Genest who is admired by the Roman court for his ability to make illusion seem reality. Scudéry describes the delivery and gestures of a "mauvais comédien" to demonstrate the necessity of an actor’s careful preparation in order to successfully accom- plish the difficult process of metamorphosis. Pylades, the incompetent actor, completely misinterprets Euripides’ verse "le grand Agamemnon" as demonstrated by his action: "11 se guindoit, & se levoit sur le bout des pieds" (87). What makes Pylades/Agememnon "grand"? According to Scudéry, it is "la maieste grave de la prononciation, qu’il faloit exprimer la grandeur de ce Prince, 8 non point par cette 124 posture alongee & ridiculle" (87). In addition to the importance of correct interpretation of a role and tone of voice in the actor’s art, the theorist’s use of "se guin- doit" criticizes an actor’s artificial posture. In Cayrou’s e Le Franeais ciassigne; lexigue de la iangue dn XXII eieele "se guinder" means "hausser, lever en haut par le moyen d’une machine. Guinder un fardeau . . . 11 se fit guinder avec une corde au haut de la tour."21 Not only is Pylades’ action contrary to the meaning of the dramatic text, but it also is unnatural: it does not evolve innately from his being or from his immersion in the role. In contrast to Pylades’ distorted and forced represen- tation, Genest’s transformation is effortless. Diocletian and Maximin praise Genest’s art: DIOCLETIAN En cet acte Genest a men gre se surpasse. MAXIMIN Il ne se peut rien feindre avecque plus de grace. (2.8.667-68) Maximin explicitly compliments Genest for the "grace" with which he transforms himself. Cayrou’s dictionary describes "de sa grace" as "De son propre gre, d’un mouvement spon- tané, sans en etre prié."’a While describing Genest’s proficient metamorphosis, Rotrou also reveals his own con- sciousness of spectator reaction through the play-within- the-play structure. 125 Pylades’ flagrant acting blunders accentuate his in- ability to transform himself into the character he plays and point out how easy it is for spectators with an acceptable level of awareness to criticize glaring incongruities. Commenting on audience behavior and the necessity of audi- ence competency, Scudéry specifically notes that a specta- tor, attacking Pylades’ interpretation of "le grand Agamemnon," shouts "Pylades le faisoit haut, & non pas grand" (87). On another occasion, while declaiming, “8 Cieux," Pylades points to the ground with his hand. Then while reciting "3 terre," he looks up to heaven. An obser- vant viewer shouts a critical remark: "il bouleversoit tout l'ordre de la Nature" (87): he complains that the order of nature has been violated. Finally, when playing the blind Oedipus, Pylades forgets to utilize his cane to demonstrate his uncertainty, and he walks with "un pas trop ferme & trop resolu, pour un homme qui ne voit goutte" (88). Once again an alert spectator shouts and critiques his behavior: "tu vois" (88). Since he apparently neglected to adequately prepare his roles, Pylades must have failed to ask himself the basic question, "What am I doing here?" According to Jean-Louis Barrault the actor can divide this question into "What am I determined to allow another to see?" and "What am I deter- mined to hide?"23 Since he has not changed into his charac- ter, Pylades forgets to hide that he can see. Scudéry 126 remarks that the spectator "par deux mots de deux Silabes, luy fit remarquer en son action, une grande impertinence" (88). Apparently, Scudéry believes audiences, in addition to playwrights and directors, function as correctors, but they must be attentive, competent, critical, and responsive. Measured gestures enhance the performance. However, the actor’s careless inattention to reason in developing his transformation detracts from verisimilitude and "bien- séances," which is pointed out by Scudéry’s use of "grande impertinence."2‘ Pylades’ disregard for the effective development of his transformation disrupts the creation of an illusion of reality by directly eliciting immediate spectator recognition of the disparity between the text and his delivery and body movements. In contrast to Scudéry, Rotrou explores the inherent danger which threatens both the talented actor who has asked himself "What am I determined to allow the audience to see?" and the audience responding to this actor. After this complete identification with his role, Genest attempts to reveal his real conversion to the Roman spectators. Since they have considered Genest the master of achieving verisi- militude in his multiple transformations into different characters, his endeavor backfires. It initially inten— sifies the Roman spectators’ conviction that he portrays illusion expertly: for them, Genest is portraying Adrian. Rotrou, through Genest’s metamorphosis, not only focuses on 127 the threat to an actor of being overtaken by his role but also indicates the threat to the spectators who do not expect the theatrical illusion to become reality. Unlike Genest, Pylades does not transform himself into his character’s identity, and his portrayal violates the expectations of verisimilitude. He neglects to use his cane, perhaps the most crucial prop to anchor his identity in “reality." Since an object can help an actor understand and portray his character, Stanislavsky, in the twentieth century, urges actors to find the right object to create "realistic art." In his rules of acting Jean-Louis Barrault seconds Stanislavsky: "An actor who finds the object which connects him with the scene he is playing imparts concrete efficiency to his behaviour."25 For example, he points to Nero’s difficulty during Agrippine’s sermon: "Nero plays with his coat which becomes his help, his refuge and also his means of expression."26 Rather than depend on such concrete physical objects to facilitate his transformation, Genest, a baroque protagonist, responds to and relies on sense experience through representations of the "merveilleux" such as flames, a Voice, and an angel to lead him to his total identification with Adrian. Although Scudéry does not dictate that actors find the right object, nevertheless, he recognizes an object’s relevance in the actor’s correct interpretation of the dramatic text and in his ability to promote the total effect of verisimilitude. 128 According to d’Aubignac and Scudéry, the metamorphosis of an actor into the character he portrays solidifies the realism of the character’s situation. Inherent in this transformation is the actor’s understanding of the script and of his character. In La_£ratigne_gn_theatre, by refer- ring to Corneille’s tragedies Herace (1641) and ginna (1643), d’Aubignac demonstrates that actors must renounce their own identities. According to d’Aubignac, when Horace and Cinna speak, those actors who represent them no longer exist. It is "comme si Floridor et Beau-Chateau cessoient d’etre en nature, & se trouvaient transformez en ces Hommes, dont ils portent le nom & les interets" (37).27 As a re- sult, the dramatic poet would not include in the poem dis- cussions "du gain" that "les Comediens auroient fait en d’autres pieces [sic]" nor would he address his reflexions aux Parisiens qui l’ecoutent" (37). Everything, scenery, costumes, gestures, all allusions must reinforce the reality of Rome, Horace, and Cinna: the dramatic poet provides the appropriate material for the actor to more easily move the spectator to believe he really is the character he repre- sents. Scudéry explicitly defines the identification of the actor with his role in relationship to the spectators who ‘ 129 will then experience the transformed actor’s "passions" as real. Scudéry advocates complete transformation: Il faut s’il est possible, qu’ils [the actors] se metamorphosent, aux Personnages qu'ils repre- sentent: Et qu’ils s’en impriment toutes les passions, pour les imprimer aux autres; qu’ils se trompent les premiers, pour tromper le Spectateur en suite: qu’ils se croyent Empereurs ou pauvres; infortunez ou contens, pour se faire croire tels: & de cette sorte, ils pourront aquerir & meriter, la gloire, qu’avoyent aquise & que meritoyent leurs devanciers. (85) Scudéry explains that an actor must imprint the character’s passions on himself to accomplish this goal. Cayrou defines "imprimer" as "faire une impression profonde sur le coeur . . . impregner, . . . inspirer un sentiment dans le '28 coeur.‘ Consequently, Scudéry emphasizes the powerful and penetrating impact the character’s passions must have on the actor in order for him to transfer those emotions realisti- cally to the spectators and create an emotional response in them. While in the process of changing into their charac- ters, Scudéry insists that the actors "se trompent les premiers" to lead the spectators into believing that illu- sion is reality. Rotrou echoes Scudéry’s analysis that the actor must deceive himself to fool the audience. Valerie comments: Pour tromper l’auditeur, abuser l’acteur meme, De son métier, sans doute, est l’adresse supreme. (4.5.1263-64) 130 Shortly after Valerie’s comment, through Genest’s conver- sion, Rotrou, probing beyond Scudéry’s analysis, highlights the danger facing a performer who identifies with his char- acter to the point of perceiving himself as that character. In Scudéry’s analysis, however, an actor must portray his character’s genuine feelings in order to enhance his ability to elicit an emotional response from the audience. To illustrate the degree to which he expects the actor to assimilate and portray the passions of the character he represents, Scudéry cites several Ancients as experts to emulate. For example, actors playing sad roles continued to cry in the "10915" or dressing room after the performance. In a more striking illustration which ends tragically, Aesope, playing the role of Atree, who was furious with his brother, killed one of his valets walking before him to cross the stage. Scudéry describes Aesope’s emotional reaction: "tant il estoit hors de soy mesme: & tant il avoit espouse la passion, de ce Roy qu’il representoit" (86). In both cases, the character’s emotional state perme- ates the actor’s being: the actor’s role becomes his reali- ty. Reflecting his concern for the necessity of a recipro- cal relationship between the actors and the audience, Scudéry emphasizes the power of an excellent actor, who feels the passions of his character, to elicit an appropri- ate emotional response from the spectators. An actor’s 131 performance was so believable that it moved a king named Alexandre "Tiran de Pheres, . . . cet homme de roche, jusqu’a lors insensible a la pitie, qu’elle le forca de pleurer: . . ." (82). Since tears are a physiological re- sponse, according to Descartes’ interpretation, the king is also experiencing a "Passion." The reality of the actor’s art makes possible a passionate audience response to the actor’s projection of feelings during the performance. Ashamed of this emotional outburst, incompatible with his royal role, the king "pense faire mourir le Comedien qui par une feinte puissante, avoit donne de la Compassion, a celuy qui n’en avoit jamais eu, pour tant de douleurs veritables" (82). When the spectators believe the incidents are really occurring, they are able to respond emotionally to the actor’s portrayal of his character’s passions. In order to stimulate the creation of an appropriate, believable, and real emotional state in the actors, Scudéry advises the actor to rely on memories of real-life situa- tions and to use props or aids that will facilitate the performer’s manifestation of a passion. To illustrate this point Scudéry cites the example of Polus, a Greek actor playing in Sophocles’ Eieetra. Polus brought an urn filled with the ashes of his recently deceased son on stage. As a result, he represented "si bien . . . sa propre douleur, sous le nom feint de celle d’un autre" (86). Bossuet, who in W (1694) denounces 132 the immorality of theatre and the dangers of dramatic emo- tion, concurs with Scudéry and points out that the remem- brance of a lived passion stimulates the actor’s representa- tion of that passion. He comments: "Que fait un acteur, lorsqu’il veut jouer naturellement une passion, que de rappeler autant qu’il peut celles qu’il a ressenties . . . : pour les exprimer, il faut qu’elles lui reviennent."29 In order to deceive himself, imprint the character’s passions realistically on himself, and evoke an emotional response from the audience, the actor, according to Scudéry, must first think, plan, and rely on reason and the remembrance of lived experience to determine how he can best achieve a believable identification with his character’s emotions. According to Scudéry, the Abbe d’Aubignac, and other theorists and critics defining and promoting the classical aesthetics, the creation of verisimilitude governs the actor’s art, but an actor finds it difficult to fashion the appropriate emotional state and pose necessary to impose an aura of verisimilitude. Therefore, the author must plan his text to facilitate the actor’s depiction of emotion, and the actor is compelled to follow that text. For these theorists and critics, forethought and reason are central to metamor- phosis: anticipation, preparation, rehearsal, possibly a 133 prior lived similar experience, and even tangible and visi- ble aids promote the actor’s effective metamorphosis. Scudéry cites an example from Antiquity to demonstrate the extent to which an actor sets up the preliminary groundwork. The actor Polus replays his own emotional state by carrying an urn filled with the ashes of his own dead son on stage to create the portrayal of his character’s grief. Reality reinforces illusion. Both admired for their outstanding performances, Montdory and Genest, to a point, exemplify the relevance of this advance preparation; they incorporate the appropriate use of gestural rhetoric and tone of voice in their identification with their characters’ emotional states to portray these passions believably. Scudéry’s Linneiggie dn_theatre and d’Aubignac’s later descriptions of Montdory’s portrayal of passions agree that the commendable actor orchestrates his actions, speech, and feelings to create a believable production. The actor’s performance then acts on the emotions of the spectators because the audience thinks it is witnessing reality. What distinguishes the emotional response of the spec- tators according to classical aesthetics in which passions are imprinted both on the actor and on the spectator? Scudéry clarifies the meaning of the imprinting of passions on the spectator in his description of the moral utility of drama in Antiquity and, by extension, in seventeenth-century France. Since "comedie" often depicted the punishment of 134 crimes, "elle avoit souvent imprime la crainte, en l’ame de ces barbares, [the spectators], & enchainé quelque fois ces bestes feroces, dont elle ne pouvoit pas changer entiere- ment, les cruelles inclinations" (81). The dramatic produc- tion arouses the spectator’s fear of imitating the actions of the character because of imminent punishment. In another example, Alexandre in the "Tiran de Pheres" viewed a "comedie" in which an "obiet pitoyable," an actor, who "par des expressions touchantes" moved the tyrant or "homme de roche jusqu’a lors insensible a la pitie, qu’elle [la comedie] le forca de pleurer: . . ." (82). Alexandre was moved to feel pity for the on-stage characters: he was not motivated to become one of those characters and live that character’s situation. Alexandre even wants to kill the actor for evoking his tears, a sign of weakness in his mind. In classical aesthetics, the actor’s credible represen- tation of the character’s situation and passions elicits emotions such as laughter, terror, and pity from the specta- tors. These viewers, however, remain exterior to the action. In Le_Saregne Bernard Chedozeau describes this "interiorisation classique" by differentiating it from the "interiorisation baroque." He comments: Plus intellectuelle et plus renfermee au spectacle de passions qui ne s’exprimeront que rarement par l’action . . . elle est plus proprement spectacu- laire en ce qu’elle maintient, par le rire, ou par la terreur et la pitie, une distance souvent iron- ique excluant par principe la forte volonte 135 d’assimilation vecue que semble impliquer l’inter- iorisation des dramaturges baroques.3° Baroque aesthetics encourages the spectator himself to join in the character’s metamorphosis through an "assimilation vecue." In Le veritahle Saint Senest not only is the actor Genest moved to a spontaneous conversion during the perfor- mance of his role, but Rotrou also summons the spectator to become the actor and experience an act of faith.31 In contrast, classical aesthetics expects the actor to portray a carefully planned and rehearsed metamorphosis designed to incarnate verisimilitude and arouse the spectator’s emotion- al reaction, but the spectator distances himself from the character. From Reason to Irrational Passion Through the pagan actor Genest’s real metamorphosis into the Christian Genest, Rotrou examines and subverts classical aesthetics based on rules, reason, and verisimili- tude to reveal an actor who, in the process of identifying with his character’s emotions, is moved by sense experience and irrational passion. Genest responds easily to sense experience and the "merveilleux," represented by the audio and visual dynamics of the Voice, flames, and the angel. Before beginning the performance of "Le Martyre d’Adrian" his initial response to the Voice, whether feigned by anoth- er actor or miraculous, highlights his joyful readiness to 136 accept immediately the Christian God’s intervention in his life. Genest comments: Souffle doux et sacre qui me viens enflammer, Esprit saint et divin qui me viens animer, Et qui me souhaitant m’inspires le courage, Travaille a non salut, acheve ton ouvrage; Guide mes pas douteux dans le chemin des Cieux Et pour me les ouvrir dessille-moi les yeux. (2.4.427-32) Overcome by this experience, Genest asks God to show him the way to conversion and salvation. In the interior play "Le Martyre d’Adrian" the Roman community’s assessment of Adrian's conversion foreshadows the reaction of Diocletian and the other Roman spectators to Genest’s conversion. As we have seen earlier in this dissertation 3’ the Romans attribute Adrian’s conversion to the influence of a charm or poisonous venom, and they consider him to be a victim of irrational passion. Wilfried Floeck identifies irrational passion, the antithesis of planning and reason, as a primary determinant of "le mouvement interne et externe qui se deroule sur la scene du theatre baroque."33 Genest’s all consuming love for God expressed in his desire for martyrdom exemplifies the impact of this irrational passion on the direction of the play. Not only does Rotrou call attention to the actor’s susceptibility to the influence of sense experience in changing the direction of his own life, but he also focuses on the threat to the actor of being easily absorbed by his 137 role in the process of closely imitating the passions of his character. Understanding the dramatic text, following that text, rehearsing, and finally, reproducing Adrian’s passions in performance to create verisimilitude predispose Genest to become that character. However, his heightened awareness and response to auditory and visual stimuli, such as the