On the Title and Subtitle of Molière's Misanthrope

Author(s): Charles A. Eggert

Source: Modern Language Notes , Jun., 1899, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Jun., 1899), pp. 167-176
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2917117

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Modern Language Notes

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 333 June, i899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 334

"Factum est autem ut Nilus, preter solitum, ing as 'slope or side of the burial-mound, or
adhuc inundaret terram in qua erat sepulcrum sepulche' for beorhhli1e, since beorh frequent-
Joseph. Tenebantur autem juramento aspor-
ly means 'burial-mound'. It is not impossible
tare ossa ejus. Tulit Moyses scriptum in lam-
ina aurea nomen Domini tetragrammata, que that Cynewulf himself knew something of the
superposita aqume supernatavit usque dum original souce of the story, for some knowledge
veniens staret supra ubi erat sepulcrum. Et of Talmudic lore in this early time is also
effodientes sustulerunt ossa que sublata
shown by Beowuif 107-I4, in which Grendel
legunitur eis prophetasse forte de difficultate
itineris."-Migne, Petrologia I98, II55. and similar monsters are referred to as descen-
dents of Cain-an unmistakable Talmudic
But while the Genesis and Exodus furnishes
tradition.5 In any case, the Talmuid was very
an interesting parallel to the lines in Elene,
early studied by ChristTan scholars as throw-
the origin of this extension of the scripture
ing light upon obscure passages in the scrip-
account is still unexplainied. A hint of the true
tures.
explanation comes from S. Baring-Gould's
While the Talmudic legends sufficiently ex-
Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets, in
plain the passage in Elene, they throw no
which the story is given at length and referred
light upon the story of the golden rod in the
to the Talmiud. But in Baring-Gould, as in
Middle English Genesis and Ezodus. This
the Middle English poem, the story of the gold-
part of the story originated, not in the Tal-
en rod is emphasized, while there is no men-
mud itself, but in the Pesikia, a homiletical
tion of this, or of the Nile, in Elene. Besides,
treatise supposed to have been composed
the use of under beorhhliite in the latter would
in the seventh century. In this work there is
seenm to be peculiarly iniappropriate to the Nile
added to the former story,
story. These differences led me to consult
Dr. M. Meilziner, Professor of Talmud in the "and some say that Moses wrote the inieffable
name of God oil a potsherd which he threw
Hebrew Unioni College of Cincinnati, as to
into the Nile, whereupon the coffin floated."
that practically in accessible book of Hebrew
Of the intervening steps from the potsherd to
Literature, atnd hiis letters clear up both pas-
the golden rod (lamina aurea), which floated
salges conmpletely. From these it seems that
upon the water, I have no knowledge, but it
there are two forms of the legend of Joseph's
is easy to believe the one little more than a
bones in the Talmud itself, and a later varia-
gradual development from the other.
tion of the story in a work akin to it. The
OLIVER FARRAR EMERSON.
snibstaince of the Talmudic versions is as fol-
Western Reserve University.
lows. In both Moses,when unable to find the
bones of Joseph, calls together the elders of
ON THE TITLE AND SUBTITLE OF
Israel, and at last gets trace of the lost relics.
MOLIAVRE'S MISANTHROPE.
The two versions here separate however. Ac-
cording to one, Moses was told that the bones IT is a question of some interest^why Moli&re
were sunk in the bottom of the Nile but, at hlis gave the title of Misanthrope to wlhat a ma-
prayer that they should be shown him, the jority of the best critics now regard as his
coffin rose to thesurface oftheriver. Accord- greatest masterpiece.' A great probability ex-
ing to the other, Joseph's coffin was hidden ists that such was not his original intention. It
away in the royal sepulchre, among the sar- seems that the poet, while at work on the piece,
cophagi of the kings, and Moses did not know suffering greatly from the injustice of others,
which it was. He prayed, and the coffin of was insensibly led to exaggerate the misan-
Joseph moved out from among the other sur- thropical features of his hero, so that finally
cophagi by some miraculous power. this title suggested itself to him as the most
There is nothing in the Latin version of the appropriate.
Elene legenid to indicate which of these two In the 'privildge' which he obtained in i666
forms of the story was in the writer's mind. we find, beside le Misanthrope, the additional
But in the English poem the words under title: L'Atrabilaire amoureux.
beorhhli,Te, based on the Greek as we have 5 Bouterwek fIrst pointed this out in Biblische D'chtungcn
I, cxi, and in Germania 1, 401. Compare also Bugge, Paul
seen, are significant as probably referring to and Braune's Beitrdge 12, 79.
the sepulchre of the second version. Not only I "To witness a performance of the Misanthroj5e says Ed.
Thierry, is to be in the presence of the seventeenth century
could they scarcely be a part of the Nile story, imperishable in the immortality of the masterpiece of its
but there is nothing to preclude such a mean- masterpieces." See lte MoUirisle, 1883, p. I80.

i67

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 335 Junte, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 336

There are some good reasons, based on facts pose than that of painting men, and of 'makitng
the importance of which has not yet, it seems, respectable people laugh' by the vivacious
been fully appreciated, which make it probable energy and truthfulness of this painting, rtuns
the risk of losing sight of the true conception of
that MoliRre, at first, intended merely to draw
his work, and of misleading our admiration."3
the character of a cross and irritable, though
We may accept this as exactly true, for there
otherwise estimable man in love with a co-
is a difference between "attributing to MoliRre
quette. Such a character could not fail to be
philosophical or tragic intentions," and the
interesting in a comedy, and we know that the
simply objective statement that in one of his
poet, first and all, endeavored to write good
comedies the poet allowed his personal feelings
comedy, that is, to be entertaining, or, in his
to enter in such a manner as to inmbue it with a
own language, faire rire les lonngles gews. decidedly tragical quality.
But in the process of writing he added features
Onie of the most competent students of
to this original conception which partly changed
MoRidre, G. Larroumet,4 says:
the play from a light comedy into a drama of
"There is in the part of Alcestis something so
such intensity of feeling and of such contrast profoundly true that the creative power of the
between the actual and the ideal, as to make poet cannotsefficieitly e.pzlain it, accenits which
its dbnoue;nen/ almost tragical. The piece, came from the heart rather than from the im-
aginationi, ab profound nelancholy in which the
nevertheless, remains a comedy owing to the
meemories of a personal experience becamze
original features which were retained, but the visible."
change it underwenit is such that Eugdne Des- In order to appreciate the full force of this
pois might well call it "the noblest of comic remark, it is not only necessary to examinie
masterpieces," and that a very distinguiished the piece itself, but to look closely into the cir-
and acute German critic2 grouped it with cumstances whichi affected the poet while he
Shakespeare's Hamnlet and Goethe's Tasso as composed it. It has been said that MoliRre
particularly fit to be ranked among the master-disappears behind his works, anid it is inideed
pieces of Welt-li/era/ur, because these three difficult to give an exact account of the genesis
dramas reveal so much of the innler life anid of any of his comedies, becauise he left no
personality of their authors. record of his work, in extended prefaces or
The quality of 'nobility' the piece owed, in letters, that might enable tus in the case of any
part, undoubtedly to the mental suffering the of his masterpieces to arrive at definite coti-
poet experienced dturing the time of its com- clusions as to the time of their iniception and
position. The note of personial and painiful the successive stages of their composition.
experience that rings througlh the piece makes It is, however, not onily higlhly probable, but
it unlike any other of his works. It was nio- almiost certain that the poet conceived the plan
ticed by Goethe who was among the first to of an1 imiproved reworkiing of hiis Donii Garcie
call attentioni to the tragical impression it leaves de Navarre soon after the first representation
on the mind of the reader, but wlho, probably of the piece, February 4th, I66i. This tragi-
for this very reason, said of it: "I ami reading comedy was in reality little more than a trans-
it againi anid again, as one of the pieces I like lation of the Gelosie Fortunate of Cicogniini,
best in the world." Petit de Julleville has who hiad borrowed the plan from a Spanislh
warned us against attributing to Molidre mo- original, the author of wlhich is not known. It
tives whiclh he never had. He says very judi- proved a failure, and MoliRre never published
ciously: it, but as he transferred several important
"Fanatical admirers of MoliRre have pretenided scelnes of it to his Alisantlhrope, and as the lat-
to see in him a universal genius. Are there ter treats so largely of the sanme subject, that is,
such? For them he represents not only all
jealousy, it can scarcely be doubted that the
comiiedy, but also all humani thought, all phil-
osophy, all learning. This exaggeration is thie poet, seeing the reasoni of the failure, immedi-
cause why people attribute to Molidre philo- ately planned a new piece in which he would
sophical or tragic intenltionis of which hie never leave out the weak elements of the old one,
thought. "
while retaininig certain features of the latter
And further: and adding otlhers.
"We may feel sure that any criticism which Whether lie actually set to work at once on
aims at attributing to Moli&re any other pur-
3 Petit de Julleville; Le Th(itre en France.
2 Julian Schmidt, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur seit 4 Gustave Larrouimet; La Comiedit de Molikre: L'Auteur
Lessings Tod, Vol. iii. et le Milieu. -. 6dition. Paris, 1893.

i68

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 337 Juize, 1899. MODERN LANG UAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, ANo. 6. 338