Voice, flames and the angel, fuel that tendency. Although Genest knows that study and experience facilitate the actor’s transformation into the portrayed character and his obligatory return to reality, he recognizes, at the same time, that, instead of playing Adrian, he is becoming this Christian martyr. He comments: D’effet comme de nom je me treuve etre un autre: Je feins moins Adrian que je ne le deviens, Et prends avec son nom des sentiments chretiens. Je sais, pour l’eprouver, que par un long etude L’art de nous transformer nous passe en habitude. (2.4.402-06) During his metamorphosis into a Christian, Genest, a baroque protagonist, casts aside any logical preparation to thwart this change, and he spontaneously responds to his instanta- neous intuition, emotions and sense experience. When his well-played illusion becomes his reality and he refuses to continue the "feinte" by improvising, he can no longer act and his career in the theatre of man terminates abruptly. Jean Rousset describes this paradox: the actor has to identify with his character’s passions, but, at the same time, he has to distance himself from his role in order to 138 create new and different roles and continue acting. In his assessment, Le Véritahle Saint Genest becomes 1e drame d’une tentation propre au comédien,--du comédien tel que le XVII‘ siecle pouvait l’imagi- ner: c’est l’histoire de l’homme seduit par son rele, et que cette seduction entraine a faire l’experience contradictoire de la necessité et de l’impossibilite pour un acteur de s’identifier completement a son personnage.34 The imprinting of a character’s passions on the actor makes the actor especially vulnerable to the loss of his own identity. Rotrou magnifies the potential threat to the actor of being absorbed by his role in that Genest, a highly acclaimed and experienced actor who should be resistant to such influence, succumbs to the seduction of his role. Through the pagan Genest’s facile metamorphosis into the Christian Genest, Rotrou reveals, however, that the actor’s art integrates creative forces beyond the realm of logic and reason. Placing his faith in God and defying the Romans who condemn conversion as unreasonable, Genest com- mits himself to the ultimate baroque metamorphosis: to become a believer. Genest’s spontaneity, instantaneous intuition, improvisation, and unconstrained free-flowing metamorphosis from character to character, the very creative forces classical aesthetics suppresses, spring forward and propel him to become a star performer in God’s theatre. NOTES 1 Chapelain, Lettree, 581-82. Chapelain says: "L’abbe d’Aubignac ne presche plus et fait des sujets de ballet et des regles pour la comedie. Il compose maintenant un traitte qu’il nomme La_2ratigne_gn_theatre que le 5’ de la Menardiere attend impatiemment afin de faire contre, de quoy je me resjouis pour ce que cela sera delectable, et peut estre utile aussy." 2 Moliere’s Tartnrte, although appearing to violate this norm, actually conforms because the hypocrite’s exis- tence and presence in the Orgon family is vividly described from the first scene. As a result, the audience anticipates meeting him. In Genest’s case, the Roman audience already knows the fate of Adrian before the play begins. 6 See Lancaster, gerneiiie 128-44 for a discussion of the Quarrel of Le_gig. Scudéry maintains spectator applause does not guarantee the value of a play. Richelieu requested that the Academy evaluate the merits of the play. Although the Academy admits that the play contains beauty, it criti- cizes Le_gig for lack of "vraisemblance." Ultimately, the value of the "Quarrel" is that it focuses on the rules of art in the seventeenth century. 6 Gaste 215. Montdory is spelled either Mondory or Montdory. When not quoting a source, this dissertation follows the spelling "Montdory" adopted by H. C. Lancaster. 6 F. Bouquet, "Corneille et l’Acteur Mondory," Reyne_ge Ta_nernangie, fevrier 1869: 113. 6 Gaste 454. The nineteenth-century critic Bouquet, in La;Reyne_de_1a_ngrnandie, 112 states that Balzac’s opinion commands attention since he emerges as "le juge des auteurs et le dispensateur de la gloire litteraire" of that time. 7 See Theodore A. Litman. Les.§9medies_de_99rnelle (Paris: Nizet, 1981) 9 for a summary of why some critics consider these plays baroque. See B. Chedozeau, Le_naregne (Paris: Nathan, 1989) 91-107. 6 Bouquet 111. 9 Jean Rousset. LLInterienr_et_liexterieur (PariS: Corti, 1968) 156. 1° Bouquet 111. 139 140 11 Georges Mongredien, Lee Srangs genediens an xyxle Sieeie (Paris: Sociéte d’Edition "Le Livre," 1927) 100. 1’ Jean-Claude Vuillemin, "Nature at reception du spectacle tragique sur la scene francaise du XVII siécle " Romanic_8eyie_ 78 (1987) 41 13 Vuillemin 37. 1‘ Cited by Vuillemin 37. 16 Bazin 40. 16 Martin 103. 17 Bazin, 41. 16 Bouquet 113. See 33-34 of this dissertation for d’Aubignac’s commentary concerning the author’s presence at rehearsals. 2° Georges Forestier. Le_Tneatre_dans_le_theatre (Geneve: Droz, 1981) 223. ’1 Gaston Cayrou, ' a ' - langue_du_XYII:_siecl_ (Perle: Didier. 1948) 453. ’1 Cayrou 445. 26 Jean-Louis Barrault. The_Theatre_Qf_Jean:LQuis Sarranit, trans. Joseph Chiari (New York: Hill 8 Wang, 1961) 34. , ’6 Cayrou 430. Cayrou points out that an action con- trary to reason or "bienseance" is "impertinent." IMPERTI- NENT -- deplace, absurde, extravagant, en parlant des choses. "11 se dit aussi des actions, des discours con- traires a la raison, a la bienseance." ’6 Barrault 35. ’6 Barrault 35. 27 S. Wilma Deierkauf—Holsboer, Le_Theatre_ge_iLfletel de_Bgurgcgne: Le_Theatre_de_la_tr9upe_reyale_1§3§:1§89 (Paris: Nizet, 1970) 53 & 59-60. Through the intervention of Bellerose, Floridor relocated from the Theatre du Marais and became an actor for the Hetel de Bourgogne in April of 1647. Deierkauf—Holsboer does not agree with Mongredien in .Daily_Life_in_the_Erencn_Iheatre 60 and in Les_§rands_cgme: ,gien§_138. Although he played heroes, Floridor would not .have been able to portray Genest because Rotrou’s play was 141 performed in 1645. Mongredien’s books indicate that Floridor was also head of the Royal Troupe in 1647. 28 Cayrou 482. 29 Cited in Rousset, L’Interieur et l’exterieur 162. 3° Bernard Chedozeau, Le Sarogne (Paris: Nathan, 1989) 107. 31 Chedozeau 106-07. See dissertation 91-92. 33 Floeck 198. 3‘ Rousset, L’Interieur 157. CHAPTER 4 THE ACTOR’S ART: IMAGINATTO CREATEIX AND DIVERSITY 142 143 From Classical Rationalism to Baroque Creativity During the seventeenth century baroque aesthetics, coexisting with classical aesthetics, manifests itself in artistic works rather than in dramatic theories. Arsene Soreil states in "Introduction 8 l’histoire de l’esthetique francaise," Henyeiie_figitien_3eyne: "Sous l’esthetique qui raisonne, 11 y a . . . l’esthetique qui ne résonne pas."1 He downplays the role of reason alone in artistic creation: "La raison ne peut expliquer, a elle seule, la creation artistique. . . ."2 Even La Bruyere, who wrote "entre le bon sens et le bon gofit, il n’y a que la difference entre une cause et son effet," admits the necessity of "nouveaute."3 Inherited from the Renaissance and fostered by classical aesthetics, ideals of beauty correlating to unchanging forms of reality were admired. However, in seventeenth-century baroque artistic creation "pictures which were equally remote from ordinary visual experience appear perfectly plausible, or at least acceptable as more or less real creations of the imagination."‘ Jean Rotrou’s Le_yeritah1e_Saint_Sene§t, through the play-within-the-play structure, attests to the relevance of an actor’s creative forces defying classical aesthetics based on "devoir" and reason. Through the acting process itself the pagan actor Genest discovers Absolute Truth and creates his new and unexpected being to the astonishment of the Roman spectators and the French audience. In 144 seventeenth-century baroque artistic creation, such as Rotrou’s play, liberty, diversity, invention, novelty, and change question the standard of immutable perfection, while unusual juxtapositions elicit the spectator’s surprise. We can turn to water reflections, mirrors, and metaphor to elucidate the creative act. Since baroque aesthetics considers the world a theatre and life a dream, the attempt to mirror the real becomes an attempt to display the possible and create illusion. In order to investigate the creation of diverse and novel illusions in baroque poetry, Fernand Hallyn discusses Tesauro’s comparison of metaphors in "discours" to mirrors and to sudden or unexpected changes of scene in the theatre,6 such as Genest’s real and spontaneous conversion to Christianity which initially deludes the Roman specta- tors. Literal language uses empty mirrors in which the proper and usual meanings of words are inscribed while metaphors rely on "miroirs pleins," similar to reflecting water, which include not only the proper usual meaning but also a second reflection, the second meaning. Agreeing with Tesauro’s assessment of theatrical scenes, metaphor, and reflecting water, Hallyn comments: Ramener l’image d’une scene de theatre a celle de la profondeur de l’eau, ce n’est pas se livrer a des combinaisons arbitraires. C’est chercher a reconstituer l’unite d’une pensee eclatee en des images diversifiees.6 145 The figure instigates a fusion of the two mental representa- tions, the literal meaning and the figurative one, similar to the fusion of water, the reflecting medium, and the spectacle reflected in it. For example, in baroque water poetry through mirror reflections, according to Habert de Cerisy in "Dans sa glace inconstante," fish fly and birds swim: C’est la, par un chaos agreable, et nouveau, Que la terre et le Ciel se rencontrent dans l’eau; C’est la que l’oeil souffrant de douces impostures, Confond tous les objects avecque leurs figures, C’est la que sur un arbre il croit voir les poissons, Qu’il trouve les oyseaux aupres des amecons, Et que le sens charme d’une trompeuse idole Doute si l’oyseau nage, on Si le poisson vole. (Rousset, 1, 245) Thus, the baroque writers while evoking a change of scene, create new and unprecedented illusions and free themselves from the fetters of conventional thought. In the creative act, according to Tesauro, ingegne does not reproduce: it creates something which did not exist previously. This creative act brings man closer to resem- bling God because he mimics God’s creativity. For example, the metaphors "un liquide cristal" for water and "ondes enflammes" for blond hair provide the author with the possi- bility of speaking of a crystal which is liquid and waves which catch fire and of relating these images to things which are not crystals or waves. In this process, the spectator’s or reader’s "merveille" results from the 146 metaphor’s expression of its difference to the natural order of things: however, this difference uncovers and reveals a resemblance. Hallyn comments: Les poetes se refusent a faire de leurs oeuvres des reflets d’un ordre aveugle, base sur des lois physiques. Ils maintiennent la metaphore, mais en font l’expression d’un ordre qui n’existe que par leur ingegno et dans les mots. Et dans leurs antitheses, leurs oxymorons, leurs paradoxes et leurs habiles tromperies, ils prennent volontiers 1e contre-pied de l’ordre apparent des choses pour affirmer l’independance de l’ordre qu’ils instaurent.7 The baroque releases imprisoned imaginative forces activated by sense experience and liberty, and consequently, promotes diversity. The reflective power of the theatre also functions as a liberating power that leads to the discovery of the truth. According to Georges Forestier: 1e paradoxe du theatre: c’est qu’il signale le vrai tout en le trahissant. Et c’est par l’expe- rience de la eathareie que nous sommes ramenes au vrai: d’abord l’illusion, puis la rupture de l’illusion: la folie, suivie du reveil de la fo- lie. La revelation passe donc automatiquement par le detour de l’illusion. Pour savoir si l’appa- rence est trompeuse on non, pour decouvrir le vrai, il faut se laisser prendre au jeu des illu- sions.8 After being duped by this illusion, the spectator stands back and assesses his perceptions. While in Habert de Cerisy’s poem "Dans sa glace inconstante" flying fish are reflected in the water with swimming birds, in Le_yeritahie 147 Saint_Seneet, the pagan actor Genest, unknown to the Roman spectators, merges with Adrian the character he plays and becomes a Christian believer: he then attempts to reveal his new being to the Roman audience. In both examples, the surprised spectators must examine these unlikely fusions and attempt to determine what is illusion and what is reality. Spontaneity, Improvisation, and Metamorphosis In Jean Rotrou’s Le Véritahie Saint Senest sense expe- rience and irrational passion, the antitheses of reason, stimulate the actor Genest to annihilate the dramatic text, envision a new life text, and create a new role as a per- former in God’s theatre. Anna Tymieniecka, in Legg§_and " .ea ° ‘ ”L9‘_ift 3 an: 1‘ i '--t o, 1‘1-01, de- scribes this liberating power and associates it with the Mater: '0 ' proposes to us ’to leave it all’ behind and to create for ourselves wings and devices to explore the extraordinary and the mar- velous, the unprecedented and the infinite. The individual armed with these becomes heng_ereater.9 In a demonstration of the operation of his creative imagina- tion, visible through the use of the play-within-the-play structure, the pagan actor Genest freely responds to sense experience and the marvelous, leaves behind the established religious beliefs and gods of the Roman court, assimilates the passion of Adrian the convert he plays, and joyfully 148 creates his new being, a Christian martyr. As in the cre- ation of metaphor and water reflections demonstrated by baroque poetry, two disparate elements in Rotrou’s play, a pagan actor and a Christian martyr, fuse and form a new creation, one which astonishes the pagan Roman spectators and forces them to question the reality of his new exis- tence. Genest’s fusion with Adrian illustrates Bernard Chedozeau’s assertion in Le Sarogue that the "appel creatif" of the "baroque de persuasion" is a call to believe, "un appel . . . vers le monde du sacre et du mystere."1° Le Véritahie Saint Genest divides this creative call to believe into two complementary movements. In the first movement, Genest’s "appel creatif" to believe, leads Genest to model his baroque conversion through the art of acting. In contrast to classical aesthetics, according to Genest’s demonstration, both a real conversion and the actor’s cre- ative art evolve from freedom and openness to experiment and change. In a second movement, Genest, as an actor and convert elevated to God’s theatre, urges the spectators to follow his path, experience his act of faith and passion, and spontaneously re-create their life texts to lead to salvation. Through the pagan actor Genest’s real metamorphosis into the Christian Genest, Rotrou subverts the classical aesthetics based on rules, reason, and verisimilitude to glorify an actor whose creative ability is generated by 149 irrational passion,11 spontaneity, and sense experience. During his rehearsal of the interior play "Le Martyre d’Adrian," Genest’s initial response to the Voice, "Poursuis, Genest, ton personnage" (2.4.421), pinpoints his openness to the Christian God’s supernatural intervention in his life: Qu’entends-je, juste Ciel, et par quelle merveille, Pour me toucher le coeur me frappes—tu l’oreille? Souffle doux et sacre qui me viens enflammer, Esprit saint et divin qui me viens animer Et qui me souhaitant m’inspires le courage, Travaille a mon salut, acheve ton ouvrage; Guide mes pas douteux dans le chemin des Cieux Et pour me les ouvrir dessille-moi les yeux. (2.4.425-32) Affected by this emotional experience, Genest voices his aspirations to surpass the limitations of this world, and he demonstrates the flexibility and freedom needed to embark on a new creative journey. Genest’s readiness to explore new dimensions challenges the Romans’ insistence on following reason and well-established confining norms. In the interior play, Genest plays the character Adrian who rejects reason by responding to his sense experience. The Roman actor Flavie/Sergeste expresses the prevailing Roman perspective and explanation for Adrian’s possible defection to Christianity: Les uns, que pour railler cette erreur s’est semee, D’autres, que quelque sort a votre ame charmee, D’autres, que le venin de ces lieux infectes Contre votre raison a vos sens revoltes. (2.8.539-42) 150 For the Romans, Adrian’s conversion may be the result of a magic spell or of a venom which made his senses revolt against his reason. Before arresting and chaining Adrian, Flavie reinforces the perception that Adrian has abandoned logic and reason: Si raison ni douceur ne vous peut émouvoir, Mon ordre va plus loin. (2.8.657-58) This Roman perspective elevates reason and negatively views sense experience. In the principal play, the Romans duplicate this insis- tence on action generated by logic and reason and in confor- mity with their value system and beliefs. The Roman spec- tators’ astonishment is expressed in Maximin’s "Croirai-je mes oreilles?" (4.7.1375). Their astonishment is so much greater because they realize that the person who just con- verted and who will be martyred is Genest, the pagan actor that they admire enormously. A witness to Genest’s apparent conversion, Valerie immediately evaluates his metamorphosis on the basis of reason and judgment: "Parle-t-il de bon sens?" (4.7.1375). However, Genest, in his portrayal of Adrian and then in his own spontaneous conversion and mar- tyrdom, glorifies the individual who follows the vibrations of his emotions and senses in order to realize his creative possibilities. 151 Tymieniecka describes the yearning of this individual seeking to exceed the restrictive boundaries imposed by his culture and by himself: in forcing back the limits of the exterior world, the creative impulse responds to an interior drive toward the surpassing not only of the limits which the world fixes as a framework of our experience, but before all else of molds which we have forged for ourselves by our ways of feeling, seeing, evaluating, and which we passively perpetuate as the forms of our participation in the world, in others, in our own interiority. (33-34) Genest’s creative call to become a believer defies the value system of the pagan Roman world. By accepting his own imminent suffering, torture, and death in addition to the consequent financial disaster and dissolution of his troupe, Genest challenges the rational norms imposed by the Romans. Since he previously rejected his parent’s Christianity to openly persecute the Christians through his acting, Genest breaks the pagan "molds" he "forged" for himself in order to go beyond the limitations of his world and to satisfy his creative impulse. Genest, like Adrian, responds to sense impression, suppresses reason, breaks from his established frame of reference, and opens his mind and heart to new creative possibilities. His behavior becomes a prototype for the spectator to imitate. In the process of playing Adrian’s role, Genest describes his free and spontaneous response to God’s grace: 152 ll faut lever le masque et t’ouvrir ma pensee; Le Dieu que j’ai hai m’inspire son amour: Adrian a parle, Genest parle a son tour! Ce n’est plus Adrian, c’est Genest qui respire La grace du bapteme et l’honneur du martyre. (4.5.1344-48) While dissociating himself from the character Adrian, Genest experiences what Tymieniecka identifies as one of the possi- ble beginning points of the creative process, "the illumi- nating notion of the work to be accomplished before we undertake it" (198). Genest, now aware of his task, pre- pares to follow Adrian’s path to eternal life through his own anticipated baptism and martyrdom. Although the Roman spectators believe Genest’s performance exemplifies verisi- militude, Genest undermines the dramatic text. He demon- strates the actor’s creative potential to become an author by originating and performing a new text which the Roman spectators accept as the illusion of reality. When he creates his new being, Genest demonstrates his talent for improvisation, an actor’s indispensable talent to abandon and return to the text at will and, consequently, be able to open the text to new and diverse possibilities. The acting troupe’s evaluation of Genest’s improvisa- tional performance not only identifies the function and value of improvisation to an actor but also highlights its potential to annihilate the dramatic text. Immediately after his baptism offstage by an angel, both Marcelle and Lentule agree that Genest is spontaneously adding lines and 153 improvising the text. Lentule observes: "Il les fait sur- le-champ" (4.5.1259). In Lentule’s estimation, Genest’s improvisation conceals his memory lapse from the Roman spectators. From a performance perspective, improvisation provides time for the performer to remember his lines and return to the dramatic text. Lentule, however, begins to suspect that something irregular is occurring: the actor Genest improvises "sans suivre l’histoire," (4.5.1259) which indicates to him that Genest is experiencing difficulty in returning to the dramatic text. Although Sergeste attests to Genest’s assiduous preparation in rehearsal, Marcelle also points out this deterioration of the dramatic text: "11 ne dit pas un mot du complet qui lui reste" (4.7.1296). In spite of abandoning the dramatic text, Genest, an excel- lent actor, incorporates his newly-created lines without difficulty. Lentule remarks "Quoiqu’il manque au sujet, jamais il ne hesite" (4.7.1315). Genest’s instantaneous intuition, his receptivity to sense experience, and his response to divine grace propel him to improvise his new life text effortlessly in his ultimate creative act. Genest’s talent for improvisation places him in charge of the play’s unfolding and highlights his creativity by contrasting it with his troupe’s inability to improvise. While the actors’ evaluations of Genest’s performance focus on his facility in improvisation, the Roman spectators praise Genest for his creation of verisimilitude. 154 Diocletian, for example, marvels at Genest’s performance art: Voyez avec quel art Genest sait aujourd’hui Passer de la figure aux sentiments d’autrui. (4.5.1261) Two scenes later Valerie confirms Diocletian’s assessment by remarking that the illusion created by Genest could pass for reality: "Sa feinte passerait pour la verite meme" (4.7. 1284). Speaking of Genest’s superiority over the other actors, Camille points out to Valerie: "Comme son art, Madame, a su les abuser!" (4.6.1274). In contrast to actors in the connegia deil’arte who thrive on improvising the eaneyae, Genest’s troupe is immo- bilized by his departure from the dramatic text. Referring to act 4, scenes five and seven, Georges Forestier comments that Rotrou, in his function as a dramatist, recognizes the value of improvisation: Ainsi, le fait que les deux scenes les plus importantes de la piece reposent sur la pretendue confiance des spectateurs dans le pouvoir-- illimite--d’improvisation de tout bon acteur, nous parait etre le meilleur indice du point de vue de Rotrou sur l’art du comédien.12 An excellent actor knows how to adapt and performs according to the continually changing performance climate. Genest’s improvisational talents provide a model of the qualities of adaptability and flexibility that the spectators will need if one day they themselves wish to convert. 155 This talent points out to the real spectators of the entire play that Genest could successfully return to the dramatic text, pretend to play Adrian’s role and conceal his conversion to save his life. However, Genest, following Adrian’s example, reveals his inner feelings and creative impulses in a concrete visual and auditory demonstration of his conversion. Tymieniecka describes the "being" and "function" of a creative work which explains, in part, Genest’s drive to display his conversion: the work of art, a scientific theory, etc. essen- tially ’communicate’ something, and their very being may be identified with their function of communicating and the unique type of message to be conveyed. . . . By fixing its message and per- during, the creative result affirms itself and is received into the intersubjective life-world. (185-186) The force which pushes Genest to make his sudden and unex- pected conversion visible reveals the need he feels to affirm his new being. Through the avowal of his metamor- phosis, Genest communicates his own message expressing the significance of life to the Roman Spectators, and, by exten- sion, to the spectators of the entire play. In addition to spontaneity and the talent for improvi- sation, an actor’s ability to transform himself easily enhances his art. In act 1 Diocletian praises Genest’s talent in metamorphosis by specifically referring to the number, diversity, and credibility of his transformations. Diocletian has seen Genest "cent fois" representing "cent 156 sujets divers" and transmitting "de vrais ressentiments": through his art heroes he portrayed were "plutet ressuscites / Qu’imites" (1.5.233-40). Genest himself considers the actor’s talent and ability to change into new characters both easy and fundamental to the actor’s art: "L’art de nous transformer nous passe en habitude" (2.4.406). Recog— nizing that the actor’s art consists in the ability to exchange one mask for another, Genest expressly reminds himself that for an actor to remain an actor "11 s’agit d’imiter et non de devenir” (2.4.420). Although he has successfully portrayed hundreds of different characters, Genest recognizes his real metamorpho- sis into a Christian believer as the culmination of his creative effort. Valerie’s comment to Genest points out that he has already established an excellent reputation mimicking the zeal and happiness Christians experience in conversion: Mais on vante surtout l’inimitable adresse Dont tu feins d’un chrétien le zele et l’allegresse" (1.5.293). These past representations of martyrs and heroes, however, are preparations or "stepping stones" to his ultimate cre- ation. Tymieniecka's explanation of the evolution of a masterpiece illustrates Genest’s need to reveal and display his conversion: 157 Each new created work of the same maker is a step- ping stone to the next one . . . all these dis- persed solutions find their synthesis in a master- piece. This masterpiece appears, then, as the aim toward which all the previous fragmentary efforts converge. (192-193) While being sent to prison in chains, Genest is conscious that this metamorphosis is his masterpiece: it will result in his glorification and eternal life. He anticipates his final reward: Les Anges, quelque jour, des fers que tu m’ordonnes Dans ce palais d’azur me feront des couronnes. (4.8.1403-04) By displaying his newly-created masterpiece, the Christian martyr Genest communicates his message of belief to the spectators. Surpassing the Renaissance artist who aspired to achieve a truth, the baroque creative artist, such as Genest, demonstrates truth in order to stir the spectator to action. According to Germain Bazin, "the spectator enters the process as an essential element in a dialogue with the creator of the work."13 After fusing with his character Adrian, Genest, subverting reason and his rehearsed role, abandons Adrian’s lines, spontaneously creates his own life text, and boldly insists on demonstrating his act of faith to the spectators in order to move them to conversion. Genest now becomes a performer in God’s theatre. Genest designates "le Ciel" as his "approbateur," and he identifies 158 himself as "son acteur" (4.7.1299-1314). In his role as an actor in God’s theatre, Genest’s final performance functions as a profession of his faith as well as a creative call to encourage the spectators to share his belief. Since the speaker/improviser of baroque discourse intends to disclose the truth and to convince, persuade, move, and incite the receiver of the message to action,14 Genest’s discourse requires an audience. During the prison scene, in response to Marcelle’s plea that he hide his conversion and save his life, Genest, reflecting the intent of baroque discourse, refuses to deceive the Roman court and declares his goal to proclaim his faith: Notre foi n’admet point cet acte de faiblesse; Je la dois publier, puisque je la professe. (5.2.1587-88) Contrary to the characters of Renaissance tragedy and con- trary to the passive characters of Racinian theatre who are "victimes de leur destin ou de leurs propres passions,"15 Genest, a baroque hero, revolts against pagan norms and openly declares his faith. During the performance of his role, the actor Genest is moved to assimilate Adrian’s love for God through a sponta- neous conversion. Genest, then invites the spectators to be moved by his own act of faith, to respond to God’s grace, and to experience a similar spiritual fusion. According to Bernard Chedozeau, for the baroque dramatist, an interiori- 159 sation of the actor’s passions by the spectator joins the spectator to the actor in a "forte volonte d’assimilation vecue."16 Genest implies that this assimilation is possible. for all spectators. In a commentary which reflects the starting point of the famous quarrel between the Jesuits and the Jansenists, Genest points out to Marcelle that everyone receives suffi- cient grace from God to achieve his salvation, but not everyone responds to it: Ta grece peut, Seigneur, detourner ce presage! Mais, helas! tous l’ayant, tous n’en ont pas l’usage: De tant de convies bien peu suivent tes pas Et pour etre appeles, tous ne repondent pas. (5.2.1575-78) Explaining that martyrdom destroys death by granting eternal life, Genest attempts to persuade Marcelle and the other Roman actors and spectators to react to God’s grace by sharing his crime of conversion: Si d’un heureux avis vos esprits sont capables, Partagez ce forfait, rendez-vous-en coupables, Et vous reconnaitrez s’il est un heur plus doux Que la mort qu’en effet je vous souhaite a tous. Vous mourriez pour un Dieu dont la bonte supreme, Vous faisant en mourant detruire la mort meme, Ferait l’eternite le prix de ce moment Que j’appelle une grace et vous un chatiment. (5.2.1487-94) Genest differentiates his interpretation of martyrdom, "grace," from the Romans’ interpretation, "chatiment." By making this distinction, Genest highlights the differing 160 value systems of the Christians and the pagan Romans and the difficulty of converting the pagans. Later, in an accusa- tory directive characteristic of sermons, Genest exhorts Marcelle to convert: "Leche! sauve ton ame" (5.2.1604). Through the play-within-the-play structure, Le veri- tahie_Saint_Seneet also reaches out to move all potential converts plagued by uncertainty and doubt: it incites these undecided viewers to accept God’s invitation. During the rehearsal of "Le Martyre d’Adrian" Genest’s initial sponta- neous response to the first Voice highlights his openness to sense experience and change, but it also later discloses his questioning, indecision, and uncertainty: Prenez, dieux, contre Christ, prenez votre parti Dont ce rebelle coeur s’est presque departi Et toi contre les dieux, 6 Christ, prends ta defense Puisqu’a tes lois ce coeur font encor resistance. Et dans l’onde agitee ou flottent mes esprits Terminez votre guerre et m’en faites le prix, Rendez-moi le repos dont ce trouble me prive. (2.4.439-45) In this passage accessible only to the spectators of the entire play, Genest recognizes his internal conflict and implores the gods and the Christian God to terminate their war and make him the prize. While revealing his uncertain- ty, Genest discloses that reason does not motivate him to respond to God’s grace. Genest’s dilemma reflects Mathieu-Castellani’s assess- ment of baroque discourse which, according to her, locates uncertainty not only in the spectator/listener but also in 161 the speaker: "Au coeur de tout grand texte baroque, nait une incertitude," which is corrected "par un acte de croy- ance qui échappe a la raison, mais n’est que certitude incertaine."17 Like Pygmalion who believes in the gods’ power to animate the statue he just created, Genest believes in God’s power to grant him eternal life. In advance of the Pascalian wager by several decades, Genest bases his uncer- tain certainty on a foundation of uncertainty. Through his example, Genest beckons the spectators to identify with his uncertainty and then to assimilate his belief. In act 5, scene 1 Genest’s "stances," audible only to the spectators who view the entire play, address all spec- tators who experience doubt and uncertainty. Reminiscent of Bernini’s "Ecstacy of Saint Teresa," the actor displays his great lyrical exaltation contemplating his martyrdom and the prospect of eternal life. During this emotional outpouring, Genest denies the world’s false values, professes his faith, and extols martyrdom. Genest’s creative call to believe, expressed in his role as an actor of God, summons the viewers to be moved by their senses and emotions and to experience a spiritual fusion with him in order to attain salvation: Mourons donc, la cause y convie: Il doit etre doux de mourir Quand se depouiller de la vie Est travailler pour l’acquerir: Puisque la celeste lumiére Ne se treuve qu’en la quittant 162 Courons au bout de la carriere ou la couronne nous attend. (5.1.1461-1470) Genest’s "Stances" reflect Poussin’s baroque canvas "The Martyrdom of St. Erasmus" c. 162818 which, through the painter’s emphasis on diagonals, draws the spectators view- ing the painting to move their eyes from the horror of the saint’s martyrdom and to focus on the rewards consisting of the palm of the martyrdom, the crowns of laurel, and eternal life in heaven represented by the celestial rays of light. While Poussin’s use of diagonals attracts the viewer’s gaze into his painting to encourage him to participate emotion- ally in the faith experience, Genest’s use of the "nous" form of the imperative in the "Stances" invites all viewers to participate in his experience, to assimilate his passion, to convert and to share his foretaste, his "Essai de la gloire future" and his "douceur extreme" (5.1.1433, 1449). "Gloire," a multi-faceted term with political and religious connotations, promotes the baroque aesthetics’ propensity for the marvelous and the need to display. While the emperors Diocletian and Maximin attain their "gloire" through military conquest, Genest expects his martyrdom to result in "gloire eternelle" in paradise, "un sejour de la gloire” (5.2.1600, 1610). During the interior play, Anthyme, while encouraging Genest to convert, paints a picture of the heavenly glory and the laurel crown awaiting Adrian: 163 Va donc, heureux ami, va presenter ta tete Moins au coup qui t’attend qu’au laurier qu’on t’apprete: Va de tes saints propos eclore les effets, De tous les choeurs des Cieux va remplir les souhaits: Et vous, Hetes du Ciel, saintes legions d’Anges Qui du nom trois fois saint célébrez les louanges, Sans interruption de vos sacres concerts, A son aveuglement tenez les Cieux ouverts. (4.5.1223-30) In the "Stances" Genest’s words mirror what Anthyme has just affirmed in the preceding quotation: however, Genest also attempts to persuade the spectators to join him in seeking salvation and glory. Genest’s creative work, his metamorphosis into a Chris- tian believer and martyr, establishes itself and endures in this life-world through his performance as a pagan actor changing into and performing as God’s actor, "son acteur" (4.7.1314). Genest the pagan actor was the "plus brillant eclat" (1.5.232) of the theatre in Rome: Genest, God’s actor, achieves eternal glory as a saint. Chedozeau notes that the baroque envisions history as a series of exennia which promotes "une participation proche de la fusion, ici du poete et de son heros mythique, ailleurs du spectateur avec . . . 1e saint dont la vie est representee."19 Commit- ted to propagate the faith, Genest through his fusion with Adrian and in his performance as God’s actor, attempts to persuade not only the Romans but also countless spectators of any era to assimilate his passion and to convert. Genest’s portrayal reflects the baroque age in which man seemed to act his life. For example, the Chevalier de 164 Mere (1610-1689), a moralist and letter-writer, wrote that "one should be a ’good actor in life,’ ’regard what one does as a play, and imagine one is acting a part.’"2° Genest’s enactment of his metamorphosis and martyrdom becomes a model for all spectators to imitate. In order to convert, the Romans, like Genest, have to suppress reason and overthrow their value systems. The spectators themselves, the Romans, the unbelievers, and the undecided, have to react spontane- ously to their feelings and sense experiences, improvise their own new life texts, re-create themselves in an ulti- mate baroque metamorphosis to become a Christian believer, and display their conversions for others to imitate. NOTES 1 Cited in Minguet 45. 1 Cited in Minguet 45. 3 Cited in Minguet 45. 6 Argan 9. 5 Fernand Hallyn EQIESS_m_LQQ_QIiQB§§_Q§D§_l§_RQé§i§ lyr_gu__d__liage_barcgue_en_firauce (Geneve: Droz, 1975) 22- 6 Hallyn, footnote 57, p. 27. 7 Hallyn 220-21. 6 Forestier 227. ° Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. ngps_aud_Life1_§reatiye Experience_and_the_§ritigu__gf_Bea_on (Dordrecht=K1uwer. 1988) 420. All further references, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in paren- theses. 1° Chedozeau 75-76. 11 See Floeck 198. According to Floeck, irrational passion and chance determine the movement of baroque theatre. 12 Forestier 222. 13 Bazin 40. 1‘ Mathieu-Castellani 58. 16 Floeck 184. 16 Chedozeau 107. For a differentiation between the classical and baroque aesthetics with respect to spectator emotional response to the theatrical representation, see 133-135 of this dissertation. 17 Mathieu-Castellani 71. 16 See 23-25 of this dissertation. 165 166 1’ Chedozeau 107. 2° Bazin 48. CHAPTER 5 THE 1988 PRODUCTION OF LE VERTIABLE SAINT GENES: AT THE COMEDIE FRANCAISE 167 168 A relatively unperformed play.1 Leleritahlesaint SeneSt entered the repertoire of the Comedie Francaise in the Winter/Spring season of 1988 through the efforts of Jean Le Poulain, the theatre’s "Administrateur general," and under the direction of Andre Steiger. While a student at a "conservatoire de province," Le Poulain’s first play to direct was Saint Seneet. Intrigued by its "cetes meta- physiques et par le jeu du theatre dans le theatre,"2 he contacted Steiger to direct it. Steiger’s direction and Claude Lemaire’s scenery do not promote the play’s "appel creatif" to believe characteristic of the "baroque de per- suasion." While maintaining a strong interest in Rotrou’s exploration of the art of the actor and theatrical represen- tation, the director envisions the life significance of Le yeritahie_Saint_Seneet as a commentary on tolerance versus intolerance in order to appeal more directly to a 1980’s audience. As a result of Steiger’s shift in focus, some major changes occur in the production:3 1. Elements of the "merveilleux chrétien," such as the appearance of flames representing the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are eliminated. 