the piece that now bears the name of the Mis- due to disappointment, and the disgust of an
an/hrope may be doubted, and it is perhaps honiest man at the indifference and servility of
true, as Brossette5 tells us in a note, that the be- men in general; but as the speaker has not yet
ginnings of the Misan/throfe date back to lost
I664,his lawsuit, and as the venality and low
and to the same day when Boileau recited his moral condition of the mass of mankinid are
second satire in honor of MoliRre, at the house matters of the most common observation and
of Count du Brouissin. Brossette states posi- experience, we cannot take this outburst very
tively that after this reading Moli&re wrote the seriously. We find Alcestis petulant, irritable,
first act of his Misanthrope. unipractical and slightly ridicuilous, but we can-
Witlout accepting the exact sequence of the niot see in him a misanitlhropist. He may de-
facts in this statement, for it is at least hiighly velop inlto one, but thus far he has given way
probable that the poet had already completed too much to impulsive resentment and general
the plan of the first act, and possibly written ill-humor to make us see in him more than an
part of it before I664, we may acimit that the honlest manl with a bad temnper. It slhould be
date given is approxiimately correct, thoughl noticed that his general condemnation of the
this involves the inference that MoliRre was at moral cowardice of the world follows the state-
work in that period on hzvo of his most impor- ment of his personalgrievance. Anlother quite
tant plays, for it was in I664 that he published personal grievance explains his rudeness to
the first tlhree acts of his Tartufe. Oronte.
If we closely examinie this first act we find The scene of the 'sonnet' speaks in favor of
that the hiero of the play is represenited as Brossette's statement in so far as Moli&re evi-
hiio-lgly irritable, deeply in love, and deficient in dently thought of Boileau when he wrote it.
wor-ldly w!isdomii. T he first indication that the This is conlfirmed by a passage in a letter Boileau
poet wants us to see in hiim a misanithropist is wrote in 1706 to the Marquis deMimeure. Re-
il Iiues 1ii8-i22, wvlhlich are virtually a repro- ferring to a certain quarrel he goes on to say:
"I played the true part of the Mlisanthrope in
dutctioin froimi the Apop. //i egoa1a of Erasmus.6
Molidre's comedy, or rather, I played my own
But as Alcestis followvs up these linies by ex-
character, the anger of Alcestis at bad verses
pressions of anger at thle: franc sceleralS having
avec been, as Moli?re has conifessed to vie,
qui j'ai proc?s (1. 124)-le iraitre (I. I25)-ce copied from me as a model."
piedi-p/at (1. I29), and refers to the success of But as MoliRre had known Boileau before I664,
this "scouidrel" in terins of initense abuse-as this alone is not conclusive.
onie whlo Par de sales emtplois s'est pozusse dalns The important fact, in connectioni with the
le miiondd, (1. 130)-whose success Fait gronder introduction of the Sonnet scene, is the viru-
le udrilie et rotqgir lte verfz6 (1. 132): we see inlence
thisof the remarks of Alcestis in his conver-
ouitburst oiily the niatural result of a temporary sationi with Oronte. Here again the hero ap-
disappointtment. If Alcestis were sure to beat pears as an itt-tempiered man, as an atrabilair
hisopponenit in the pendinig lawsuit lhe might and, as the sequel shows, an atra zbilaire
still abuse him, buit he would not wind up his amonreux.
furious remarks by the threat: Defierdcans unz MoliRre, we admit, had Boileati in mind when
di'sert Papproche des Izzumains. He miglht still he drew this feature of the character and conl-
exclaim: duct of Alcestis; but while a critic like Boileau
Nommerz lefourbe, infMme, et sceldrat maudit, miglht have spoken sarcastically of suich a pro-
7Tout le muonde en convieni, ce izul tie coniredit.
duction as Oronte's verses, we can hardly be-
Cependant sa grimace est partout bien venue;
On l'accueille, on lui rit, partout il s'insinue; lieve that he would, under similar circum-
Et, s'il est, par la brigue, un rang Ah disputer, stanices, and in Aholi?re's ownt estimation of
Sur le plus honn.te homme on le voit l'emporter- the critic's severity, have used such language
but this language, savage and abusive though as MoliRre puts in the mouth of his hero after
it is, would not be consider-ed by the speaker, the extremely courteous and almost deferenitial
nor by anly one else, as a sigin of misantlhropy. approaches of Oronte. We are forced to coni-
All these utterainces show the resentmeint clude that Alcestis is not merely the fearless
criticSee
5 (Euvres de All. Boileau Deshrtraux, GenAve, I7I6. whoI impartially judges a literary prodtuc-
also Moli&re, vol. v, in the series Grands Acrivains, etc.
6 Erasmi AAoAlkhegata/, page 486, edition of i64I: "Timon tion, but a man who has aI personal grudge
atheniensis, dictus misanthropos, interrogatus ctir omnes ag,ainst the author of this production. It is im-
homines odio prosequeretur: 'Malos, inquit, merito odi,
ceateros ob id odi quiod malos non oderint.'I portant to niotice this personal feelinig, very dif-

I69

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 339 June, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 340

ferent from the cool sarcasm of an offended judges to win a julst suit at law; 3. at Oronte
critic, and intelligible only in a man who hates who has composed an indifferent sonnet to the
tht would-be poet as a rival. We must not lady Alcestis also loves. His outcry, that he
forget that Alcestis cannot be in ignorance as has promptings to qUit society altogether and
to the lady to whom Oronte has addressed his to flee into a desert, is a mere act of petulanicy,
sonnet. It is none other than Clfirn?ne whom for he is too deeply in love to quit the nieighbor-
he himself so intensely loves. The intensity hood of CUlimdne, the spoilecl child of wealth
of this personal feeling accounts for the severity and fashion. We muLst further notice that
of some of his expressions which could not but Alcestis is young and that his anger on account
wound Oronte, and not merely in his vanity, of disappointnient, and his aversioni to the in-
and which were really niot called for. Under sincerity of social usages hardly suffice to drive
the veil of a recital of an occurrence he uses him from all society in order that he may live
expressions like these; le nom de ridicule et as a real misanithropist in a desert. In spite of
mislrable auteur (line 372); les dlmanigeaisons the expressionis of misanthropy in linles IIS-
d' crire (1. 346); jouer de mauvais personznages 122, the character of the hero is simply that of
(350); affectation pure (387); ces colifichets dont an irritable anid imptulsive young man in love,
le bon sens murmure (403); faux brillants (416); or wlhat the original sub-title of the piece indi-
d'aussi rmlchants sc. vers (429). He becomes cates, "un1 atrabilaire amoureux.)"
almost ferocious when he recites to him, by This characteristic appears in the stubsequellt
way of contrast, the popular ditty, and he re- three acts, with barely an indication in the
peats this ditty in order to drive home the sting fourth that it may deepen inito anythinig like
of the insult all the more efficiently. The im- real misanithropy. Closely analyzed the char-
pression we receive from Alcestis in this scene acter of Alcestis is plzilazntzropical rathler than
is that of a jealous rival who delights in wreak- the reverse. He gets easily anlgered when lhe
ing his critical spleen on an uinfortunate poet notices the faults of social life, for he is by na-
who stands in hiis way. This feature of jealousy ture sincere anid inmpatienit of frauld; but he ap-
in the play is very distinct, and reminds us of preciates such frienids as Eliante; he does not
Doni Garcie in which jealousy is also a leadinig hate Philinite witlh whomii he has quarrel after
feature. It seems to poinlt to Molidre's own quarrel, and who remainis to the last sinicerely
experience with Armande B6jart who had be- devoted to himii, anld, above all, he deeply
comie his wife in I662, andl with wlhom he had loves Climdne, at wlhose lhouse he calls as onle
serious differences in I664 whiclh finally led to of several habitual guiests.
a permanent estrangement. This first act,
It is not until the fifth act that two events oc-
therefore, shows Alcestis sufferinig from two cuLr which severely straiin his self-possession:
serious grievances: one is the danger of losing he leartns that the tLrickery of lhis opponienit has
an important lawsuit ; the other his UnIsuccess-
stucceeded in makinig himii lose his lawsuit, and
ful love aflair. His goodl right in the lawsuit he obtaills unqtuestionied proof that C6limilne
seems to be unquestioned, bntt the iniquity of is a coquLette of a very reprehensible type. But
courts and witnesses is such that he stands but
in spite of this he offers her his hand whichl
a poor chance of winining, because he will not she is willing to accept, but not on the concli-
make personal calls on the judges to win their
tion of living witlh him in a desert. At this his
favor. He sees his friend using the polite forms
aniger breaks out more stronigly tlhan ever. He
of social life toward people whom he (Alcestis) declares that n1ow all ties are severed between
dislikes, and particularly toward Oronte; this them, and that henceforth he will
infuriates him and he goes so far as to say that
. . sortir d'un gouifre o~i triomphent les vices,
his hatred of mankind is such that it extends Et chercher, sur la terre, un endroit kcart6
to every one, and that he feels at times sudden Oil d'Ctre homme d'honineur on ait la libert6.
promptinigs to flee into a wilderniess in order But nothing proves m1ore strongly than this
to avoid the approaclhes of men (linles I18-144). conlcl ulsioIn that the title an ill-tempered man in
To recapitulate: The first act shows Alcestis love fits the piece ratlher than the title wlhiclh it
cross andirritablc: i. at the conduct of his friend
bears. For what has Alcestis lost? If he lhas
Plhilinte who observes the delusive, though ac- the strenigth of mind to break with C6limdne
cepted and permissible forms of good society; for good, ihe will lhave successfully escaped the
2. at the suggestioni that he must call oni the dangerous trial of a unlioni with a flirt. The