2. A manuscript fragment, discovered by Jacques Scherer in a 1648 edition of Le_yeritahie_Saint_SeneSt and not definitively attributed to Rotrou,‘ is incorporated in the performance text following line 371. In this fragment 169 Marcelle decries Adrian’s conversion as that of a "fou" and expresses her inability to understand and portray Natalie who would prefer Adrian to be a martyr than to remain her living "bel epoux." 3. The Roman spectators leave the stage after the completion of act 4, scene 1: they do not witness the criti- cal moment when Genest announces his conversion. They return to the stage immediately after his initial revelation of his conversion at the end of act 4, scene 5 in the Sanchez text.5 The suppression of the "merveilleux chre- tien," Marcelle’s verbal attack against Adrian and Natalie, and the absence of the Roman spectators at the point of Genest’s conversion reinforce Steiger’s interpretation. Through excerpts from interviews, the director Andre Steiger and the principal actors Michel Aumont (Genest/ Adrian), Francine Berge (Marcelle/Natalie), and Francois Chaumette (Diocletian) describe the creation of this 1988 production at the Comedie Francaise. Development of Focus and Life Significance Rhett: Pourquoi vouliez-vous jouer le rble de Saint Genest? Ca 8 ete votre choix de jouer ce rele ou est-ce que la direction a la Comedie Francaise vous a donne un choix de reles a jouer? Annent: Alors, ca a commence comme ca . . . la Comedie Francaise enregistre beaucoup de radio. Dans une annee, 170 elle a lu environ une cinquantaine de pieces . . . ce qui fait evidemment beaucoup et on est donc oblige de prospecter dans tous les repertoires pour trouver toujours des pieces, et entre autres, on est donc tombe un jour sur cette piece de Rotrou qui est pratiquement inconnue, il faut bien le dire. Elle a ete jouée il y a quelques annees en peripherie autour de Paris, puis, elle a ete jouee au debut du siecle a l’Odeon, je crois, enfin, elle est pratiquement inconnue, donc on l'a faite a la radio et l’experience nous ayant plu, on s’est dit, tiens, apres tout, si on la montait, si on la mettait en scene, ca pourrait etre interessant. A ce moment-la est arrive Jean Le Poulain comme Administrateur qui a disparu maintenant, vous savez, et on lui a parlé de ca, et 11 a ete emballe parce qu’il connaissait tres bien la piece. Il l’avait travaillee lui: c’etait au Conservatoire et 11 l’avait montee, je crois, avec les eleves du Conserva- toire, alors ca lui a beaucoup plu et puis voila. . . .6 Rhett: Quels etaient les rapports entre les acteurs, le metteur en scene, M. Andre Steiger, et Claude Lemaire? (Elle est decoratrice.) Anngnt: Je crois qu’ils ont beaucoup travaille ensem- ble. Ils se connaissent tres bien. Ils se sont choisis l’un l’autre une nouvelle fois. Rhett: Qu’est—ce que le metteur en scene a fait exac- tement pour la representation de cette piece? Le travail commence bien des mois avant la representation? 171 ghanmette: D’abord, il a son travail a lui qui est un travail de reflexion sur la piece, mais c’est un travail qu’il avait deja fait, puisque c’est une piece qu’il avait beaucoup etudiee a une epoque on 11 enseignait a l’ecole de Strasbourg. Alors, il avait beaucoup reflechi sur cette piece. I1 avait meme fait un exercice d’eleves, je crois, avec cette piece, donc 11 la connaissait tres, tres bien . . . ensuite, quand il est venu ici et qu’il a travaille avec nous, et bien il a profite des apports personnels de Michel Aumont, de Francine Berge qui sont d’extraordinaires acteurs et qui sont des locomotives dans ce spectacle et qui obligent tout le reste de la troupe a tirer le meme train et non pas a essayer d’aller s’egarer dans la campagne. Je crois que ca, ca a ete l’essentiel du travail de Steiger, c’est de bien rassembler toute la troupe autour des deux phares.’7 Rhett: Depuis quand vous interessez-vous a la piece? Steiger: Avant de travailler 1e theatre a Paris, vous savez, j’avais lu deja le Saint_Seneet et ca me paraissait etre, dans la litterature du dix-septieme siecle, une piece cle, une piece determinante, d’abord parce qu’elle parle des conditions meme de la representation au dix-septieme, pas a Rome, entendons-nous bien, mais au dix-septieme, et que d’autre part, c’est une des pieces qui est pent-etre la plus inscrite dans un contexte politique et d’une facon dange- reuse. Il ne faut pas oublier que, au moment ou le Saint 172 Genest se produit, celui de Rotrou singulierement, qui est tres, tres subtil et tres complexe (je ne parle pas du Saint Senest d’avant, de Desfontaines, par exemple, ou du Saint Seneet des jésuites), il ne faut pas oublier qu’on est encore dans la pression des guerres de religion et que, ce que la scene montre, c’est-a-dire, des romains mettant a mort un chrétien, n’est ni plus ni moins que ce qui vient de se passer quelques annees auparavant, mais, la conscience reste encore marquee par ca. En France, avec les guerres de religion ou ce sont alors des catholiques qui executaient des protestants au nom finalement de la meme ideologie que l’ideologie paienne, c’est-a-dire que c’est une piece sur la tolerance et sur l’intolerance et comment finalement le theatre en rend compte. Ce sont les deux elements determi- nants de la piece.8 Rhett: Quelle a eté l’influence de M. Jean Rousset dans votre representation de Saint_Seneet? Steiger: C’est un peu a cause du travail de Jean Rousset que je me suis interesse au Genest de Rotrou. J’ai lu effectivement son texte sur la piece.9 Je connaissais la piece, mais le texte de Rousset m’a ouvert completement une lecture nouvelle, une lecture que je ne connaissais pas, plus pent-etre subtile et c’est en tout cas, le texte de Rousset qui a eté en grande partie a l’origine de mon desir de monter cette piece. 173 Rhett: Est-ce que vous avez eu des conversations avec lui? Steiger: J’ai eu des conversations, mais vous savez, pas de travail, pas des conversations de travail, mais des conversations de repas, des conversations a batons rompus comme ca autour d’un repas. On a beaucoup parle, mais il y a tres longtemps, on a beaucoup parle de Saint_§ene§t, avant que--mais je l’ai deja montee une fois avec les eleves de l’ecole de Strasbourg. Il y a une ecole au Theatre National de Strasbourg, une ecole de theatre tres celebre en France et avec les eleves, 11 y a environ six, sept ans j’ai monte le Saint_Seneet de Rotrou dans une toute autre mise en scene, dans une toute autre version, et a cette époque-la, j’avais parle justement avec Jean Rousset. Voila. Rhett: Lesquelles des idees de Jean Rousset sont les plus importantes dans votre representation? Steiger: Oui, alors la, je ne peux plus tellement faire la part des choses parce qu’au cours du travail, on part d’une idee pour faire une mise en scene, mais au cours du travail evidemment, d’autres materiaux s’accumulent: nos propres materiaux, nos propres reflexions viennent, un peu brouiller les pistes, mais je pense que ce qui est reste de la lecture de l’article de Rousset, ce qui est reste en fait, c’est l’idee que ca se situe d’abord bien dans le contexte du dix-septieme et que ca a tres peu a voir avec la problematique romaine. . . . 174 Pour moi, tous les elements sont a glaner un peu par- tout, et i1 y a des quantites d’elements, il n’y a pas que Rousset la-dedans. C’est une influence, mais l’influence determinante--c’est quand meme, si vous voulez dans le meme temps, je monte, ca se joue actuellement en Suisse dans le meme temps je montais Les Negres de Jean Genet qui est une piece tres proche du Saint Genest. C’est pourquoi j’ai monte les deux avec la meme decoratrice. Nous avons monte les deux pieces a la suite parce que nous nous sommes poses, nous nous sommes penches pas tellement uniquement sur le probleme de Rotrou, pas uniquement sur le probleme du dix- septieme, mais sur le probleme du systeme narratif qui fait que le theatre s’utilise lui-meme comme metaphore du monde. Donc, pour preciser, la part de Rousset a ete une part determinante au depart, mais tres vite, on a quand meme deborde et depasse ce travail-la pour partir sur des pistes, je disais, beaucoup plus modernes, maintenant, beaucoup plus contemporaines, c’est-a-dire le travail notamment, effectivement de ces especes de mise en danger du theatre par lui-meme--aussi bien appartenir a l’univers de Rotrou dans le Saint_Seneet qu’a l’univers surtout de Genet dans Leslegres et dans Lem. RUQ££= Pourriez-vous me resumer: "Quelle est la signification de cette piece de nos jours? Qhannette: Pour moi, de nos jours . . . c’est le proces de l’intolerance de quelque bord qu’il soit. Je 175 crois que nous vivons dans un monde ou nous sommes obliges de se supporter les uns les autres et de se respecter les uns les autres et que ca n’est pas sur les questions de foi, de convictions politiques, et de choses comme ca qu’il faut condamner les autres. Je crois que c’est par la solidarite et la generosite aussi bien vis a vis de la personne des autres que l’on doit faire un monde meilleur et que ca n’est plus du tout dans la croyance, dans des dieux ou dans les choses comme ca que--Pour moi, c’est une piece qui est profondement un plaidoyer contre l’intolerance et le fana- tisme. Rhett: Et la conversion de Saint Genest represente-- ghannette: represente un moment, mais il est evident aussi que la conversion de Saint Genest peut etre un danger manifeste si au nom de cette foi qu’il decouvre, il veut annihiler toutes les autres convictions. Il est bien que Saint Genest ait sa foi et qu’il croit en quelque chose mais a condition de ne pas empecher les autres de croire en autre chose. Costumes and Staging Rhett: Lesquelles des idees de Jean Rousset sont les plus importantes dans votre representation? Steiger: C’est l’idee que ca se situe d’abord bien dans le contexte du dix-septieme et que ca a tres pen a voir avec la problematique romaine. C’est-a-dire que l’ensemble 176 finalement des elements, ressortissent bien de toute l’epoque ou Rotrou ecrit la piece: c’est cette inscription finalement dans l’epoque d’une litterature plus que dans l’histoire d’une anecdote, l’histoire d’une fable . . . qui a perdure au cours du travail. C’est pourquoi, par exemple, j’ai garde l’idee des costumes avec la decoratrice, l’idee des costumes qui sont empruntes a toute la sensibilite du dix-septieme siecle beaucoup plus qu’a Rome, la facon dont le dix-septieme siecle interprete. Rhett: A la premiere scene de l’Acte II, Genest parle au decorateur. Comme acteur principal dans cette represen- tation, vous interessez-vous au decor, a la mise en scene, aux costumes ou, ca vous est egal, et vous laissez cela a la decoratrice? Annent: Eh bien, je ne m’interesse probablement pas assez. Ca, c’est mon probleme personnel; c’est moi qui ai tort. Je devrais peut-etre. Quand on me confie des reles aussi importants, je devrais peut-etre participer plus a ce qu’on appelle la mise en scene, mais j’avoue que je ne sens pas tres fort la-dessus. Je doute de moi. J’ai toujours peur de ne pas voir clair, de dire des betises, de me tromper. Alors, c’est vrai que je suis un peu passif. Je laisse faire un petit peu. Cela dit, moi, quand j’ai vu 1e decor, on nous présente la maquette du decor pendant les repetitions . . . je me suis dit, tiens, c’est simple, c’est 177 beau, ca me paraissait bien. Maintenant, 11 y a des gens qui le critiquent beaucoup. . . . BBQ££= Est-ce qu’il y avait des considerations de budget au sujet des costumes, de la mise en scene on c’est un sujet dont le metteur en scene n’a pas parle? Annent: On est tres au courant. Les acteurs sont tres au courant des problemes de la troupe en ce moment. Et bien, si on a des problemes economiques assez graves, alors, c’est certain que dans la fabrication du decor on a fait attention. Je crois que c'est un spectacle qui ne cofite pas tres cher: on a eté oblige de penser a ca. Mais je ne pense pas que ca se voit de la salle, qu’on se dit, "Oh, la, la! Qu’est-ce que ca fait pauvre." Rhett: Et votre impression des costumes? Anmgnt: L’idee de Steiger et de sa decoratrice d’habiller les romains en Louis XIII, moi, j’ai vu ca aux premieres repetitions.1° On nous a montre les maquettes, on nous a parlé de cette idee. J’avoue que je n’ai pas du tout eté choque: je ne me suis pas dit, "Ah, ca ne veut rien dire." C’est encore une idee intellectuelle, ou pas du tout. Alors, maintenant, j’apprends qu’il y a des gens apres chaque representation, des gens du public qui disent "mais on ne comprend rien. Pourquoi les romains ne sont-ils pas habilles en romains?" BBQ££= Je me demande pourquoi on a decide de mettre les romains en costumes Louis XIII? 178 Anngnt: C’est un peu un clin d’oeil. Il faut que le public soit tres cultivé pour comprendre une chose comme ca. C’est un clin d’oeil par rapport bien sfir a l’epoque ou ca a été joue, Corneille, bien sfir, mais c’est vrai que ce n’est pas tres clair. Moi, ca ne me choque pas beaucoup. Je vous dirai, c’est le genre de choses qui me me choque pas beau- coup. 822:: Je me demande 51 1e metteur en scene et la decoratrice ont fait ca pour montrer une difference entre les acteurs et les spectateurs. Si les deux sont dans les memes costumes, des romains-- Annent: Oui, mais alors, elle nous parlait de l’idee que la cour etait tres riche, tres, tres noble comme ca alors que les acteurs etaient evidemment des gens un peu plus du peuple, plus simples. Mais elle aurait pent-etre pu faire ca avec des costumes romains, non? Je ne sais pas. Par contre, ca revient un pen a la question precedente. Ce que j’ai remarque tout de suite dans le travail c’est le cete extremement statique de la mise en scene, bien sfir. Les spectateurs romains sont assis la. Ils ne bougent plus. De temps en temps, ils se grattent le nez c’est tout, et nous, les acteurs en train de jouer, on est quasi immobiles, enfin,c’est tres, tres--ca, moi, je me suis dit, en fait, j’ai laisse faire, je me suis dit, "C’est dangereux." J’ai pense, "c’est dangereux." 179 Rhett: Etes-vous content de la mise en scene et des costumes? J’ai ete un peu choquee que les spectateurs romains-- Qhannette: Soient en costumes du dix-septieme siecle? Rhett: Oui, c’est ca. Shannette: C’est la vieille querelle. C’est un des reproches qui a ete fait par certaines personnes au spec- tacle, alors que d’autres trouvent que c’est . . . La piece est tellement dix-septieme siecle, elle est tellement peu romaine que la volonte est, de Steiger, en tant que metteur en scene, et de Claude Lemaire, en tant que decoratrice, la volonte a ete de bien montrer que c’etait une fausse roma- nite, et qu’au fond, le probleme de la tolerance ou de l’intolerance est un probleme qui pouvait concerner aussi bien l’empire romain que le dix-septieme et que le monde contemporain. BBQ££= Je comprends maintenant. Shannette: En plus, c’est une reference historique si l’on songe que le dix-septieme siecle a ete un siecle ou les guerres de religion etaient tres fortes en France. L’action de Richelieu contre les protestants, la revocation de l’edit de Nantes, ca c’etait anterieur, mais, enfin, 11 y avait un contexte religieux dans toute cette époque. Pour nous, francais du vingtieme siecle, 11 y a entre Henri IV et Louis XIV, par exemple, ce qui represente quand meme une certaine duree, 11 y a de grands, vrais problemes 180 religieux at ou la religion d’Etat s’est trouvee transformee par la reforme, etc. Je pense que c’etait 1a volonte de Steiger et de Claude Lemaire de bien montrer que cette piece romaine etait faussement romaine, mais qu’elle etait bien aussi temoin du dix-septieme siecle et si nous 1a montons, nous, c’est qu’elle est aussi temoin de notre epoque. Rhett: J’ai remarque dans la representation que le metteur en scene a diminue l’importance de l’assistance romaine, par exemple, au moment on Genest parle a Anthyme. Quel est l’effet du manque des spectateurs romains sur la scene? Shannette: Je crois que ca a un effet de concentration sur l’action au moment ou l’action devient plus tragique, plus dramatique. C’est la moment de la conversion reelle de Genest, et je crois qu’il a voulu justement epurer la chose et d’en faire plus qu’un debat entre la troupe de Genest et Genest. Ca permet au metteur en scene comme ca de concen- trer bien l’action sur la conversion de Genest et, en meme temps, de ménager l’irruption des spectateurs romains de la cour au moment ou l’action atteint son paroxysme, l’action de conversion atteint son paroxysme, et on le denouement se prepare. Rhett: J’ai remarque que le metteur en scene a supprime un peu l’assistance sur scene. Dans le texte de la piece, je ne parle pas du texte de la Comedie Francaise, les spectateurs romains sont en scene au quatrieme acte pour 181 etre temoins de la conversion de Genest. Dans cette mise en scene a la Comedie Francaise, les spectateurs romains sont partis au debut du quatrieme acte. Annent: Oui, oui. Absolument. Rhett: Je me demande pourquoi il a decide de laisser partir les spectateurs? Annent: Je crois que les spectateurs ne comprennent pas, n’est-ce pas? Les spectateurs de maintenant de la salle, les vrais ne comprennent pas bien pourquoi les romains ne sont plus la. Rhett: Oui, exactement. Anngnt: Il [Steiger, le metteur en scene] nous disait que pour lui ca representait des changements de plan. Comme si on etait au cinema et que le spectateur, le vrai, le spectateur reel qui regarde la piece de Rotrou, lui, changeait de place. . . . Rhett: Des moments comiques dans la piece on Marcelle--au deuxieme acte 11 y a une scene qui n’est pas dans le texte original.11 11 s’agit de quelques remarques de Marcelle au sujet du fard, de sa difficulte de comprendre et de bien jouer 1e role d’une chretienne. Anmgnt: Ah si, si, c’est une scene qui avait eté enlevee probablement par Rotrou lui-meme ou alors peut-etre a une autre representation, on ne sait pas. C’est une scene qui avait eté enlevee. . . . 182 Rhett: 11 y a souvent une difference entre le texte litteraire et le texte qu’on joue finalement. Par exemple, dans le texte que j’ai lu, les directions disent que des flammes apparaissent sur scene. Dans cette mise en scene, 11 n’y a pas de flammes, [symbole de l’intervention miracu- leuse de Dieu]. Le metteur en scene a diminue l’importance du merveilleux chrétien. Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres choses dans cette piece, dont vous etes conscient, qui sont changees depuis des Siecles? Chaumette: Oui, bien sfir, parce que les symboles, tous les symboles n’ont pas la meme valeur. Il y a des choses qui sont symboliques d’une époque et qui, le siecle suivant, ne veulent rien dire du tout. Alors le travail, justement des gens de theatre, des metteurs en scene, de ces gens la, c’est de redonner la meme valeur, en changeant les symboles. Il est certain que certains symboles ne veulent plus rien dire pour des tas de gens. Alors, il faut trouver les equivalences. Alors, les flammes, ca peut etre un rayon laser, ca peut etre, je vous dis, n’importe quoi: l’appari- tion d’un satellite, par exemple, peut avoir la meme valeur que l’annonciation faite a Marie. Enfin, je dis n’importe quoi, expres, mais vous voyez ce que je veux dire, c’est que les symboles changent. Rhett: Et enfin le metteur en scene-- 183 ghannette: Puis il a sa propre imagination et sa propre vision des choses, c’est pour ca qu’on le choisit, en general. The Role of the Director Rhett: Quel est le veritable réle du metteur en scene? Qu'est-ce qu’il fait avec les acteurs? Annent: C’est une bonne question. Ah! C’est diffi- cile. Qu’est-ce qu’il fait avec les acteurs? On peut--on ne va pas decrire ce que devrait etre un metteur en scene ideal en ne parlant que de celui-la qui est donc M. Steiger. Rhett: Et certainement avec cette piece. Annent: Avec cette piece-la, son intervention a con- siste surtout en une tres, tres bonne et tres, comment dirais-je, tres, tres nourrie explication de texte, explica- tion litteraire du texte. Pour nous situer Rotrou dans son epoque, il parlait de la langue, etc. Voila, tout ce travail-la ce qu’on appelle en fait c’est le travail a la table, vous savez, les lectures a la table avant qu’on commence a jouer. Alors, la, ca a ete tres long: 11 nous a vraiment beaucoup explique la piece. Et apres, une fois qu’on a commence a repéter sur la scene, disons qu’il s’est un peu efface pour ne plus s’occu- per que de tout ce qui etait alors la presentation, un peu, disons technique alors, naturellement les eclairages, les effets de musique, les problemes de decors, de costumes, de 184 placement des spectateurs sur la scene, des spectateurs romains. Voila surtout ca ce qu’il a--dont il s’est pre- occupe--je veux dire par la qu’il ne s’est pas beaucoup, il ne s’est plus beaucoup occupe du jeu des acteurs. Une fois qu’il nous a bien explique la piece il s’est dit, ca suffit maintenant; ils vont se debrouiller. Rhett: C’est a dire que vous, vous-meme, avez crée le rele apres avoir entendu les explications de Steiger. Aument: Voila, si vous voulez. Rhett: Comment est-ce que vous etes arrive a jouer? Gestes, voix, declamation, etc. . . . C’etait le metteur en scene qui vous a indique la maniere de jouer ou est-ce que vous avez cree le rele? Est-ce que vos gestes etaient spontanes ou prepares a l’avance? Serge: . . . je crois qu’elle [la question] a trait a toute la representation theatrale, a tout l’art de l’acteur si j’ose m’exprimer ainsi, c’est-a-dire, je crois qu’on se met d’accord avec le metteur en scene a travers le style de l’ecriture sur la facon dont il faut jouer. Bon, par exemple, dans un premier temps on pensait qu’on allait jouer les personnages de la tragédie, c’est-a-dire, Adrian, Natalie et les autres d’une maniere assez emphatique et les personnages de la comedie, c’est-a-dire, Marcelle, Genest, et les autres d’une maniere beaucoup plus simple, et puis finalement on a abandonne ca. Je ne sais plus pourquoi on l’a abandonne. Je pense qu’on l’a abandonne aussi parce que 185 dans quelques passages, 11 est difficile de savoir qui parle, surtout dans le cas de Genest/Adrian et que le deter- miner d’une facon tranchee aurait eté tout a fait arbi- traire, ce qui fait qu’on a plutet fait des differences dans l’humeur. Il est bien evident que l’humeur des comédiens n’est pas l’humeur des personnages qui jouent la tragédie. Mais ca se fait au cours des repetitions. C’est tout d’un coup un acteur trouve un geste; le metteur en scene en suggere un autre. Il n’y a pas en, Si vous voulez, dans ce cas precis, ni un metteur en scene, qui nous a indique tous les gestes, ni nous les acteurs qui avons tout propose, ca a eté un travail de collaboration.12 Rhett: Meme avant le commencement de la representation de la piece, par exemple dans la repetition, est-ce que le metteur en scene a dit qu’il faudrait souligner ces mots par quelques gestes? Qhaumette: Bien entendu, mais ca c’est pendant la periode des repetitions. 11 a dit, "Mefie-toi, la, a ce moment-la, tu as une attitude qui pourrait laisser croire que tu es desinteresse de ce que tu fais ou qu’au contraire, tu prends trop a coeur ce que tu dis," ou des choses comme ca. Mais ca c’est le travail des repetitions et plus quand les repetitions sont terminees et qu’on passe au public, tout a coup, le metteur en scene est efface, mais tout son travail est realise. c’est comme pour nous, la plupart du travail est realise: ce qu’il faut c’est chaque soir, 186 retrouver une spontaneite et essayer de restituer l’esprit du travail qui a eté fait. . . . si j’ai le pied droit en avant au lieu du pied gauche, ca peut ne rien changer a l’inflexion, ne rien changer aux sentiments du personnage a ce moment-la. Rhett: Apres la premiere representation, est-ce que le metteur en scene est efface ou est-ce qu’il etait la pour vous donner encore des directions? Qhannette: Oui, non, c’est a dire que le gros de son travail est termine. Apres la derniere repetition, au moment ou le rideau se leve pour la premiere fois devant le public, le travail du metteur en scene est termine. Mais son devoir et son rele c’est aussi de contreler que le travail ne s’egare pas, ne soit pas deforme, parce que ca, ca peut arriver. Alors, le metteur en scene ne vient pas tous les soirs, mais il vient de temps en temps: il fait un sondage. Il dit, "Attention mes enfants, vous avez decale a tel moment": au contraire, "Ca, ca s’est amelioré, et ca, ca va beaucoup plus dans le sens que nous souhaitions," etc. 11 exerce un droit de contrele, mais il n’est plus partie active dans le spectacle, alors qu’il a ete partie active et la principale participation active pendant l’ela- boration du spectacle. 187 Conceptions of Character Portrayal and Acting GenestAAdriam Rhett: Le rele de Genest est tres exigeant, je crois. Vous jouez deux personnages differents qui se fondent en un seul personnage. Quelles ont été les differentes etapes dans la preparation de ce rele difficile? Decrivez un peu la progression de sa foi et comment vous avez decide de montrer cette progression sur scene. Annent: C’est tres difficile a expliquer. On s’est surtout base nous, comment dirais-je, avec le metteur en scene et moi--on a moins cherche a exprimer l’arrivee de la foi sur un etre humain que le probleme qui paraissait inte- resser surtout 1e metteur en scene, qui etait l’identifi- cation de l’acteur a son rele. C’est surtout ca qu’on a voulu montrer. Cela dit, je pense que ca revient au meme resultat, c’est la meme chose, mais si vous voulez, l’expression de la foi chretienne elle coule de source; elle vient avec le texte, bien sur, parce qu’il ne dit que ca. Alors on n’a pas cherche ou bien a faire une evolution dans la foi qui monterait, par exemple, qui serait de plus en plus grande. On ne s’est occupe que du probleme de l’acteur en train de jouer et puis tout d’un coup comme s’il devenait un peu fou en somme, melangeant la realite et le jeu the- atral. Voila. Mais je pense que ca revient au meme finale- ment. L. 188 Rhett: J’ai lu dans le programme de la Comedie Francaise, d’apres Jean-Loup Riviere qui cite Genest ”Ce n’est plus Adrian, c’est Genest qui respire"13 que "C’est un moment on Genest renonce a etre acteur en choisissant 1e martyre qu’il devient, pourrait-on dire, absolument acteur."14 C’est ce que vous dites. Annent: C’est assez obscur. Evidemment, 11 y a un paradoxe complet. Il devient absolument acteur; c’est qu’il sort completement du theatre pour devenir, du fait qu’il est completement investi par la foi chretienne, pour devenir un etre humain vrai, c’est-a-dire l’acteur dans le sens d’acteur de lui-meme. C’est ce qu’il dit dans la piece. "Je suis devenu acteur de moi-meme". C’est-a-dire, il devient completement un etre réellement agissant et acteur puisqu’il est tout a fait occupe par la foi chretienne. Mais en meme temps 11 sort completement du theatre. Le theatre devient impossible. Alors, c’est bizarre comme situation. Rhett: Dans la piece, Diocletian parle du rele de l’acteur, de ce que l’acteur fait. Il dit: Le comique, 00 ton art egalement succede, Est contre la tristesse un si present remede Qu’un seul mot, quand tu veux, un pas, une action Ne laisse plus de prise a cette passion, Et, par une soudaine et sensible merveille, Jette la joie au coeur par l’oeil ou par l’oreille. (1.5.245-50) 189 Pourriez-vous commenter sur cette citation. D’apres ce que je comprends, une partie de l’acte de jouer consiste en un changement de voix, de gestes pour bien souligner les idees. Vous souvenez-vous des gestes, des changements de voix en particulier que vous avez utilises, que vous avez ajoutes pour faire comprendre au spectateur que vous etes en train de jouer un rele, puis que vous etes en train de vous con- vertir, que vous ne jouez plus Adrian mais que la conversion a pris place, et que vous jouez 1e rele de Genest lui-meme? Annent: Je ne sais pas quel est votre avis personnel a vous qui avez vu le spectacle. On n’est pratiquement pas passe par le corps. Je dois dire qu’il n’y a eu aucun travail sur le fait, par le physique, par le corps, et c’est peut-etre a tort. Mais enfin, c’est comme ca. Ca a ete voulu par le metteur en scene, c’est comme ca. Donc, tout ce qui est gestuel est venu avec le texte, avec les mots. On s’est contente de dire, si vous voulez, psychologiquement les mots et naturellement 11 y a des gestes qui suivent naturellement, mais il n’y a pas en de recherches du tout pour exprimer avec le corps quelque chose. Par exemple, la premiere fois qu’il [Genest, acte 2, scene 4] entend la voix, vous savez, il est en train de repeter tout seul et puis il entend la voix. On aurait pu pent-etre imaginer une chose avec le corps plus expressive: la, 11 n’y a pratique- ment rien. Je regarde en l’air, puis je continue a parler, vous voyez. Cette recherche n’a pas eté faite volontairement. 190 Rhett: C’est tout a fait naturel ce qui arrive avec les gestes. figment: Oui. Voila. Rhett: Apres la premiere representation de la piece est-ce qu’on a change des choses ou est-ce que la piece est restee en grande partie identique? enmgnt: A chaque representation? Je crois tres peu, tres peu. S’il y a des choses qui ont pu changer, ca vien- drait surtout de moi, mais c’est quand meme sur des nuances. Ca, ce n’est pas des grands changements. Mais c’est des nuances, c’est-a-dire que moi, je travaille tout le temps. Je ne m’arrete jamais. Une fois que 1e spectacle est passe au public je ne me dis pas, "Bon, maintenant ca y est, c’est fait." Alors, pour la representation suivante je retra- vaille, je recommence. Je fais ca pratiquement a chaque fois. Alors, ca amene forcement des modifications. 11 y en a qui sont assez importantes. Par exemple, les premiers temps, les premieres representations, je jouais, j’essayais d’etre plus vrai et pour etre plus vrai j’oubliais un peu les vers. J’oubliais un peu de dire 1e vers pour donner l’impression de parler plus naturelle. . . . On me l’a reproche alors, bon. J’ai essaye de donner plus la musique du vers, par exemple, de le faire plus lyrique. Rhett: Je ne comprends pas comment les acteurs peuvent se souvenir des vers, des rimes, du rythme. 191 Annent: Ce texte-la est particulierement difficile. Et c’est vrai qu’on a souvent des petits ennuis de memoire parce qu’il est tres difficile. MareelleANatalie Rhett: Quelle image, quel portrait, quels aspects de caractere vouliez-vous souligner dans le rele de Marcelle/ Natalie? Serge: Dans la mesure ou Marcelle est une tragedienne qui joue une tragédie dans laquelle 11 y a pen de moments ou pas du tout de moments de bonheur ou de joie, j’ai eu envie pour Marcelle qu’elle soit la plus gaie, la plus coquette, la plus legere possible pour pouvoir avoir des choses dif- ferentes a jouer, parce que je trouve que c’est plus inte- ressant pour ca, mais pas forcement toujours dans l’absolu. Quant a Natalie . . . j’ai surtout eu envie de montrer son amour pour Genest. En fait, et dans les deux person- nages, je voulais que se retrouvent l’amour et la complicite pour Genest. Parce que moi, c’est une des choses qui m’interesse le plus a jouer, c’est l’amour. C’est meme Ta chose qui m’interesse le plus a jouer, et c’etait tres difficile dans cette piece qui n’est pas une piece d’amour. Mais je pense que Marcelle et Genest sont un grand couple du theatre. Ils sont en tout cas unis par l’amour du theatre, et je pense que Natalie et Adrian, c’est aussi un vrai 192 couple. Ce sont aussi des gens qui s’aiment. Donc, c’est ca surtout que moi, j’avais envie de montrer. Rhett: Comment est-ce que vous avez montre la diffe- rence entre Marcelle, actrice romaine, Natalie masquee comme paienne chez les romains, et Natalie demasquee a cause de la conversion de son mari? Serge: Etant donne qu’il y avait peu de moments de detente possible dans le rele de Natalie, j’ai voulu, le metteur en scene a voulu, nous avons voulu d’un commun accord que Marcelle soit la plus heureuse, la plus gaie, la plus frivole, la plus superficielle, et la plus coquette possible. 11 n’y a pas grand-chose. 11 y a une toute petite scene,15 mais moi, j’ai essaye moi de faire le maxi- mum de ca. Et puis dans un cete, si vous voulez, j’ai essaye de parler les vers le plus possible. Ensuite, bon, effectivement, elle est completement affolee par ce qui arrive [la conversion de Genest] . . . , mais j’ai essaye d’en faire la chose la plus censee, la plus terre a terre, les pieds sur terre le plus possible. Et Natalie demasquee s’epanouit dans une espece de masochisme de bonheur d’aller vers ce sacrifice qui est le comble de l’exaltation pour elle. Je pense que c’est un personnage tres exalte qui n’a aucun probleme materiel comme je suis sfir que--par exemple, Marcelle. Elle doit avoir des problemes d’argent, des problemes de savoir quelle robe elle va acheter; ce sont sfirement des problemes importants pour 193 elle. Et puis elle a des problemes d’actrice, mais je crois que, et puis on avait decide aussi qu’elle allait tres bien jouer Natalie, que ce n’etait pas du tout une mauvaise actrice. Elle [Marcelle] avait des problemes pour com- prendre [la conversion de Genest], mais une fois que c’etait parti, ca allait tout seul. BEQLI differences de jeu et des differences de gestes entre Est-ce que vous avez essaye de montrer des Marcelle et Natalie? Barge exaltee. Donc, peut-etre un ton un peu plus lyrique, un Natalie, elle est, je ne sais pas--c’est une ton, meme si je crois qu’on a fait aucune emphase dans le ton 11 y a une maniere tres terre a terre comme ca de dire des choses et puis une maniere beaucoup plus . . . quelqu’un qui vit dans la poésie. . . . J’essaie de le vous faire comprendre aussi par mon ton. J’espere que vous l’avez senti a la representation. Alors, le jeu, et bien, ca amene le geste, ca amene le ton de la voix, ca amene la sonorite de la voix, ca amene le fait qu’on utilise davantage pent-etre la metrique pour Natalie, c’est-a-dire, les breves et les longues, les alliterations. 11 y en a beaucoup, beaucoup d’ailleurs dans cette piece . . . avec des consonnes, avec les syllabes. C’est une chose dont je me me suis absolument pas preoccupee pour Marcelle. 11 y a des differences de jeux, differences de gestes, donc, je vous dis quelque chose d’autre mais ca 194 serait des differences de sonorite. C’est-a-dire plus un appui sur les breves et les longues et les alliterations et les sonorites dans Natalis, en plus du sens et un souci de justement ne pas m’en occuper pour Marcelle. Si j’ai laisse Natalie faire de grands gestes, j’ai, au contraire, ramasse les gestes de Marcelle. Rhett: Dans la variante du texte dans l’edition de la Comedie Francaise Marcelle dit: Car ce rele me trouble, et j’aurai de la peine A feindre a notre gre cette amour surhumaine.16 Est-ce que vous avez rencontre des difficultes particulieres en jouant ce rele tres difficile de Marcelle/Natalie? Quelles etaient ces difficultes? Serge: Les difficultes particulieres de ce rele tres difficile Marcelle/Natalie . . . viennent de la difficulte du texte. C’est un texte qui est tres archaique, tres rocailleux, tres difficile a apprendre, tres difficile a articuler, tres difficile a comprendre. Alors, il fallait, disons que le travail a commence par bien elucider phrase a phrase, vers a vers, le sens de ces vers et de ces phrases, pas facile. Ensuite, il a fallu l’apprendre parce qu’il y a des periphrases, 11 y a des choses qui veulent dire la meme chose: c’est tres, tres complique. Effectivement, tres difficile, mais . . . a cause du texte. Il fallait . . . donc trouver un sens, une musique. Il fallait que ca soit comprehensible, d’abord pour nous, ensuite pour le 195 spectateur. Le travail sur le texte uniquement a eté un enorme travail, et on a meme eu des problemes pendant la representation. Ca, c’est la premiere fois que je rencon- trais un texte, pas un rele, un texte d’une aussi grande difficulte. Et puis, c’est vrai que vers la fin de la piece, 11 y vraiment des moments on on ne sait pas tres bien dans quel sens les phrases sont dites, si c’est Marcelle ou Natalie, si c’est Adrian ou Genest et qu’il a fallu faire des choix et que ca contribuait a la difficulte. Sinon, ce n’est pas specialement difficile a jouer. C’est d’abord une comedienne qui est ravie--non, qui n’est pas ravie, plutet qui est ravie d’etre comedienne et qui n’est pas ravie du tout d’avoir ce rele-la a jouer. Et puis, qui ensuite, ce qui etait tres interessant, c’est que justement devant Genest qui devient chrétien elle ne com- prend pas. C’est un truc qui la depasse completement, et elle dit "Bien, au moins, si vous etes vraiment chrétien, bien, faites semblant." Alors que Natalie, au contraire, elle dit, "C’est formidable que vous etes chrétien." Moi aussi, il faut le dire . . . C’est totalement l’oppose. Il y en a l’une qui est completement idealiste, qui n’a pas du tout les pieds sur terre et l’autre qui est completement terre a terre et qui est vraiment bien entree dans la rea- lite. C’est tres excitant et, au contraire, ce n’est pas forcement difficile: c’est un tremplin tres exaltant. n) 196 D' 15!. Rhett: Quelle image, quel portrait, quel aspect du caractere voulez-vous souligner dans le rele de Diocletian? Channette: J’ai essaye, sans aucune reference histo- rique, mais j’ai essaye de montrer un Diocletian qui est une espece d’humaniste un peu léger, qui finalement est une espece de monstre aussi: c’est quand meme l’instrument d’un pouvoir autoritaire. . . . Je l’ai un petit peu rapproche de Ponce Pilate, en ai fait un homme de pouvoir, un homme d’autorite, mais qui, en meme temps, s’en lave les mains. C’est un tres bon proconsul; il execute les ordres tels qu’il les a recus, et lui, il essaie d’etre le mieux possi- ble au milieu de tout ca. C’est une situation qu’on connait de tout temps, de toutes époques. On a vu des proconsuls ou des gouverneurs de colonies, des gouverneurs de provinces qui, tout en appliquant les consignes du pouvoir central, essayaient de prendre le plus de plaisir a leur charge. Alors, c’est ce que j’ai essaye de donner. J’ai essaye de donner du depart l’aspect ludique du personnage qui, se trouvant confronte a un drame, a une tragédie qui est la conversion de Saint Genest, tout a coup est oblige de prendre des mesures definitives et expeditives, des mesures qui peut-etre ne correspondent pas a sa propre sensibilite, mais il est l’instrument d’un pouvoir. Il se doit de faire appliquer ce pouvoir. C’est un bon fascho [fasciste]. 