I70

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 341 june, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 342

loss of his lawsuit does not ruin him and may be remarks are directed agaitnst abuse, and do
retrieved by an appeal. His true friends are honor to his heart, but they are singularly ill-
his friends still. He has wealtlh, rank, youth timed; we get the impression that he is a man
and energy; life is still before him, and if he of noble and refined feeling, but also of de-
will stop and deliberate calmly, he will come ficient tact, and that he betrays a dangerous
to the conclusion that he must blame himself tendency to make himself thoroughly disa-
for this great disappointment and suffering. greeable at times. We cannot wonder that
He may try to live in solituLde, btut the chances C,limdne hesitates to accept his hand before
are that he will not live there long. His friends knowinz much more about him, for althouglh
will seek him out, and it would be strange if she evidently prefers him to the others, she
the inicrease of years should not bring to him cannot be sure that his peculiarities of temper
the consolations of a practical philosophy which may not prove fatal drawbacks in wedded life.
would finally enable him to accommodate him- The art of the poet in all this cannot be praised
self to the defects anid inconveniences of social too hiighly. He makes us love his hero just
life, anid to enjoy the agreeable featLires of such etnough to keep us interested in him, and at
.a life. the same time shows him possessed of qtualities
Anl analysis of the second, third and fourth that make him ridiculous. Wesee clearlythat
acts will prove, it is true, that the art of the the fauilts of Alcestis cause his lack of success
poet has beeni successful in presenting a series witlh Climrne,and that this fatally re-acts upon
of trials for Alcestis which graduially embitter his tenmper so that success becomes impossible.
lhis temper and account for his niisanthropical In the third act the lines in which Alcestis
speaks of the life at court (IO8i-i098) increase
fits, especially in the last act. If we finially set
h-im down as anl incipient misanthlropist, we findour interest in him, and they eniable uis to
the true cause for it in his love for C6limene. judge better of hiis character. But from this
TI o live apart from her-of this there cannot be dislike of court-life to a complete shulinning of
any doubt-will be a terrible misfortunie for him. all human society the distance is great, and we
His pride will probably forbid his renewinig do not find that the transition from the one to
the relation. If he cannot overcome hiis pride; the other is dwelled on in the play as an una-
if he caiiuot get accustomiied to live without voidable result.

C6limnune; if he mutist couitiniue in this deplor- The fourth act contains a scene patterned
able condclitioni: the result will be that he must after a similar scene in Domn Garcie, but with
stiffer greatly, and in this sense his fate is trag- an important change to which allusion has al-
ical in a high degree. But before this state of ready been made.

suffering can develop into real misanthropy Dont Garcie says to Done Elvire, whom h
Alcestis will have to pass throtighl many a suspects of infidelity on account of a letter
furtlher trial. Bearinig in mind that we have to which she has wiitten,
"Mais ce sera sans doute, et j'en serai garant,
deal witlh a character of romedy, we must ac-
Un billet qu'on envoie A quclque indifferent,
cept this as necessarv. A real misantlhropist Ou du moins, ce qu'il a de tendresse evidente
xvould lhave been too serious a sLubject for a Seraj5our ute amie ou fiour quelquefarente."
comeldy, anid MoliRre was right in delineating In the Misanthrope it is C(lim?ne who tries to
his hero as sufferinig .only the natural conse- tuLrn the suspicion into a harnmless clhannel:
quences of the defects ini his character and of "Mais si c'est unefemmte A qui va ce billet,
En quoi vous blesse-t-il, et qu'a-t-il de coupable?"
his own condcuct.
(Lines I344-45.)
In the second act Alcestis appears promi- The poet used the idea, but made a wonder-
nently as a 'cross lover,' as ani atrabilaire ftil chanige in the form of the conversation.
ainoureux. He blames the guests of Climrne, C6limene's answer gives rise to a most lively
and is rel)roved by her and by Philinte. This interchanige of reproaches, prayers and re-
nmakes Iiini all the more savage; he upbraids fnsals; the dramatic interest gains greatly, and
CUlimnne for hier interest in other admirers, a vivid light is throwni on the characteristic
and threatens that he will not leave her coni-pectLIliarities of botlh speakers.
pany until after they shall have left (lines 734-
This incident is the first serious experience
737). His jealousy, and his impatience of the of Alcestis. If his stispicion is just, he will be
social habits of CUlimdne and her guests mark unspeakably unhappy, and in this condition he
hiim tlhrotuglhotut as inilptilsive and irritable; his
may, at least for a time, hate the whole human

I71

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 343 June, I899. MODERN LANGUA GE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 344

race. But he is not sure that his fears are fects. But when the mistress had become his
well-founded; he still hopes that he may be wife, she, so nmuch younger thani he, made him
convinced of the innocenice of his mistress, endure the most violent pangs of jealousy. It
and therefore he is yet far from beinig a misan- is true, as Larroumet hias forcibly pointed out,7
thropist. The circumstance is of importance, that .Moli6re himself was by no means immacU-
for hitherto he has been only in a state of irri- late, and that his own conduct accotunts to a
tation on account of a lawsuit and of the poor large extent for the treatnment he received from
success of his love affair in the presence of his wife: but there can be no doubt as to the
rivals; while now he is threatened with losing reality and severity of his own sufferings.
his faith in the honorable character of the lady From I664, when these troubles becanme actute,
he loves. If his fears are well fotunded (so he until i666, when the Misanfthrope was comi-
cannot but reason consistently with his previous pleted, the poet passed througlh the most criti-
conduct and way of thinking), there is then cal period of his life. The estrangement from
neither faith tnor honor among human beinigs, his wife led to a finial and complete separation;
and an honest man has no other choice than to yet the two appeared on the stage in the pres-
shun their society altogether. But as yet he is entationi of the piece, she as C6limdne, he as
not sure, and, tlherefore, he continues virtually Alcestis. WVe may well assume that the feel-
only as ani irritable man in love. ings with which the poet went throuigh his role
In the fifth act we find that Alcestis has such nmust have been mis~inthropical in a higlh de-
a deep and earnest love for CUlimene that lie gree.
still offers her his hand, after the flagrant proof There cannot be a reasonable doubt that in
of her reckless coquetry. WVe are therefore delineating Alcestis and Cglimdne the poet's
surprised tlhat, on hier reftusal to follow him into owIn feelitngs alid experience eniterecl as potent
a desert, while she is willing to be his on any factors, though he was too great an artist to at-
other terms, the lover should renounce her tempt merely a copy of his own and his wife's
definitely. Canl we, in fact, believe, that he characters. In reality he was rather engaged
will never return to her? Why should he pre- in giving greater depth and originality to the
fer a life in a desert niow that CUlimbne is will- ,idea of a jealouis lover which he borrowed from
ing to accept him? He had niot made this a Dom Garcie. His own experience proved a
condition- for a uniion with her before, anid there powerftil factor, hut he was also helped by
is niothinlg in the play to show that he had anly hints takeni fronm otlhers, for instanice, the Granid
intention to gain her ontly on /Atis coiidilion ! Cy?'its of Mile. de Scud6ry whose description
Is it not plain that even in this instance the of Agabates fits Alcestis ; anid the stories that
lover is petulanit, head-strong, irritable, angry, circulated abouit the duke of Montauisier who
rather than a misanthropist pure anid simple ? had the reputation of beinig outspoken and
In other worcds: Does not the original subtitle, honest, but inclinied to be rude.
Un atrabilair-e ainoureux fit him exactly, Btut there were otlher reasonis than the es-
wlhile the nanme of Misanthropist' can be ap- trangemiient from his wife wlhich must have
plied to him only in a qualified senise ? greatly emnbittered the poet wlhile engaged in
But why, theni, did the poet pirefer the latter writing hiis play.
title ? Ferdinand BrunetiEre lhas callecd attentioni to
The answer to this question is not easy, but the words of Alce;tis in lines I23-I40 as suig-
the following facts may ftLrnish a satisfactory gesting the clharacter of 'artzufe. Both plays,
explanation. Let us bear in nmind that during the Tarfife and tlhe MAisanthrope, prove be-
the composition of the work Molidre experi- yond the possibility of a douibt that the poet,
enced the greatest sorrow of his life. His love at the time of their composition, was deeply
for Armande B6jart was of a kind to remind us incensed against some person or persons of
of the love of Alcestis for C6limTne. In a whom Tar/ofe and thlefranc scUlrat of wxhoml
wonderfully interestinig and bright scene of the Alcestis speaks xvere artistically intensified
Bourgeois GCefiihoinne (Act iii, Sc. ix) it is copies. We know eniough of the rivalries at
believed that lie left tis a portrait of his wife. the couirt of Louis XIV, of the jealousy exist-
The sentiment of Clnonte was the sentiment of ing between the two leading theatrical com-
MoRibre: lie had loved his mistress in spite of panies, of the attempts of the trot4fe of the
her defects, nay possibly on accotint of her de- 7 Larroumet, 1. c., p. 162.

I72

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 345 June, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 346