197 Rhett: Vous souvenez-vous des moments particuliers ou le metteur en scene vous a dit de changer votre direction d’interpretation? ghanmette: Oui, 11 y a eu des moments lorsqu’on avait defini les lignes generales. Il y avait des moments on, par exemple, je parle pour mon experience personnelle, je lui faisais des propositions vers l’allegement de Diocletian, par moments, je l’ai peut-etre un petit peu trop tire vers la comedie . . . vers un personnage un petit peu, pas gro- tesque, mais un petit peu exterieur. Alors, 11 me disait, non, c’est bien, l’idee est bonne, mais il faut que tu fasses attention aux moyens que tu emploies, parce qu’il ne faut pas non plus qu’on tombe dans la farce, 11 me faut pas non plus qu’on tombe dans la caricature, des choses comme ca. Bien, certains jours, 11 me disait: "Ah, aujourd’hui, tu as le ton exact, alors maintenant, c’est a toi de le retrouver demain, etc." Voila, c’est comme ca que le tra- vail progressait. Sur des propositions que je faisais, 11 me faisait revenir en arriere, on, an contraire, 11 me donnait un peu plus d’elan qu’il avait mis dans les reles principaux. Rhett: Dans la piece, comme Diocletian vous dites: "Le comique ou ton art egalement succede-- magnetite: Est contre la tristesse un si pressant remede Qu’un seul mot, quand tu veux, un pas, une action Ne laisse plus de prise a cette passion 198 Et par une soudaine et sensible merveille Jette la joie au coeur par l’oeil ou par l’oreille. (1.5.245-50) Rhett: Vous souvenez—vous des gestes particuliers, des changements de voix que vous avez faits, que vous avez ajoutes pour souligner une action, une idée? Vous etes conscient-- ghannette: Non, je ne suis conscient de rien du tout. Je suis conscient de ce que le personnage dit a ce moment- la, je suis conscient des rapports de place et des rapports de lieu que le metteur en scene a souhaites. Le travail des repetitions, cela a ete justement d’assimiler tout ca et a la representation mon souci, c’est de le restituer avec le maximum de spontaneite et de presence au moment on j’ai a l’exprimer. C’est une idee qui m’est chere d’ailleurs, et que je defends souvent, c’est que ce qu’il y a de merveilleux dans le theatre c’est que c’est l’art de l’instantane. La repre- sentation que nous avons jouée l’autre soir, que vous avez vue n’etait sfirement pas la representation que l’on avait donnee 1a fois precedente et n’etait certainement pas la representation que nous donnerons la prochaine fois, parce que mille et mille choses peuvent arriver. Il faut donc que l’acteur soit bien dans sa peau d’homme pour parer a tous les aleas de la scene et a toutes les choses comme ca, alors si vous me demandez si je suis conscient d’un geste ou de ceci ou d’une inflexion, non, absolument pas. 199 Rhett: Vous avez rencontre des difficultes en jouant ce rele? Est-ce qu’il y avait quelque chose particuliere- ment difficile pour vous? Shannette: Oui, Oui, enfin, je crois que ca a ete general, d’ailleurs. La plus grande difficulte, ca 8 ete la difficulte du langage. Le langage est un peu archaisant. Il est difficile et l’ecriture de Rotrou n’est pas aussi rigoureuse et aussi limpide que celle de Corneille, par exemple, . . . et nous avons eu beaucoup de difficultes pour extirper le sens de certaines phrases. Les phrases sont quelquefois un peu compliquees. . . . I1 y a eu cette rupture a peu pres a cette époque. C’est ce qu’on a appele "La Querelle des anciens et des modernes" en France, on on fait debuter 1e francais moderne de cette époque-la. Il y avait des gens qui avaient un langage archaisant et puis des gens qui ont commence a se pencher vers un francais plus moderne. Bien sfir, le langage evolue tous les jours, vous le savez aussi bien que moi, cela doit etre la meme chose en anglais, mais cette époque- la etait particulierement sensible; entre le seizieme et le dix-septieme siecle, 11 y a eu une grande difference de langage; alors Rotrou est un petit peu tire en arriere, par rapport, je vous dis a Corneille ou a Moliere on a des gens comme ca. 200 Rhett: Quelle est votre orientation comme acteur? . . . On m’a dit qu’il y a des influences de M. Barrault ou de M. Artaud. a at : Bien sur. Ca, je crois que c’est l’his- toire du theatre. Le theatre n’est pas un art immobile. Le theatre est un art qui est en perpetuelle evolution; 11 y a des tas de gens qui ont eu beaucoup d’influence dans le theatre en France et qui les uns apres les autres apportent des choses. Moi, j’ai travaille avec beaucoup de metteurs en scene et des metteurs en scene tres differents. On peut parler effectivement de l’influence de Jean-Marie Chereau, de Roger Blin, de Jean Vilar, comme on a parlé avant la guerre de l’influence du theatre . . . avec Louis Jouvet. . . . 11 y a actuellement des gens comme Antoine Vitez au Palais de Chaillot qui ont beaucoup d’influence sur les jeunes acteurs. . . . Mais je crois que ce qu’il faut d’abord et avant tout c’est que l’acteur se mobilise completement pour etre dis- ponible et etre capable de travailler avec aussi bien Vitez que Steiger que Jean-Pierre Vincent que les gens qui sont bons metteurs en scene et qui attendent que les acteurs leur apportent quelque chose. Alors, plus l’acteur est maniable, plus 11 est souple, plus 11 a reflechi a son métier, plus il a regarde les experiences des autres--moi, j’ai beaucoup travaille avec des gens comme. . . Jean Vilar. . . . 201 Rhett: Qu’est-ce vous avez fait comme preparation avant de jouer le rele? Shannette: Je ne peux pas parler d’une preparation particuliere, vous savez, quand on est un vieil acteur comme moi on a une experience, une malleabilite, une disponibilite que l’on met au service d’un metteur en scene. C’est le metteur en scene qui cherche d’abord a trouver 1e personnage tel qu’il fera avancer son intrigue et qui en meme temps cherche a enrichir l’acteur dans la mesure ou cet acteur peut avoir des lacunes. Je crois que le principe pour un professionnel, pour un acteur professionnel, c’est d’etre disponible, d’etre ouvert a toutes les suggestions et d’essayer de trouver en soi les ressources necessaires, soit par ce qu’on appelle la memoire affective, soit par ce qui est le sens de l’observation, soit ce qui est la reflexion etc. C’est a cet acteur d’essayer de satisfaire au maximum les exigences du metteur en scene. Audience Reaction Rhett: Vous vous souvenez dans la piece de Saint Seneet des remarques, des commentaires du metteur en scene apres avoir represente la piece plusieurs fois, des commen- taires qui vous ont pousse a changer la facon de represen- tation, on non? Shannette: Non, je dois dire que les remarques qu’il a faites la plupart du temps etaient des remarques positives 202 et louangeuses, en disant, "Et bien, maintenant, vous avez tres bien assimilie les choses." . . . 11 y a toujours une periode d’accoutumance si vous voulez, parce que le public modifie un petit peu l’emission de la piece. Le public reagit, soit dans un sens, soit dans un autre, etc. ce qui fatalement influence l’acteur qui est sur le plateau. 11 se dit, "Tiens, la, ils ont tendance a rire: il faut pent-etre que j’evite qu’ils ne rient on 11 a tendance a un peu s’appesantir un peu, s’endormir un peu. . . ." Il faut donc donner un peu plus de vigueur, un peu plus de panache, un peu plus de fougue. Mais je dois dire qu’on a eu toujours des salles assez receptives pour cette piece et que les dernieres fois que le metteur en scene est venu il s’est declare tout a fait satisfait de l’evolution du spectacle. Il disait, non seulement c'est bien, mais vous avez tres bien evolue, . . . vous avez evolue dans le bon sens, ce qui est un compliment formidable pour les acteurs parce qu’il y a beaucoup de spectacles, qui se decalent dans le mauvais sens. La, Si vous voulez, puisque vous me posez la question, a partir de ce spectacle, je peux vous dire que le metteur en scene s’est montre relativement satisfait des evolutions qu’il y avait eues dans le spectacle. Rhett: Dans la piece, comme Marcelle, vous decrivez le comportement de quelques spectateurs. Marcelle dit: 203 Je crains plus que la mort cette engeance idolatre De lutins importuns qu’engendre le theatre, Et que la qualité de la profession Nous oblige a souffrir avec discretion. (2.3.361-64) Est-ce que vous souffrez des importunites comme un devoir lie a votre profession? Serge: Pour moi maintenant, c’est ce qu’on appelle la promotion du spectacle. C’est maintenant une chose indis- pensable. Il y a un budget publicite dans le montage d’un spectacle qui est quelquefois enorme par rapport au cofit total du spectacle quand il s’agit d’une petite compagnie ou d’une petite troupe. L’argent qui est reserve a la promo- tion du spectacle est souvent proportionellement assez enorme. Alors, en quoi ca consiste pour un comédien? C’est qu’au moment oh la comedienne aurait le plus besoin d’etre tranquille et de n’avoir a s’occuper que de son rele, de ses partenaires, de son metteur en scene, du spectacle, c’est a ce moment-la qu’il faut donner des interviews, faire des photos, passer a la television pour les journaux, pour la radio, etc. Ca, pour moi, c’est vraiment une importunite parce que c’est vraiment 1e moment on, si j’ai du temps, j’ai envie vraiment, si je ne travaille pas, j’ai envie de me reposer, de me recuperer, de me detendre, mais non, a ce moment-la, il faut quelquefois traverser tout Paris pour aller faire une emission de radio, pas aller se coucher apres la 204 repetition, pour aller faire une emission de television ou l’inverse. Il faut, quand on joue, quand on est fatigue pendant la representation, il faut consacrer parfois une apres-midi entiere a faire un tournage pour la television. Il faut s’arreter parce qu’il y a un journaliste qui vient. Enfin, bon, mais maintenant, c’est absolument indispensable pour assurer la promotion d’un spectacle, promotion sans laquelle un spectacle, meme si c’est un spectacle de la Comedie Francaise, peut ne pas marcher. Voila. Rhett: Et du point de vue du spectateur, est-ce que vous avez entendu quelques commentaires des spectateurs? Quelles etaient les reactions principales des spectateurs? Shannette: Il y a des reactions totalement diver- gentes: ce qui est tres bien d’ailleurs. Il y a des gens qui adorent le spectacle, qui d’abord decouvrent la piece, parce que c’est une piece peu connue du repertoire, qui decouvrent la piece, qui sont heureux de decouvrir cette piece, en particulier. 11 y en a d’autres qui ont des restrictions en disant que c’etait un peu froid, que ca manquait, peut-etre un tout petit peu de passion, de clin- quant, de pittoresque, quelque chose comme ca. Mais je crois que c’etait la volonte du metteur en scene de faire une espece d’epure et de laisser les acteurs s’exprimer par eux-memes--du metteur en scene et de son decorateur-- d’ailleurs le decor est une espece de lieu tres simple et tres ouvert. Mais 11 y a des gens-—ca, on n’empeche pas les 205 opinions personnelles--il y a des gens qui souhaitent plus de spectaculaire, d’autres qui souhaitent, au contraire, une concentration plus grande. Donc, les avis sont parfois divergents, mais je crois que dans l’ensemble, le spectacle a ete reconnu pour etre un bon spectacle. Rhett: Quelle est l’influence des spectateurs. Vous etes conscient des spectateurs ou non pendant une represen- tation? Annent: Dans une piece comme cela on est surtout sensible a la sensation qu’on a du public plus an moins attentif. Alors, evidemment quand on n’entend aucun bruit, meme pas des gens qui toussent, on se dit, "Tiens, c’est bon" parce que ca c’est un assez bon signe. Vous me direz qu’ils sont pent-etre en train de dormir, ca n’est pas exclu. Mais, non, non, sinon, evidemment dans une piece comique on recoit immediatement: la, on ne peut pas attendre que les gens hurlent de rire, il n’y a pas de quoi. Alors, on ressent plus ou moins nettement l’attention du public. Bon, alors, a part ca, ce qui nous est venu de la salle apres les premieres representations, bon, c’est que ca n’est pas un succes public. Alors, c’est evidemment une indica- tion negative puisque nous avons constate qu’il y avait des gens qui partaient a l’entracte, que la salle n’est pas pleine du tout. Alors, evidemment, est-ce que ca modifie notre jeu? Non! Ca ne modifie pas notre jeu, mais disons que ca nous enleve un peu d’enthousiasme. 206 Rhett: Et ce n’est pas la faute des acteurs que les gens partent a l’entracte. C’est une piece-- Annent: Je pense que c’est beaucoup la piece. Rhett: C’est difficile pour l’assistance. . . . Je crois que la plupart des spectateurs ne comprennent pas tres bien ce qui se passe. Annent: C’est sfir, bien sfir. Mais vous savez que la langue de Rotrou est tres difficile a suivre, meme pour des Francais qui parlent, qui comprennent tres bien 1e francais. C’est tres difficile a suivre, tres complique. Rhett: Est-ce qu’il y a des reactions differentes de representation a representation. Par exemple, samedi soir, 1a salle n’etait pas complete, mais quand-meme 11 y avait beaucoup d’applaudissements, on a crié "Bravo!" "Bravo!" Ils ont beaucoup apprecie la representation. Le jour d’apres, le dimanche, j’ai vu Le_gen_ge_iianenr_et_gn haearg. 11 y avait beaucoup de monde la, mais les gens, les gens ont applaudi, mais pas aussi fort que samedi soir. Il y avait une difference. Les gens samedi soir ont applaudi plus longuement, c’est-a-dire, qu’il n’y avait pas beaucoup de monde la, mais les gens qui sont restes jusqu’a la fin ont beaucoup apprecie la representation. Annent: Vous voulez savoir si c’est toujours comme ca? Ru_off: Oui. 207 Annent: Non. Vous etes tres bien tombee. C’etait une tres bonne salle. C’est vrai que les gens avaient l’air tres contents, vraiment. Ils applaudissaient beaucoup. Rhett: Et ils ont dit-- Annent: "Bravo!" beaucoup. Absolument. Rhett: Et pendant l’entracte, j’ai entendu parler des gens: ils etaient contents. Annent: Mais ecoutez. Vous etes vraiment tres bien tombee. Rhett: C’est-a-dire qu’a chaque representation ca change. Annent: Mais la, c’est probablement le meilleur accueil du public qu’on ait eu depuis le debut. J’ai pense moi, en saluant, j'ai pense que c’etait vous qui etiez venue avec des amis.17 Rhett: J’etais seule. Ma famille est aux Etats-Unis. Rhett: C’est seulement le point de vue du spectateur qui compte-- ghannette: Oui, puis de toutes facons, deux specta- teurs differents dans la meme salle, 1e meme soir, donc, deux spectateurs differents peuvent recevoir les choses de facon tellement differente qu’on ne peut pas cibler un spectateur en particulier ou une categorie de spectateurs en particulier: ce qu’il faut c’est d’essayer d’avoir une expression universelle qui satisfasse le plus grand nombre 208 sans courir a des moyens vulgaires on a des moyens de facilite. Rhett: 11 y a toujours une tension entre la decision de plaire au spectateur et d’etre fidele au texte litteraire. Est-ce que vous avez senti une sorte de tension comme ca? Chaumette: Sur le Saint Senest? Rhett: Oui. ghanmette: Ah, non, sur le Saint Seneet, pas du tout, pas du tout. Je trouve que les acteurs ont vraiment respecte 1e travail tel qu’il avait ete fait et n’ont pas cherche a tirer a eux quoi que ce soit. Ca je trouve qu’en ce sens-la, c’est un spectacle exemplaire; je n’en dirais pas autant de tous les autres. Rhett: Il y a cependant de la communication de la part des spectateurs qui vous influence dans une representation. Etes-vous conscient des spectateurs? Qhannette: Bien sfir, bien sfir. C’est d’ailleurs ce que je vous disais tout a l’heure; c’est que le spectateur modifie l’acteur. Il est certain que ce que je vous disais, c’est general. Si 1e public a tendance a trop rire, on fait ce qu’il faut pour interioriser le jeu et faire passer telle ou telle autre chose: mais ca, c’est a chaque repre- sentation different. C’est en cela que je dis toujours, c’est a l’acteur de bien sentir, de bien avoir 1a perception de ce qui se passe en face. On ne joue pas la comedie tout 209 seul. Enfin, . . . 11 y a l’auteur, l’acteur, et le specta- teur; c’est a eux trois qu’ils font la piece. NOTES 1 See 4-8 of this dissertation for the performance history. 1 "Saint-Genest," Le Sénéraliete l avril 1988: N. pag. Unfortunately, Le Poulain died two days before the produc- tion Opened: thus, he began and ended his theatrical career with the same play. 6 Jean Rotrou, Le veritahle Saint Seneet, ed. Jose Sanchez (Paris: Sand for the Comedie Francaise, 1988). The 1988 production follows the text produced for this Comedie Francaise staging. It is based on the 1648 edition rather than the 1647 edition which the editor feels is particularly filled with errors. Corrections made to the 1648 edition are indicated in brackets in the Comedie Francaise text. 6 Rotrou, Saint Senest, ed. Sanchez 9. Steiger wished to incorporate the variant discovered by Jacques Scherer in 1950. The variant is included on 111-114 of this edition. 6 According to my investigations of the 1647 edition located in the rare book room at the Bibliotheque Nationale and labeled Res. VF 277 and according to the 1648 edition YF 431 located at the "hemicycle" of the Bibliotheque Nationale, the Roman spectators are present during act 4 scenes 2, 3, 4 and 5. In these editions, scene four con- tains Genest’s initial revelation of his conversion to Lentule. In the Sanchez edition, this revelation takes place in scene 5. 6 Michel Aumont, interview by author, 9 May 1988, at the Comedie Francaise, Paris, tape recording. All further quotations of M. Aumont in this chapter are taken from this interview. 7 Francois Chaumette, interview by author, 11 May 1988, at the Comedie Francaise, Paris, tape recording. All fur- ther quotations of M. Chaumette in this chapter are taken from this interview. 6 Andre Steiger, interview by author, 12 May 1988, Geneva, tape recording of telephone interview. Further quotations of M. Steiger in this chapter are taken from this interview. 6 Rousset "Le Comedien et son personnage,",LL1nterienr et_liexterieur. 151-164- 210 211 1° See John Lough. W the Backgroung (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1979) 70-75. To repre- sent Antiquity, actors and actresses dressed in costumes somewhat reminiscent of Greece or Rome: costumes were not known for historical authenticity. However, they did not simply wear the contemporary dress of seventeenth-century France. Lough says, "It seems clear that until well into the eighteenth-century the average theatregoer was quite content to see actors and actresses dressed in a vaguely Graeco-Roman costume even if the men wore it with wigs and plumed hats" (73). In the 1988 production, however, the Roman court is dressed in Louis XIII costumes: there is no attempt to relate their costumes to Rome. 11 This fragment was inserted after line 371 and is on 111-114 of the Comedie Francaise edition of the play. The variant was discovered by Jacques Scherer in 1950 in the 1648 edition. I examined the variant in the 1648 edition at the Bibliotheque Nationale, and it is hand-written and simply inserted. Sanchez points out that this fragment has not been definitively attributed to Rotrou. See the foot— note in the Comedie Francaise edition, 111. 12 Francine Berge, interview by author, Tape recording, Paris, France, May 1989. All further quotations of Mlle Berge in this chapter are taken from this interview. 1” Rotrou, Saint_§eneet, ed. Sanchez 4.5.1247. All further references, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in parentheses. 1‘ Jean-Loup Riviere, "L’Heur et l’art," gemedie Eraneaiee mars 1988: 20. 16 Francine Berge is speaking of the variant included in the Sanchez Comedie Francaise edition of the play. 16 Rotrou, Saint_§ene§t, ed. Sanchez, 111. 17 Jean-Pierre Dubreuil, "Jean de Rotrou, un Drouais a la Comedie-Francaise," La_Rennh1igne_gn_gentre 15 mars 1988: N. pag. According to this article, the city of Dreux, Rotrou’s birthplace and place of heroic death during an epidemic in 1650, reserved buses and tickets for the repre- sentation on May 7, 1988 referred to by Aumont. This proba- bly accounts for the enthusiastic response that night. CONCLUSION This study highlights fundamental political, artistic, literary, and performance aspects influencing theatrical production in mid-seventeenth-century France, and it anchors Rotrou’s Le Véritahle Saint Seneet to baroque theatrical representation. As a result, we are prepared to see how the 1988 Comedie Francaise production differs in perspective from a baroque staging emphasizing Genest’s creation of his new being, a Christian believer and martyr. Reflecting the baroque tendency to promote diversity and change and to incorporate the spectator in the spectacle, Rotrou, through the play-within-the-play structure, focuses on an actor’s talent for spontaneity, improvisation, and facile metamor- phosis as examples for spectators to emulate while assimilating Genest’s passion and then enacting their own spontaneous conversions to Christianity. In contrast, Steiger, in order to appeal to twentieth- century audiences, envisions the play as a commentary on tolerance versus intolerance and on theatrical representa- tion. The 1647 dramatic text, the 1988 theatrical pro- duction, and the interviews reveal that the performance itself creates and communicates meaning through the 212 213 interaction of the dramatic text, performance text, and audience reaction. In Rotrou’s text, Genest praising Corneille’s plays, distinguishes between the dramatic text and the performance and incorporates audience reaction in his assessment of the text: Ces poemes sans prix, on son illustre nain D’un pineean sans pareil, a_peint l’ esprit romain, Rendront de leurs beautes votre ereiiie_igei_tre, Et sont aujourd’ hui l’ame et l’amour du theatre.1 Genest’s words, "main," "pinceau," and "a peint" describe Corneille’s creation of the dramatic text while Genest’s reference to "oreille idolatre" points out his awareness of the performance itself and audience reaction. Why does the audience experience a reaction "idolatre"? The actors and actresses perform well, communicate meaning, and arouse the passions of the audience; as a result, they stimulate posi- tive audience reaction.2 Diocletian identifies the abili- ties that contribute to Genest’s success as an actor: Avec confusion j’ai vu cent fois tes feintes Me livrer malgre moi de sensibles atteintes: En cent sujets divers, suivant tes mouvements, J’ai recu de tes feux de vrais ressentiments: Et l’empire absolu que tu prends sur une ame M’a fait cent fois de glace et cent autres de flamme. (1.5.233-38) Rotrou, through Diocletian, verifies Genest’s facility in transformation from one character to another and the 214 powerful influence and even control an actor exerts on the spectator’s emotions. Since Rotrou takes the spectators behind the scenes to examine some technical aspects of production, he demon- strates the importance of stage setting and decoration. The privileged-position audience viewing the entire play wit- nesses the creation of the performance text.3 While speak- ing to the stage designer, Genest critiques the design: 11 est beau, mais encore avec peu de depense, Vous pouviez ajouter a sa magnificence, N’y laisser rien d’aveugle, y mettre plus de jour, Donner plus de hauteur aux travaux d’alentour, En marbrer les dehors, en jasper les colonnes, Enrichir les tympans, leurs cimes, leurs couronnes, Mettre en vos coloris plus de diversite, En vos carnations plus de vivacite, Draper mieux ces habits, reculer ces paysages, Y lancer des jets d’eau, renfronder leurs ombrages, Et surtout en la toile ou vous peignez vos cieux Faire un jour naturel, au jugement des yeux: Au lieu que la couleur m’en semble un peu meurtrie (2.1.314-25) Genest’s terminology and description are based on the essay "De la platte peinture" in the Jesuit Rene Binet’s Eeeai_gee meryeilles_de_nature;‘ iar_§tupir. to astonish the Specta- tors in order to create pleasure, is Binet’s ultimate goal. Genest’s description identifies his interpretation of stage design with baroque aesthetics by reinforcing the importance of creating magnificence, an interplay of light and shadow, diversity, proper coloring, and trompe l’oeil. In contrast to Genest’s description of an ornate ba- roque staging including water fountains, countryside views, 215 and tympanums ornamented with statues, Claude Lemaire, the stage and costume designer for the 1988 production, attempts to interpret the baroque through a stark, barren stage setting. According to Claude Lemaire "le baroque nait finalement de la mise en relation, de facon artificielle, de formes differentes percues sous des angles de vue differents."5 Theoretically, her perspective recalls ba- roque poetry water reflections in which, for example, the viewers see birds swimming and fish flying.6 To illustrate the baroque structure of the dramatic text, the play-within- the-play, she devised a "peristyle classique en amorce" which surrounds a space reminiscent of a theatre in Antiqui- ty. This space corresponds to the space of the interior play. The Roman court sits on the stepped rows of seats while Genest and his troupe perform in the arena. She juxtaposes two historical eras, Roman Antiquity and the seventeenth century in France. In addition, the antique theatre is placed on diagonal to the series of classical columns. The stage designer specifically intends to distort and create different vieWpoints: j’ai aussi voulu travailler sur une sorte d’ana- morphose . . . sa plantation [the antique theatre] est en diagonale par rapport au peristyle et com- mande donc un autre point de vue. Le geste ana- morphique me parait eminemment baroque.7 Above the stage, rays of light periodically accent a very blue sky. 216 The pagans and the Christians, in Le_yeritahie_Saint Seneet and in the interior play "Le Martyre d’Adrian," believe that the heavens intervene in the real world.3 Using the technique of foregrounding, in which the author or director focuses on a conspicuous setting or unusual light- ing, Rotrou highlights the action of "le Ciel" by emphasizing its striking and spectacular interaction with the world.9 "Le Ciel" becomes another actor in the play. In act 2, scene 4 the stage directions state: "Le ciel s’ouvre avec des flammes, et une voix s’entend, qui dit." In act 4 the "merveilleux chrétien" intervenes once again in the form of flames and an angel, and Genest joyfully de- scribes the celestial apparition: Un ministre celeste, avec une eau sacree, Pour laver mes forfaits fend la vofite azuree: Sa clarte m’environne, et l’air de toutes parts Resonne de concerts, et brille a mes regards. (4.5.1251-54) The influence of God and the supernatural permeates the dramatic text and functions as an important part of the "baroque de persuasion." Although there is no description of the staging of Le yeritable_fiaint_§enest in Le_Meinre_de_Manelet. authors and stage representation in the first half of the seventeenth century cater to the public’s taste for the "merveilleux," 0 both pagan and Christian.1 Angels on stage, voices heard, magnificence and display all contribute to a play’s success. 217 While describing the setting of Rotrou’s Heren1e_nenrant (1634), Laurent Mahelot, stage designer and machinist at the Hetel de Bourgogne, highlights its magnificence, the impor- tance of painting, and the "merveilleux." He states: Le theatre doit estre suberbe. . . . Plus, au milieu du theatre, doit avoir une salle a jour, bien paree de ballustres et plaques d’argent et autres ornemens de peinture. Au cinquiesme acte, un tonnerre, et apres le ciel s’ouvre et Hercule descend du ciel en terre dans une nue: 1e globe doit estre emply des douze signes et nues et les douze vents, des estoilles ardantes, soleil en escarboucle transparente et autres ornemens a la fantaisie du feinteur.11 Lavish decor machine plays, such as Pierre Corneille’s Angrenege (1650), also exhibit the baroque use of coexten- sive space which introduces the supernatural into the world. Incorporating the Christian supernatural, references to angels and the Divine Presence in the dramatic text and stage directions in the 1647, 1648, and 1666 editions12 of WW reflect religious depictions in baroque painting and architecture. Examples such as Poussin’s "The Martyrdom of Saint Erasmus" (c. 1628) and the baroque church Val-de-Grace (1645-1667), in which the balda- chin points to Pierre Mignard’s fresco celebrated by Moliere in his poem "La Gloire de Val-de-Grace" (1669), incorporate open heavens inhabited by angels, saints and God. According to a lease of 1616, the Hetel de Bourgogne contained a theatre, often called the theatre of Jupiter, which had a small stage above suitable for heavenly intervention.13 The 218 1645 staging at the Hetel de Bourgogne, listed by Laurent in Le_Meneire_ge_Mahelet probably visually emphasized God’s intervention in the world to satisfy the spectators’ thirst for the spectacular. At the same time, however, a visual representation of the Christian supernatural on stage paral- lels baroque artistic creation of the era and reinforces the "appel creatif" to believe evident in the text of the play. Through his stage directions calling for a heavenly Voice and the appearance of flames, Rotrou introduces the divine into the natural world and encourages the spectator to envision the joys and glory of eternal life, to assimilate with Genest’s passion, and to achieve this happiness with God. The Sanchez Comedie Francaise edition of the dramatic text retains the stage directions in act 2, scene 4: "Le ciel s’ouvre avec des flammes, et une voix s’entend, qui dit" and in act 4 "Regardant au ciel, dont l’on jette quel- ques flammes," but the stark and minimal 1988 staging does not include the spectacular visual manifestation of God’s presence in the form of angels and flames. Instead, the audience hears a Voice and organ music and sees rays of light in the sky. During his interview,16 the actor Francois Chaumette (Diocletian) explained the absence of flames: in Catholic teaching flames represent the inspira- tion of the Holy Spirit. According to his testimony, sym- bols may change because they lose their signification 219 through the course of time as audience values and beliefs change. As a result, directors are forced to find equiva- lents that are understood by contemporary audiences. Rotrou recognizes the existence of changing value systems and points out differing spectator responses to theatrical signs. For example, both the Roman audience admiring Genest’s acting in "Le Martyre d’Adrian" and the real audience viewing the entire play, witness the appear- ance of flames in act 4, but the two audiences react differ— ently. Semiotics explains that the religious, social, moral, and ideological values of the actors and spectators determine their understanding of theatrical signs such as the flames. These values color the spectators’ interpreta- tions of every aspect of performance: the costumes, the set, the lighting, and the actor’s body movements and speech.15 Flames evoke different connotations for a seventeenth- century French audience than they would for a pagan Roman audience. For the Catholic world flames symbolize the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and, in Rotrou’s play, they function as a visual manifestation of God’s intervention in the world. The Christian French spectators notice and understand the cues leading to Genest’s metamorphosis into a Christian believer yearning for martyrdom in order to attain eternal glory in God’s realm. In contrast to the Roman 220 spectators, they observe Genest’s reaction to the initial appearance of flames during the rehearsal, and they understand the significance of the flames. Finally, the Christian spectators value conversion and admire martyrs.16 They attend the performance with a positive and receptive mindset to Genest’s conversion which predisposes them to notice cues leading to his transformation. Since the Roman spectators do not view evidence of Genest’s possible conver- sion during the rehearsal and since they are accustomed to viewing his superb portrayal of Christian martyrs, Diocletian and his court do not suspect their illustrious 1'7 performer’s impending conversion. They do not recognize that illusion has become reality. Diocletian’s blindness to Genest’s conversion exempli- fies a spectator’s theatrical incompetence. Keir Elam states: The spectator is called upon not only to employ a specific dramatic competence (supplementing his theatrical competence involving knowledge of the generic and structural principles of the drama) but also to work hard and continuously at piecing together into a coherent structure the partial and scattered bits of dramatic information that he receives from different sources. The effective construction of the dramatic world and its events is the result of the spectator’s ability to impose order upon a dramatic content whose expression is in fact discontinuous and incomplete.16 While viewing a performance, the spectator is compelled to free his mind from the limiting connotations associated with his own background in order to seek and explore all possible 221 cues and meanings. In addition, a theatrical performance demands the constant and alert attention of the spectator who does not have the luxury of continuously re-reading the text.19 This is especially relevant in Genest’s performance of Adrian’s conversion and martyrdom because the performance subverts the dramatic text and illusion becomes reality. In order to appreciate the 1988 staging of Le_yeritahie a' Ge e , the spectators must appreciate baroque aes- thetics, then understand it in relationship to a modern interpretation of this rarely-performed play, and finally, untangle confusing performance cues. Five major innovations contributed to the spectators’ confusion and discontent. 1. The stepped semi-circular rows of seats placed on a diagonal within a classical peristyle reflect the play- within-the-play structure and the baroque interest in changing forms and differing points of view. However, the average spectator misses the point of this sophisticated interpretation and views the play as a classical representa- tion. 2. Since the director Steiger does not focus on Genest’s response to grace, his conversion, and his attempt to convert others, he suppresses the magnificence, the "merveilleux," and the far_§tnnir characteristic of baroque theatrical production so evident in Rotrou’s dramatic text. The opening of the heavens and the appearance of angels, saints, and God in his glory, although not expected to lead 222 to the spectators’ conversion, might create much more audi- ence appeal, be visually more exciting, add to an understanding of Genest’s conversion, and function as a relief from the static character of the play. 3. According to the testimony of Michel Aumont (Genest/Adrian) and Francois Chaumette (Diocletian), members of the Roman court dressed in Louis XIII costumes confused the spectators. 4. The added manuscript fragment, discovered by Scherer and inserted in act 2, scene 3, bewildered specta- tors who had read a standard edition of the play. 5. In act 4, the audience did not understand the departure of the Roman spectators from the stage before the critical point of Genest’s conversion. The 1988 production challenges the dramatic competence of the French spectator, schooled in seventeenth-century classical dramatic theory and literature, to decipher Steiger’s subtle cues intended to lead the spectator to question his own tolerance of beliefs contradictory to his own. Records of paid attendance from the Archives of the Comedie Francaise confirm the play’s poor reception, proba- bly the result of the spectators’ inability to understand and relate to the production. During its opening month, February, 1988, paid attendance reached its peak at 50.80% of capacity. March attendance was 45.10%: April, 35.10%: 223 May 33%: and June, 45.90%. Attendance at Le yeritable Saint Seneet was consistently the lowest of the eleven productions staged in the first six months of 1988.2° In addition to the dramatic text’s archaic language, a number of play reviews pinpoint aspects of staging that detract from the play’s success. Claude Lemaire’s set, the "theatre desaxé" of Antiquity placed in the classical peri- style, attempts to transform Rotrou’s baroque text into a visual representation of the artificiality of fiction and to highlight Steiger’s idea of the baroque as a "tourment des formes," for example, comedy within a tragedy or the play- within-the-play. She explains: "Ce qu’il fallait mettre en evidence, c’etait l’espace litteraire de ce texte, compose de la superposition de deux registres de formes, de deux fictions, de deux geometries."21 Many spectators, including experienced reviewers, do not see the staging as an expres- sion of the baroque. Andre Lafargue in Le_£arieien, remarks that the staging "parait davantage respecter la forme de l’oeuvre que son fond."22 Although he compliments Michel Aumont’s acting, Pierre Marcabru in Le_Eigare, March 7, 1988 calls the staging "austere et glaciale" and states that the production "ne doit rien au baroque. . . . On aurait souhaite, et le texte le permettait, un peu plus de liberte, d’audace, de fantaisie."23 Regine Koppe criticizes Steiger and Lemaire for a sceneography "aux antipodes du baroque" which results in a "mise-en-scene assez froide" while Le 224 generaiiete of April 1, confirms her opinion by describing the 1988 interpretation as "claire, epuree, toute clas- sique."26 The March 18th edition of Le_Nenyei_Qheeryatenr ex- plains the play’s poor reception: Meconnue, jamais jouee, la tragédie chretienne de Rotrou exigeait une mise en scene qui l’eclairat. Il fallait montrer, comme l’indique bien ce con- temporain de Corneille, la difference entre la piece edifiante que joue l’acteur Genest devant la cour de Diocletien et le reste de l’action. Il fallait montrer les apparitions celestes qui aident Genest a se convertir et exprimer, malgre la preciosite des vers, la violence de ce martyrologe. Au lieu de cela, tout est joue sur le meme ton.25 Similar to the Roman spectators unable to recognize and comprehend Genest’s conversion because of their differing value system and inadequate and misconstrued cues, the 1988 French viewers, formed by a secular society, need explicit visual and auditory expressions of the "merveilleux" to follow and understand Genest’s conversion. In his interview Michel Aumont points out that the director was not attempt- ing to show an awakening and evolution in Genest’s faith: he was trying to demonstrate the problem of an actor who be- comes "un peu fou" and identifies with his role.26 Conse- quently, it is not surprising that Steiger and Lemaire do not capitalize on the "merveilleux chrétien" to dazzle the spectators and facilitate their comprehension of the play. 225 Play reviews confirm Michel Aumont’s testimony. Andre Gunthert in Eelitie, March 17, 1988, identifies three interwoven themes in Rotrou’s play: questions of faith, performance, and absolutism. Basing his assessment on Steiger’s "exacte mesure de l’acuite de ces questionnements" on performance and absolutism, he considers Le_yeritahie Sa' G "la toute relative reussite de Steiger" and calls the production a "discret joyau." However, he points out the staging does not elucidate Genest’s conversion: La question de la grace nous demeure assurement plus lointaine et ni la mise en scene, trop mesuree, ni l’interpretation de Michel Aumont ne nous permettent d’en comprendre l’ineffable mystere.27 Odile Quirot in Le_nenge supports Gunthert’s assessment: La ’sensible et sainte volupte’ qui saisit le comédien Genest au moment de sa conversion n’a visiblement pas passionne outre mesure le metteur en scene Andre Steiger. Michel Aumont ne la joue pas, mais reste sur un meme registre pendant la quasi-totalite du spectacle: passe le premier moment, emphatique, OO 11 fait que porter sa voix, face an public, comme il etait de mise autrefois a la cour, il persiste dans une attitude ambigue, a mi-chemin du comédien qui ne sait pas son rele par coeur, et du converti. . . . La tragédie repose sur lui, il me la transfigure pas.26 La_§reix, March 16, 1988, emphasizes that the dramatic text tackles "resolument le theme de l’illumination et de la grace dans la plus pure tradition du XVIIe siecle": however, Steiger’s et Lemaire’s staging does not highlight this theme: 226 Jeu des miroirs, de l’illusion, de la represen- tation, theatre dans le theatre, perte de l’acteur en quete de lui-meme dans l’imaginaire, dédouble- ment de la personalité en attendant Pirandello . . . les themes se melent, multiples, denses, dans une étrange confusion: Cette confusion . . . Andre Steiger a choisi de la contenir, sinon meme de l’ignorer. Et de fait, emprisonee dans le decor savant, peut-etre un peu froid mais fort beau de Claude Lemaire, la tragédie de Rotrou y perd de son pouvoir de persuasion. Evidemment, la mise en scene d’Andre Steiger, tres policee sans folie, ni spiritualite, tient completement l’emo- tion a distance.29 According to this reviewer, the 1988 production lacks spiri- tuality, suppresses the emotional involvement of the specta- tors characteristic of the baroque, and consequently, loses the power of persuasion evoked by the "baroque de persua- sion." Steiger justifies this production in his explanation of Rotrou’s theatre and its relationship to the baroque: La fiction, chez Rotrou, est en train de se faire . . . il n’y pas cleture du sens. . . . Le theatre de Rotrou est un theatre allusif: il ne s’agit pas d’y faire signifier chaque element de la representation, mais d’accumuler un nombre suffi- sant de traces de signes pour que chaque specta- teur puisse faire de ce qu’il voit une lecture qui lui est propre. D’ailleurs, dans cette piece, tout peut toujours etre envisage sous des angles differents. C’est le propre meme du baroque.°° Similar to Rotrou in his portrayal of Roman spectator re- sponse versus Christian response, Steiger recognizes that the spectator brings his background to a performance, de- 227 codes the cues, and interprets the dramatic information according to his value system and dramatic competence. Since he hopes to relate to a contemporary secular society, Steiger does not address the play’s "appel creatif a la croyance." Because striking elements of the "merveilleux chrétien," such as the appearance of angels and flames are eliminated, the spectacle and the rar_etnnir characteristic of the dramatic text and of the baroque disappear in his staging. For Steiger, this play highlights theatrical representation and functions as a commentary on intolerance. Several scenes before the critical moment when Genest’s conversion takes place, the Roman spectators leave the stage, and they do not return until immediately after his moment of conversion.31 The present-day spectators are to mentally take their place and ask how they themselves would react not only in the face of religious, but also political, or moral convictions completely opposite to their own. According to Steiger, "Saint_Sene§t est une piece qui ne delivre pas de message: elle ne dit pas ce que la salle doit penser. . . . Il s’agit donc de renvoyer les specta- teurs a leurs propres interrogations."32 His production attempts to lead the spectators into the play, to have them identify with the Romans and question their own tolerance to divergent views. The 1988 Le_yeritahle_saint_cenest does not ask the spectator to be moved by Genest’s passion, does not high- 228 light the value of the actor’s spontaneity and receptivity to sense impressions as opposed to his dependence on reason and rules, and does not encourage the spectator to assimi- late Genest’s act of faith and become a believer. Changes in audience perspectives and values through the course of almost three hundred and fifty years influence the director’s and decorator’s interpretation and staging of the dramatic text and spectator comprehension and appreciation of the performance. NOTES 1 Rotrou, Saint_§eneet, ed. J. Scherer 1.5.283-86 emphasis added. All further references in this chapter, unless indicated, refer to this edition and are incorporated in the text in parentheses. 2 Ruoff 212-213. 3 Ruoff 215. 6 Rene Francois Binet, "De la platte peinture," Eeeai de e v ' l s e e 1 es ' ' (Rouen: n.p., 1621) 190-207. For example, Binet points out the importance of shadows and night to contrast with day- light and make the colors and day more brilliant. "Ombres, ou ombrager les ouvrages: faire des nuits, des ombrages pour faire esclatter les autres: reculer les paisages bien loing, & en petit volume. L’ombragement & le jour s ’entremeslent, afin que la diversite des couleurs face rehausser & arrondir l’ une & l’autre" (194- 95). Floeck in L_eethetigne_ge_ia gi_er_ite (12) calls Binet's work "un veritable mine d’or pour chaque specialiste baroque." According to Floeck, in these Eeeaie Binet glorifies "la diversite de la creation . . . comme expression de la toute puissance et de l’immensite du Dieu createur" while his work "represente a la fois un point culminant dans la dissolution de l’idee d’ordre et d’harmonie" (35). 6 Terje Sinding, "Le tourment des Formes," gemegie Franeaiee mars 1988: 7. 6 See 143-147 of this dissertation. 7 Sinding 7. 6 Speaking to Camille, Valerie concludes that a dream can function as an oracle and points out the influence of "le Ciel" in the world: Le Ciel, comme il lui plait, nous parle sans obstacle: S’il veut, la voix d’un songe est celle d’un oracle. (1.1.9-10) Near the beginning of act 2, after discussing the scenery with the stage designer, Genest rehearses the Christian Adrian’s lines: 229 230 Si la gloire te plait, l’occasion est belle; La querelle du Ciel a ce combat t’appelle. (2.2.337-38) 9 Ruoff 217-18. 1° See 50-58 of this dissertation for a description of baroque staging and the Abbe d’Aubignac’s guidelines for staging and decoration. 11 Lancaster. Le_Memcire_de_Mahelot 102-03. 13 The 1647 edition, Reserve Yf 277 is located in the rare book room of the Bibliotheque Nationale, and the 1648 edition Yf 431 and the 1666 editions are both located at the "hemicycle" in the B.N. All three contain the following explicit stage directions: 1. Act 2 - "Le Ciel s’ouvre, avec des flames & une voix s’entend qui dit." 2. Act 4 - "Regardant au ciel dont l’on jette quelques flames." 13 Dubois 27. 16 See dissertation 135. 15 Elam 10. 16 Ruoff 218. 17 Ruoff 219. 1° Elam 98-99. 1’ Ruoff 222. 3° If we examine the February and March attendance records of Noelle Guibert, the "Conservatrice" of the Ar- chives of the Comedie Francaise, it is evident that Le Yeritable_Saint_§ene§t was not a popular succeSS- FEBRUARY Esther 71.00% M. De Pourceaugnac et 76.30% La Poudre aux yeux La Guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu 91.30% Le veritable Saint Genest 50.80% 231 MABQH M. De Pourceaugnac 88.10% La Poudre aux yeux Esther 81.10% La Guerre de Troie n’aura pas lieu 88.20% La Songe d’une nuit d’ete 85.70% Le veritable Saint Genest 45.10% 31 Sinding 7. 32 Andre Lafargue, "Le veritable Saint Genest," Le Parieien 7 mars 1988: N. pag. 23 Pierre Marcabru, "Une solennelle rhetorique," Le Figare 7 mars 1988: N. pag. 2‘ "Saint-Genest." Le_§enerali§te 1 avril 1988: N- pag- 25 "A Voir," Le_n9uyel_9bseryateur 18 mars, 1988: N- pag- See 187 of this dissertation. 37 Andre Gunthert, "Le Poulain, comédien et martyr," Pelitis 17 mars 1988: N. pag. 2° Odile Quirot, "Une Curiosite," Le_Menge 9 mars 1988: N. pag. 2’ "Le Martyre du theatre." La_crcix_lLEyenement 16 mars 1988: N. pag. 3° Sinding 8. 31 See Aumont 181 of this dissertation. He notes that the present-day spectators do not understand the disappear- ance of the Roman spectators. As a result, today’s specta- tors probably do not place themselves in the position of the Romans to question their own tolerance levels. 3’ Sinding 8. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY I. PRIMARY SOURCES: Aubignac, Francois Hédelin, Abbe d’. La_2ratigne_gn theatre. Amsterdam: Bernard, 1715. Binet, Rene Francois. t u l ' 'c . Rouen: n.p., 1621. Boileau, Nicolas. Beiaeana_en_hene_net§. Amsterdam: L’Honore, 1742. Chapelain. Jean. Lettres_de_Jean_£hapelain_de_lLAcadem1e Eraneaiee. Ed. Tamizey de Larroque. Vol. 1. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1880. Chappuzeau, Samuel. Le_Theatre_rraneaie. 1674. N.p.: Editions d’aujourd’hui, 1985. Corneille. Pierre. cQrneille1_Qeuyres_cgmpletes. Ed. Andre Stegmann. New York: MacMillan; Paris: Seuil, 1963. ---. Qeuyres_de_21erre_§grneille- Ed- Marty LaveauX- Paris: Hachette, 1862. Vol. 10 of Lee_§ran§e_£eriyain§ de_la_Erance- De Piles, Roger. gonyereatione snr ia eennaieeanee de la neintnr_. 1677. Geneve: Slatkine, 1970. "Discours a Glitch." La_Querelle_du_§id1_21eces_et_pam: nhiete. Ed. Armand Gaste. 1898. Geneve: Slatkine, 1970. 241-282. Lancaster, Henry Carrington, ed. Le_Memgire_ge_Lanrent 4:13 o 4 9‘, a- ‘l ‘ °’- ‘7 0‘ o ‘5 ~ 9‘ lifletel_de_flgurgggne- Paris: ChampiOn, 1920. Moliere. "Val-de Grace." Qenyree_eenp1etee. Ed. Pierre- Aime Touchard. Paris: Seuil, 1962. 665-68. Pascal, Blaise. Beneeee. Ed. Ch.-M. des Granges. Paris: Garnier, 1964. 232 233 Rotrou. Jean de. Le_yéritable_§aint_§enest. Paris: Quinet. 1647. ---. Le_yeritable_§aint_§ene§:. Paris: Quinet. 1648- -—-. Le veritable Saint Qenest. Theatre gg Kylie §j§Q]§, Ed. Jacques Schérer. Paris: Gallimard, 1975. 943- 1005. Rousset, Jean, ed. Anthologie de la poésie barggug. 2 vols. Paris: Colin, 1968. Scudéry, Georges de. L’ 10 'e ‘ . Paris: Courbé, 1639. ---. "Observations sur le Cid." ' ° et Pamphlets. Ed. Armand Gaste. 1898. Genéve: Slatkine, 1970. 19-25. Tristan L’Hermite, F. Pgésies. Ed. Philip A. Wadsworth. Paris: Seghers, 1962. II. 1988 PERFORMANCE SOURCES: Aumont, Michel. Interview by author, 9 May 1988, Paris. Tape recording. Bergé, Francine. Interview by author, May 1989, Paris. Tape recording. Chaumette, Francois. Interview by author, 11 May 1988, Paris. Tape recording. Rotrou, Jean. Lg_y§rigab1e_§aint_§ene§t. Ed. José Sanchez. Paris: Sand for the Comédie Francaise, 1988. Steiger, Andre. Interview by author, 12 May 1988, Paris. Tape recording. "Taux d'occupation des spectacles: janvier a juin, 1988." Paris: Archives de la Comédie Francais, 1988. Le_y§ri;able_§aint_§gnest. BY Jean Rotrou. Dir. André Steiger. With Michel Aumont, Francine Berge, Francois Chaumette. La Comédie Francaise, Paris. 7 May 1988. III. PERFORMANCE REVIEWS OF THE 1988 PRODUCTION: "A Voir." L§_ngnxel_9b§erxateur 18 mars 1988: N- pag- 234 Bloch. Nicole. "Le_yéritable_§ain;_§enest, comédien et martyr." Earisggpe 23 mars 1988: N. pag. Chambrillon, Paul. "Vains dieux de bois." L§_Erg§§g_ Erangaisg 6 mars 1988: N. pag. "Comedien et martyr." Lg_flggy§l_gp§g;1§§ggz 26 février 1988: N. pag. Coppermann, Annie. "Drape dans l’artifice." L§§_Eghgg§ 8 mars 1988: N. pag. Dubreuil, Jean—Pierre. "Jean de Rotrou, un Drouais a la Comédie Francaise." La_3gpubligug_du_ggntrg 15 mars 1988: N. pag. Dumur, Guy. "Comédien et martyr." Lg_flguyg1_gb§gry§tgur 26 février 1988: N. pag. Gunthert, Andre. "Le Poulain, comédien et martyr." Politis 17 mars 1988: N. pag. Héliot. Armelle- "Le_yéritable_§aint_§enest comédien et martyr-" Quotidien_de_£aris 8 mars 1988: N- pag- Klausner, Emmanuelle. "Michel Aumont, comédien et scep- tique." La_§rgix 2 mars 1988: N. pag. Kopp, Régine. "Rotrou, Steiger, méme combat" mars 1988. Lafargue. André- "Le_yéritable_§aint_§ene§t-" Le_2arisien 7 mars 1988: N. pag. Lemarchand, Jacques. "Saint_§gng§; de Rotrou, La_£argg de Vahé Katcha." Le_£ig§zg_Litt§rair§ 27 avril 1963: 18. Lespinasse, Marie-Julie. "D’Aventure en aventure.“ A_£ari§ 9 mars 1988: N. pag. Manganaro, Jean-Paul. "Un Genest pas catholique." Liberation 1 avril 1988: N. pag. Marcabru, Pierre. "Une solennelle rhetorique." Le_£igarg 7 mars 1988: N. pag. "Le Martyre du theatre.” L§_ngix_1LEx§n§m§n§ 16 mars 1988: N. pag. Moreau-Shirbon, Claire. "Quand la foi brfile les planches." L§_yi§ 17 mars 1988: N. pag. 235 Quirot, Odile. "Une Curiosité." L§_ugndg 9 mars 1988: N. pag. Riviere, Jean-Loup. "L'Heur et l’art." ngggi§_£;gng§i§g mars 1988: 20-21. Rosbo, Patrick de. "Le Francais en plein baroque." ngtidien de Paris 1 mars 1988: N. pag. "Saint_§ene§t-" Le_£énéraliste 1 avril 1988: N. p69- "Sai t Gene t, ou le faux-vrai." 24 genres 5-6 mars 1988: N. pag. Sinding, Terje. "Le Tourment des formes." Comédig Erangaise mars 1988: 7-8. Tesson, Philippe- "Le_Yéritable_fiaint_Gene§L. comédien et martyr." Paris 18 mars 1988: N. pag. "Le_YériLable_§§int_§ene§;." Liflumanité 21 mars 1983: N. pag. "Le_Yéritable_§ain§_§ene§L. comédien et martyr." Elle 22 mars 1988: N. pag. "Le_Yeritable_§aint_§enes§. comédien et martyr-" 28:18 France 17 mars 1988: N. pag. "Le Vrai Saint Genest, comédien et martyr." Minute 15 mars 1988: N. pag. IV. SECONDARY SOURCES Abraham, Claude. Eigrr§_§9;n§ille. New York: Twayne, 1972. Argan, Giulio Carolo. Ihe_fiarggue_bg§. New York: Rizzoli, 1989. Barnwell, H. T. Introduction. Hzi;ings_gn_thg_1hga§zg. By Pierre Corneille. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. vii- xxxviii. Barrault. Jean-Louis. The_Iheatre_9£_Jean:L9nis_Barranlt. Trans. Joseph Chiari. New York: Hill & Wang, 1961. Bazin, Germain. ° Themes. New York: Norton, 1968. 236 Blunt, Anthony. "Some Uses and Misuses of the Terms Baroque and Rococo as Applied to Architecture, " Breceedings_9£ the Btitish Academy. Vol 58. London: Oxford UP, 1974. Bouquet, F. "Corneille et l’acteur Mondory." Reyee_de_le Netmendie février, mars 1869: 105-13, 145-161. Bray. René- La_EQrmati2n_Qe_1a_dogtrine_gla§§igue_en Etenee. Paris: Nizet, 1966. Buffum, Imbrie. Studies_in_the_Earogus_£rom_uontaigne_to Bettg_. New Haven: Yale UP, 1957. Cayrou, Gastgn. e ran a' ' ' ' a u 'ec . Paris: Didier, 1948. Chardon, Henri. V' e ' ° inédit§ ent lg segiéte pelie fie sen tempe et 13 Qeete1le_dg_gid. Paris: Picard, 1884. Chedozeau, Bernard. L§_§§£QQE§- Paris: Nathan, 1989. Deierkauf-Holsboér. Wilma. LLnistgire_de_la1mi§e_en_§cene a s t “t an a' ' 7 . Paris: Nizet, 1960. ---. e T r de ‘te u ° a o e 5- . Paris: Nizet, 1970. Deschanel, Emile. e o ' e ' . Paris: Lévy Fréres, 1883. Dubois, E. T. Introduction. Le_yetiteble_§eint_§ene§t. By Jean Rotrou. Geneve: Droz, 1972. 9-48. Elam. Keir. The_Semiotigs_g£_TheaLre_and_Drama. London: Methuen, 1980. Floeck. Wilfried. Esthetigue_de_la_dixersite1_29ur_une histoire_dn_baI9gne_littéraire_en_firance. Trans. Gilles Floret. Paris: Papers on French Seventeenth Century Literature, 1989. Forestier. Georges. Le_Thé§tre_dan§_le_tnéétre- Genéve= Droz, 1981. Foucault, Michel. The_gzde1_efi_1hing§. New York: Pantheon 1970. Fumaroli, Marc. Notice. Lilllneign_ggmigue. By Pierre Corneille. Paris: Larousse, 1970. 9-42. 237 Gasté. Armand. ed. La_QueIelle_dn_Qid1_£iege§_et_namnhlets. Genéve: Slatkine, 1970. Gauthier, Théophile. "Theatre." Le_£te§ee 17 nov. 1845: N. pag. Hallyn. Fernand. E9rmes_metanhorigues_dans_la_noesie lxrigue_de_lL§gs_barogne_en_£range. Genéve: Droz, 1975. Kronegger, Marlies. "Games of Perspective in Baroque Art and Poetry." e - Litetetgte 8.15 (1981): 269-291. ---. Ihe_Liie_SigniiiganQe_o£_£ren2h_narogne_noetrx- New York: Lang, 1988. Lancaster, H. C. Ih§_E§IiQQ_Qfi_QQIn§ill§- Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1932. Part 2, vol 1 of A_fli§tgzy_gfi_fiteneh Dramati2_Literature_in_the_§exenteenth_§en§nzx parts. 1929-44. ---. Reeepitgletien. 1942. New York: Gordian, 1966. Part 5 0f A_Hi§LQI¥_Qfi_EI§th_DI§m§§iQ_Li§§I§§H13_in_§h§ Sexentesnth_§entnzx- 5 Parts. 1929- 44- Leonardy, Ernst. "Les Fétes de cour baroques." Queetignne; ment_gu_bezege_. Ed. Alphonse Vermeylen. Louvain-la- Neuve: College Erasme, 1986. 112-52. Litman. Théodore A. Le§_£omedie§_de_§9rneille- Paris: Nizet, 1981. Littré. E- "Merveilleux." Di2ti2nnaire_de_la_langus_firan: eeiee. Paris: Hachette, 1875. Lough, John. e e - ° - gegnd. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Martin, John R. Betegte. New York: Harper, 1977. Martino, Pierre. Préface. Le_£tetigge_dn_theette. By L'Abbe d’Aubignac. Paris: Champion, 1927. I-XXIX. Mathieu-Castellani, Gisele. "Discours baroque, discours maniériste Pygmalion et Narcisse." betegue. Ed. Alphonse Vermeylen. Louvain-la-Neuve: College Erasme, 1986. 51-74. Mongrédien. GeorgeS- Dailx_Li£e_in_the_zrengh_1hsatre- Trans. Eliane Engel. London: Allen, 1969. 238 Mongrédien. Georges. Les_Grands_gQmedien§_du_XYIIE_§iegle. Paris: Société d’Edition "Le Livre," 1927. Morello, Joseph. Jeen_3etteg. Boston: Twayne, 1980. Nelson, Robert J. "Art and Salvation in Rotrou's Le Yeritable_§aint_§ene§_-" Eren§h_3exiefl 30 (1957): 451- 58. Oberhuber. Konrad. Boussin1_The_Ear1¥_xears_in_Bgme. New York: Hudson Hills, 1988. Poirot-Delpech, B. "Seint_§eneet de Rotrou." Le_Mende 12 avril 1963: N. pag. "Premiere mouvementée de Seint_§eneet au Theatre de Paris." Le Figeto 5 avril 1963: N. pag. Reymond, Marcel. "De Michel-Ange a Tiepolo." Etenee Batogte. By Philippe Minguet. Paris: Hazan, 1988. 386. Rousset, Jean. "Le Comedien et son personnage: De Dom Juan 3 a' Ge es ." L'Intérieur et l'extégieur: Essais sur la poésie et sur le theatre au XVII siecle. Paris: Corti, 1968. 151-65. ---. La_Litterature_de_llage_barogue_en_2range. Paris: Corti, 1954. ---. "Peut-on définir le baroque?". Eteneh_Betegue. By Philippe Minguet. Paris: Hazan, 1988. 388. Ruoff, Cynthia- "Le_Yeritable_Saint_§enest= From Text to Performance." Aneteete_flu§§etliane. Ed. Marlies Kronegger. Vol. 32. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1990. 211-24. Sanchez, Alfonso E. Pérez. "Valazquez and his Art." yeleeggee. By Antonio Dominguez Ortiz, Alfonso E. Perez sanchez, and Julian Gallego. New York: Metropol- itan Museum of Art, 1989. 21-56. Scherer. Colette. Q2medie_et_sggiete_§gus_hguis_x111. Paris: Nizet, 1983. Sweetser, Marie-Odile. QQIDBLIIQ- Genéve: Droz, 1962. Tapié, Victor. Le_Bezegge. Paris: Presses universitaires de la France, 1968. 239 Teyssedre, Bernard. Reget_de_£ilee. Paris: La Bibliotheque des Arts, 1957. Tymieniecka, Anna-Teresa. L9g9s_and_Life1_§reatiye_Exne:: 1enge_and_the_§r1tigne_9f_8eas2n- Dordrecht, Nether- lands: Kluwer, 1988. Ubersfeld, Anne. LLEeele_dg_§peetetegz. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1981. Vuillemin, Jean-Claude. "Nature et réceptio du spectacle tragique sur la scene francaise du XVII siecle." Boman19_Beyieu 78 (1986): 41- Walker, Hallam. Melieze. New York: Twayne, 1971. "‘11111111111111.1111Es