H6tel de Bourgogne to hurt Moli&re and his m;zarquis! "-"Oui,touijours des marquis. Que
troupe, to feel sure that MoliRre's feelings diable voulez-vous qu'on prenne pour un ca-
ract&re agr6able de th6Atre? Le marquis au-
toward certain persons must have been in-
jourd'hui est le plaisant de la corn6die; et,
tensely acrimonioLus at times. Even Lulli, with comiime dans toutes les com6dies anciennes on
whom he shared the honor of contributing to voit toujours un valet bouffon qui fait rire les
the king's amusemeiit, cotuld not but have auditeurs, de m6me, dans toutes nos pi&es de
roused his indignation, because this Italian re-
mainteniant, il faut tbujours un msarquis ridi-
cule qui fasse rire la compagnie."
ceived the lion's share of the king's favor and
The speech of Acaste in the Misanthrope (III,
gifts. An immensely eloqLuent proof of the ex-
i, 781-804) is extremely suggestive of the poet's
istence of a party hostile to the poet is the si-
lence observed by the official paper in reference
own immense contempt for the class of marquis.
What, for instance, could convey more ridicule
to him. It mentions all that is going on, often
than the fatuity with which the speaker ex-
the most trivial attempts of others, but it has
claims:
not a word for Moli&re. That this silence in re-
"Pour de l'esprit, j'en ai sans doute; et du bon goOt,
spect to him must have cleeply wounlded and an- A jug-er sans etude c raisonner dd eout (lines 79-2)-
gered him cannllot be doubted. A significant With all his well-known kindliness and the
passage in his Misanzhrope furnishes a striking cheerful tone of his own philosophy, Molidre
example how the slighted poet aimed his blows couild be a good hater at times; but the re-
at the paper whlich was liberal enough in deal- markable fact appears that he evidently used
ing out praise to others: h-imself and his varying moods as material for
D'eioges on re-orge, A la t^te on les jette,
hlis poetic work. In his Misanthrope this is
Et mon voie de chamnbre est mis dans la gazelle
proven both in the character of Alcestis and in
(III, vii, 1073-74).
that of Philinte. Moli6re was at times Alcestis,
The passage is so pointed, especially the words
lhere italicized, that we can scarcely doubt this but hiis regular mood was that of Pzilinte. It
intenitioin. can scarcely be doubted that the poet utilized

WVe must further conclude that Mlolidre re- the anger and indignation he felt for the bene-

ceived nmore than one slight from the courtiers fit of his new piece. He endowed his Alcestis

who saw in hiim little more than a jester whose with this indignation and this anger, while, at
official title, labissier valet de chambre duc roy the same time, putting in the mouth of Philinte

couild niot awaken in them anly special respect. the amiable and easy-going philosophy which
The poet took his revenge by attacking this was the poet's own in his normal condition.
party uinder the general name of Marquis, with A suspicion arises, and it is, perhaps, more

suclh uinsparing and savage sarcasm as to justify than a suspicion, if we consider the high-strung
the inference that a personal feeling of resenit- organization of Moli&re, that Racine comes in
ment entered into this treatment. In his M4fis- for somne, if not for much of the poet's anger,
anthrope Clitanidre and Acaste are said to stand as reflected in the AMisanthrope. We know
for the namies of two noblemen who sustained how poets exaggerate incidents and trivial
relations to his wife. Moli6re introduces them characteristics into perfecte(d dramatic events
as llMarquis. Both have access to the more in- and characters, and we know that the conduct

timate society with the king at the peit coucher. of Racine in respect to MoliPre must have pro-
They are mercilessly exposed in the play, and duced in the latter a natuiral and deep resent-
it mighlt seem that the poet acted from jealousy, ment. Racine had been under obligations to

but it is even more likely that, finding a hostile Moli&re who had treated him generously, In
party at work againist him, he aimed h-is shafts return hie deprived him of his best actress,
Mlle. Du Parc, who went over to the H6tel de
at the personis who lhad the kinig's favor and
Bourgogne, in order to appear in Racine's new
miglht be supposed to be responisible for much
of the uinfavorable influence that was exercised tragedies. It is significant and important that
against him. this occurred at the very time when Moliere
A good illustration of Molidre's uncompro- was still at work on lhis AMisanthlrope. The
mising hatred of these nmembers of the hiigiher conclusion is unavoidable that, for a time at
nobility is found in the first scene of his fin- least, Moli&re must have entertained the hard-
prorbptu de Versailles (I663): est possible feelings towards the rising poet.
This effect of Racine's treason is too natural to
" vous prenez garde a bien repr6senter avec
moi votre r6le de marquis."-"Toujours des be doubted, especially if we bear in mind that

'73

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 347 June, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 348

in the person of Mlle. Du Parc, Moli6re lost not worth, but I think it follows from a careful es-
only his best actress, but also his mistress. timate of them that the unfortunate event which
Racine was feared for his keen and merciless estranged the two great poets affected the
wit, and he had the faculty of ingratiating him- older one seriously while he was writing his
self easily with influential people, especially play. The ready success of the young poet in
the ladies. lie thus gained in a very short time ousting the elderly poet from the affection of
the special confidence of the King, a favor his mistress was only an earnest of future social
which Moli&re never obtained. This occurred, and other success. Moliere, smarting from the
of course, much later, but MoliUre would not treatment, could not help noticing this, and it
have been human, if he had not noticed the may well have aroused in him thoughts of mis-
superiority of Racine's chances with a feeling anithropy.
of bitterness. Racine had all that Moli6re The ZJ?fisanzhrope was probablyniearits com-
lacked: physical beauty, youth and other per- pletion when, Atugust fifth, I665, the king a-
sonal attractions. Moli&re was rather homely. dopted Moliere's company as 'Za troupe royale,'
His features would have been called coarse by thereby publicly siding with the poet against
many, though they seem to have lent them- his rivals. The reason for this is generally be-
selves readily to very effective comic action. lieved to have been, in part, that the king felt
His speech and manners were those of a pro- himself hampered and annoyed by the clergy
fessional comedian, hence lacking in that spe- and others,who arrayed morality atnd the Chris-
cial refinement which was the product of court- tian virtues against the poet, and thus, indi-
life. But above all, he was an elderly man, ob- rectly, against the kipg,whose licentious morals
viously even older in looks than in years, on no longer sought concealment.
account of the hard work which he had been It is important, for the purpose of thlis paper,
compelled to do and was still doing. Feeling to notice the date when this action was talken.
himself beaten and betrayed by a young man As the piece was completed early in i666, and(
whom he lhad befriended, his feelinigs toward possibly already in the fall of I665, we can
him may well have suggested such lines as: readily see that the principal part of its com-
Au travers de son masque on voit i plein le traitre; position took place during the time of uncer-
tainty for the poet which preceded this action.
Cqen dant sa grimnace estgartout bien venue;
On i'accueille. on lui rit, f5artout il sinsinue
We have, therefore, to consider by what feel-
(Mis., lines 125, and 137-138). ings the poet must have been aninmated before
In lines I69-72 Alcestis, irritated by the be- this decision put an end to hiis suspense. A
nevolent remarks of Philinte, asks the latter: simple statement of some of the leading facts
Et s'il faut, par hazard, qt'un amni vous trahzise, during this period of unlcertainity may enable
Que, pour avoir vos biens, on dresse un artifice, us to arrive at a correct conclusiotn. We limnit
Ou qu'on tache l semer de ;zeckants bruits de vous, ourselves, of course, to the period fromii the
Verrez-vous tout cela sans vous mettre en courroux ?
probable inception of the play to its completion .
The words I have italicized deserve attentioni, Feb. 4, i66i. Domn Garcie de Navarre was
and also the last line which puts the question played, but proved a failure. The poet clid
exactly as any judge of human nature would not publish this play, which makes prob-
put it. able the assumnption that he initended to
In the piece itself nothing is said about the improve it, as soon as he had found that it
betrayal of a friend, and as to the spreading was not successfLil.
of wicked reports we learn about that only in Feb., I662 (probably on the I4th). He married
the fifth act (lines I500 f.). The illustration Armnande B6jard, who was young enoughl
which Alcestis uses for the benefit of his friend to be his daughter. His enemies declared
is, therefore, without basis in the play; it clearly that she was h-jis daughter.
points to a personal grievance of the poet, Aug. I2, I662. La Grange records that mem-
and accords perfectly with the known facts. bers of the H6tel de Bourgogne theatre call
Moli6re's enemies were at that very time busy on the queen-motlher to obtain increased
in spreading injurious reports about him, and favors, "the troupe of MoliRre causing them
the betrayal of afriend tallies, of course, with much jealousy. "
the treason of Racine. Dec. 26, I662. First appearance of his Ecole
I state these facts for no more than they are des Femmzes, which had the effect of arous-

I74

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 349 June, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 350

ing the greatest inclignation amolig his ene- In the foregoing enumeration the difficulties
mies, producing a shower of paper bul- of Moliere with his wife are not mentioned.
lets of the brain. They constitute in themselves, beginniing early,
Feb. 9, I663. De Vis6 assailed him in the and becoming acute in 1664, a sufficient reason
Nouvelles nouvelles, charginig himn with for the poet's misanthropical tendencies, but
havinig stolen his material from Straparola. they do not stufficiently account, perhaps,for the
June, I663. MoliRre answers the critics, anid change in the title Qf the play. It is hardly pos-
assails the mnarquis. sible that the poet wrote his work without mak-
Aug., I663. De Vis6 publishes Z'linde. iig chariges in what he had written before. Ad-
"Some people, assembled in a shop, assail ditional lines were most probably inserted in the
Elomnire (pseudonyrm for Mloli?re). They part already written,as the work progressed; ex -
charge him with having pilfered the Italian
pressioins modified or strengthened, etc. These
and Spanish writers, also Fureti&re's Fran-
cion.- il lit tous les vieux bouquins." matters are outside the possibility of proof,

The other charges are, he inisults the no- while they must he admitted as highly probable.
bility, mocks at Christianity, etc., etc.
What is essential for the poiilt here involved is
that the incidents of the play, and the essential
Nov. I7, I663. Publication of Boursault's Por-
trait du Peizt re, a fierce attack on MoliRre. features of its leadiiig characters,do not explain
The tcole des Femnmzes is savagely criti- why the poet gave it its present title. We can
uilderstand why he finally decided to give this
cized, it is qualified as impious, obscene,
vulgar, dull and farcical.
title the preference over the other, when we
conisider the gloomy disposition which must
Nov., i663. Aoliore answered this pamphlet
have frequently possessed him as he progressed
by hiis fInpfromptu de Versailles.
in the composition of the piece.
I)ec. 7, I663. De Vis6 answers in a Rlponse S
Moliere was forty-four years old when he com-
PIfpiroinpfit,ou la Vengeance des Marquis.
pleted his Misanthirope. At this age experi-
Jan. I9, I664. A son of Montfleury (of the Hotel
cle Bourgogne) also answers in P'Jmpromtp- ences stichi as he passed through sink more
tu de P'Htcl de CGondi. deeply into the mind, anid are more apt to sway
Mlarch I7, 1664. There appears La Guerre co- the current of serious thought. But no poet
stands so much in need of experience as the
inique, o?C D/fense de P'LEcole des Femmnnes.
This is followed by a Let/re sur les affaires comic poet. Comedy of the higher sort has
dt Tieddre, published in the lDiversitls
never been the work of yoting men, aiud Mo-
liere's own1 example proves this. His earlier
galantes, by the author of Zllinde.
characters are simply r4les, but his Alcestis
Mlay, i664. The first three acts of Le Tartufe
and C6lim6ne have all the complexity of real
are finished.
men and women. A real misanthropist could
MIay I7, I664. The Gazette states: "The King
considers the piece inimical to religion."
be only an abstraction, or the product of men-
Shortly after appeared a savage pamphlet,
tal disease, bLut Alcestis is thorotughly hunmani,
and there is niothinig morbid abotut him, not
Le Roi Gloi-ieux au AJonde, which was soon
even his hatred of shams and his impatience
suppressed, as it indirectly hit the king. In it
with rivals. This hatred is too violent to be
the author, the cur6 of Saint-Barth6lemy,Pierre
called morbid. He feels his own worth rather
Roull6, speaks of Molidre as lthat demxon clad in
more strongly than we might expect in a man
humiian flesh, and demanids that he should be
who criticizes human weakness so severely.
burned at the stake.
He is not simply virtuotusly iindignaint at the ob-
Feb. I5, I665. First performance of Don Juau
sequiouIs courtesy of his friend toward perfect
which rotuses a storm of indignation . Oiie
strangers, but he feels personally sligli/ed by
of these outbursts (Observations, etc.) says:
this indiscriminate homage. He exclaims:
"The atuthor assails the interests of heaven,
Je refuse d'un cccur la vaste complaisance
he teaches infidelity, insults the kiing, cor-
Qui ne fait de mdrite aucune difference;
rupts virtue, offends the queen-mother."
ye veux qu'on ne distingue, et, pour le trancher net,
Aug., I665. The kiing adopts Molidre's troupe L'amni du genre Itumain Westfoiot du tout monfait."
as La troupe royale, aind allows them a (Lines 6I-64.)
penisioni. The personial note is also qtiite distinct in his
Dec , I665. Racine's act of disloyalty to the aniswers to Philinite elsewhere; in his conver-
older poet. satiotn with Oronte, with Cdlimdne, anid in his

'75

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 351 June, I899. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xiv, No. 6. 352
I

blunt answer to Arsino6 (lines I7I6-22). The play, should not be able to get rid of thes(
typical scene for the intensely personal asser- faults eventtually. He might then still resen
tion of Alcestis is the one known as the scene the misery of human nature at court and else
of the chairs, the fifth of the second act. It is where, but he wouild not allow his indignatior
impossible to identify the irritable, censorious, to tLurn into the vinaigre of misanthropy.
angry lover with a misanthropist. He is atra- We must, therefore, conclude that the pla3
bilious, and the title of an ill-teimpered man in answers to the title Un Afrabilaire Amoureux
love fits him exactly, but he is not a misan- and that Molidre changed this title only be,
thropist. His intense interest in the lady he cause of the inental and moral suffering whict
loves, as well as the sarcasm of hiis speech, due he underwent during its composition. His ar
to keen observation and unpleasanit personal tistic sense and tact have prevented him frotr
experience, mark him as a man who cannot exaggerating the gloomy featuires of his lhero,
but interest us, with whom we might argue, fall and fi-omii imbuing the latter with an excess of
out and become reconciled again, but a man the feelinigs which at times possessed the poet,
whom we cannot help considering worthy of btt these feelings accouLnt for. the fact that a
our friendly regard, a type of a fine character tragical element entered the piece through thl
who onily needs the experience of life to wear contrast between the ideality wlhich exists ir
off his rough edges. the virttues and the views of its hero, and the
Alcestis himself has told us that la raison world in xvhich he lives. This element is miti-
n'estpas ce qui r?gle lanifGozr (line 248). He gated, in accordance with the requiirements oi
knows his faults and admits:
comedy, by the faults and foibles of the hiero
La raison, pour mon bien, veut que je me retire:
whose misanthropy is only temporary and can-
Je n'ai point sur ma languie un assez grand empire.
(Lines 1573-74.)
not be regarded as final.
But one does niot turn misanthropic becauise of The most pathetic featuire of the play is in
such defects. the condition of the feeling,s of Alcestis towarcds
In his reference to court-life,the poet himself Celimene. He loves her too deeply to be
seems to unburden himself: otherwise tlhan profoundly uinhappy while sep-
"Le ciel ne m'a point fait, en me donnant le jour, arated from hier. He loves lher exactly as the
Une <me compatible avec l'air de la cour." poet loved Armanide, and the poet's wr-etched-
. . ~~~~~~~~~(I083-84.) ness is mirrored in the misforttune of hiis lhero.
He gives his reasoln:
Ptre franc et sincere est mon plus grand talent; Btit as a union witlh a pronotunced flirt may iiot
Je ne sais point jouer les hommes en parlant; be the best thing for a lover, otir sympathy with
Et qui n'a pas le don de cacher ce qu'il pense his condcition is not stronger than is conlsistenlt
Doit faire en ce pays fort petn de rdsidence.
with the legitimate purposes of comedy. The
(To87-90.)
poet las slhowni himlself an incomparable artist
He speaks farther on (1. io95) of the muzille re-
in so adljusting the differenit characters of his
bits cruels which one has to endure at court,
play, anCd the elemenits in these characters, as
and the remark is very significant, btut the
to challenge the a(dmuiration of every studenit
remedy is too simple to justify misanitlhropy.
of the dr-ama.
As to the parts in which Alcestis speaks
CHARLES A. EGGERT.
more or less passionately to CUlimnene, some of Ch(icago, Ill.
them were taken from Domn Garcie, and hence
had been written a year before lie married Ar- DANTE'S INIEL UEGCE ON ENGLISH1
mande B6jard. The niew play shows that the POE TR Y ZNV THE NINE TEENTH
principal topic of the older has been retained, CENTUR .' l

but it has been deepened anid varied. The hero "A great poem is a fountain forever overflowing w
in Doam Garcie suffers from imaginary tor- the waters of wisdom and delight.; and after one per
and one age has exhausted all its divine effluence, w
ments, those of Alcestis are real. It neverthe-
their pectuliar relations enable them to share, another
less remains truie-and in this is shown the deel) yet aniother succeeds, and new relationis are eve
insight and the profound art of the poet-tlhat veloped, the soturce of an unforeseen and an unconc
delight." Shelley, A Defentce of loetry.
Alcestis suffers only in proportion to the real
faults which he has ancd shows. But it is im- IT may be a matter of some sLirprise for t
possible to admit that a matli like him, if we who have not had their attentioni called to
judge of him as he appears throuighout the I Dan/e's Iflluence on Shelley has already been discu
by the writer in AIOD. LANG. NOTES, Vol. xiii (I898),

I76

This content downloaded from

154.59.125.125 on Wed, 10 Aug 2022 22:43:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms