Les Femmes savantes - Molière

I must say that I find these French plays to be a little difficult to follow at times namely because of the way the scenes are set up. It seems that each of the scenes have only specific characters in them and when one of the characters leaves (or a new one arrives) then suddenly the scene ends and a new one begins. They are not like Shakespeare where the scenes are location specific, and the way that Shakespeare constructs his scenes and his plays I find much easier to follow. However, when my internet is working better (I seem to be having problems with it on my laptop though I suspect that it may be the operating system as opposed to the internet connection itself) I will try to watch some of the Moliere plays on Youtube (they are available on Youtube). The other thing I was thinking of was getting a dongle, but that is not necessary at the moment (and I pay for the internet anyway).

This play seems to be quite similar to Tartuffe, and apparently it was not as popular as the previous play. In fact, from the introduction, I get the impression that the play actually flopped (if it was possible for a play to flop, but I guess it is when it has a very limited shelf life, though some plays have limited shelf lives because the actors have other projects that they want to go onto, though some plays, like the ones that have run for 20+ years in the West End probably cycle through actors). The difference here is that we have a philosopher in the house as opposed to a religious zealot (for want of a better word) though we have the standard woman who wants to marry her crush, but that marriage isn't allowed to happen because she is supposed to marry somebody else, however it turns out that the somebody else was a fraud so she ends up marrying the guy she wanted to marry in the first place. Plays like these (and there are a number in the Moliere collection) makes me wonder if there was such a thing as romantic love during the 17th century. I was always under the impression that arranged marriages were generally the way things went, though it seems that in Moliere most of the characters tend to be members of the middle class (who were the bulk of the theatre goers namely because the aristocracy was small, and the lower classes were uneducated).

When I speak about romantic love I am speaking about choice in getting married. These days there seems, at least in our culture, a fair amount of choice in who we get to marry. I find it a little daunting though, especially since I was the guy that either chased the wrong women, or was too gutless to actually ask any of them out. That is changing a bit though, and I guess I am learning to let people go at times. However, I thought that this was a recent phenomena, especially with the development of the car which enabled people to travel greater distances (up until then they were generally stuck where they were born). However, I suspect that one of the reasons for this belief was because prior to the development of the car (or even the railway) you were generally trapped in your own small town, and the person that you ended up marrying you had known for quite a while (namely most of your life).

This play, however, is set in the city, among the middle classes, where you would meet people at university and other functions. If you were a member of the nobility then I suspect that you had little choice in who you were going to marry, though I do notice that most of Shakespeare's plays involve nobility, and there is a lot of romantic love there as well. However, the key with most of Moliere's plays is the idea that one can chose who they are going to marry, but that choice is being taken away from them so they must come up with a plan to get out of it. In the Would-Be Gentleman, the antagonist is made to believe that he is being given a knighthood in Turkey, while here they make it appear that the family has become bankrupt. As such, romantic love triumphs.

However, for the play to appeal, there must have been at least some choice in marriage. Look, even today there is still some restrictions, and there are still cultures were arranged marriages are the norm. However, we all hear, and still see on television, shows were a marriage cannot go ahead unless the parents approve of it, and if the parents don't approve of it, then the marriage is going to be difficult at best. Of course, these movies run on the principle that the father is the one objecting to the marriage, and in the end comes across as a buffoon. Still, as in Moliere's day, and as it is today in our performances, romantic love always triumphs.

    It turned out that it was quite appropriate that I started reading this play when I did, especially since I had no idea what it was about beforegand. At the time I was heading out of the Netherlands and into Belgium and had just past through Rotterdam (and spent a couple of hours there) to discover that the city is nothing like many of the other European cites but rather a modern city with basically no old city like many of the others have (including the German cities). Also, having visited some of the sites in northern France (including a Nazi bunker for the V2 rockets that has been turned into a museum of science, technology, and war) it did feel appropriate that I read the one Satre play that was about Germany attempting to deal with its war guilt.

    The thing is that the Nazi's did leave quite a trail of destruction in there wake, as can be seen from the photo of Rotterdam after the blitz (basically the Dutch turned out to be a lot more resistant they originally expected so they bombed the hell out of Rotterdam and told them that if they didn't surrender then Utrecht would be next – they surrendered).

Mind you, Dunkerque wasn't spared either, but that's not surprising considering that this was where the allied forces landed up after being surrounded by the Germans. Like Rotterdam, not much was left of Dunquerke after the Nazi's had finished with it, and it pretty much shows today. Mind you, the Allies also did a pretty decent job of Frankfurt (among other German cites), as this photo shows.

Though for some reason the cathedrals always seem to survive the bombing raids, but that is beside the point because I probably should get on to taking about the play, though I do believe that what happened during the war is essential to what Satre is exploring here.

The thing is that the war did result in an identity crisis, but then again being on the losing side of a war generally has that effect upon a nation. However it actually goes much further than that, particularly since there are suggestions that the population didn't actually know what was happening to the Jews. Sure, smashing up shops and telling them to get out of the country is one thing, but wholesale genocide is almost another level of evil, though the fact that it still continues today in places such as Rwanda suggests that people, even ethnic groups, are more than capable of going to such extremes. It still makes me wonder, with all of the anti-muslim rhetoric coming from certain sectors of our community, how far they are from actually taking it one step further.

Anyway, in the Condemned of Altona we have a number of characters: the father, who happens to be a wealthy industrialist whose wealth pretty much survived the end of the war intact; the son Franz, who has locked himself in his room since the end of the war; Leni, his sister, who is the only one who is able to visit him, and in doing so has convinced him that not only has Germany been destroyed but has never recovered from the war. We also have Joanna, Franz's sister in law, who manages to get into Franz's room yet despite attempting to tell him the truth, is not believed.

This play is classic existentialism and deals with the identity crisis that faced many Germans after the war. In fact many of the younger generation had grown up not knowing any other system of government than Hitler's, and having been fed the propoganda for one and a half decades, did not know anything else. So it is not surprising that there was such a crisis after the war, particularly since many of them, after being defeated by the Allies, discovered that they were actually the bad guys. Mind you, the Allies dealt with the defeated Germany (and Japan) much better than they did after World War I, which is why both countries became industrial powerhouses. However, as a side note, it is interesting that Germany did retain conscription after the war.

However Franz is the interesting character because of this idea of right and wrong. Before the war, we discover that he hid a Jewish Rabbi in his closet to prevent him from being taken by the SS, however this was discovered. Franz's father, using his influence as an industrialist, managed to get a stay of execution as long as Franz joined the army. After the war, during the occupation, Leni is raped by an American soldier and Franz intervenes, however Leni kills the soldier but Franz takes the blame – this event is why he ended up locking himself in his room for the past ten years. Yet we see the brilliance of Satre in this particular scene because even though the Allies were 'good' and the Nazi's bad, we have this event where an allied soldier does something bad and Franz is forced to defend his sister, yet because he was a Nazi his action is immediately seen as being bad. It sort of creates a conundrum because the American is acting improperly, yet it seems as if Franz and his sister are unable to defend themselves.

Let us then consider the father because he is also an interesting character. Unlike the normal hoi poloi of the German population he was pretty much able to escape the end of the war unscathed. Mind you, quite a few of the German companies needed to be bailed out after the war (and this probably happened with Franz's father's company as well), yet due to their wealth, and the fact that they weren't the 'big bad guys' they were able to escape prosecution and continue as if nothing had happened. It is also interesting how they discuss the company because in a way the father is the company, yet Franz does not believe he can take it over because his identity does not rest with the company, but the company has taken on an identity of its own.

This is the key to the play – the question of identity. Franz's identity is a defeated soldier of a defeated power, and he simply cannot shake that identity. Leni's identity is that of Franz's brother, yet it is interesting how she plays with him in that she convinces him that there is nothing left of Germany and it only works to reinforce that identity of a defeated soldier. The fact that he hides himself in his room and refuses to speak to anybody else is an outworking of his shame at what had happened, what he had done, and what he has realised that he is.

Yet let us not forget the rape because this creates something even more problematic. Here we have the allies, who are supposed to be the good guys, doing something that good guys are not supposed to do. By intervening, and taking the blame for his sisters actions, it creates even more doubt in his mind. The allies were supposed to be good and the Nazi's were supposed to be bad, but here comes this soldier doing something that a good guy shouldn't be doing. It certainly is a question of identity but the problem here is that Franz is connecting the identity of the soldier with the identity of the country that he represents, but then again isn't that what the uniform of a soldier is supposed to mean – the actions of a man in uniform is the identity of the country that the soldier serves, therefore the actions of a man in uniform represents the actions of the country. This was the case of the school that I went to – we had a uniform – it was a private school – we were constantly told that our actions while we were in uniform represented the school. Mind you, that didn't stop us behaving like jerks, but the thing is that the uniform ties us to the identity that the uniform represents, and in turn our actions while in that uniform go on to determine the identity of the organisation we are representing.

Let us finish off with Franz's father – the wealthy industrialist. Here we have somebody that seemed to have escaped the identity of the Nazi war criminal. Sure, we don't actually know what he does (or at least I don't – I must have missed that part), but the thing is that his wealth creates an identity of his own and he is able to escape the Nazi war guilt. He managed to influence the Nazi party when Franz hid the rabbi, and he managed to influence the occupation when Franz took the blame for Leni's act of self defence. Yet this happened more often than not. This was the case with Werner Von Braum, the inventor of the V1 and V2 rockets. Despite the fact that slave labour was used to build the rockets, as well as the launch sites and the delivery systems, at the end of the war he wasn't prosecuted, he was taken by the Americans and put to use in their own rocket program (as were a lot of other scientists). In a way it seems that in the end it is not so much your guilt that counts, but how much worth you have to the current system, which is probably why those who landed up at Nuremberg were basically politicians and army officers.

Anybody who is familiar with the Ancient Greek plays will know that this is a modern retelling of the story of Euripides Iphigeneia at Aulis. However it is told from a more rationalistic, secularist point of view rather than a direct translation from the original. For those who do not know, the story is set just prior to the Trojan War when Agamemnon is preparing to set sailed with a Greek armada to 'rescue' Helen from Paris, who had kidnapped her (or did she go willingly because Paris was a much more romantic person than Menelaus) and taken her to Troy. However the winds were not blowing favourably so Agamemnon asks the gods what the problem is and they tell him that unless he offers up his daughter as a sacrifice the winds will not change. This play is about the personal and social struggles that Agamemnon faces between his wife (Clytemnestra), who does not want to see her daughter sacrificed, and the Greek kings, who want to sail off to Troy and are looking for any sign of weakness in Agamemnon so they they may depose him.

The problem with this play is that there is a happy ending, which no doubt would have impressed the original audience (who were probably not that familiar with the story, in the same way most of us moderns are not familiar either). Unfortunately it does not work because the whole reason that Agamemnon was murdered by his wife when he returned from Troy was because he had sacrificed his daughter at Aulis. One could also argue that this was simply an excuse to get rid of a troublesome husband and for Clytemnestra's lover to take over the mantle of kingship. There are also further problems with Euripides' version where Iphigeneia was replaced by a cow and then spirited off to Tauris by Artemis, but this is probably not the forum for it to be discussed (though I don't actually discuss it in my treatment on Iphigenia in Tauris).

The other thing I should note with this play is the political undertones that are evident. The issue is raised as to Agamemnon's real reason for going to Troy: to extend his empire across the Aegean to Asia. However, it should be remembered that his hold on the Greek alliance is tenuous at this point in time, though as it turns out it is only Agamemnon and Menelaus who have a problem with the Trojans (though no doubt this is an aspect of Greek nationalism in that while they may not have been united under one king, the fact that a foreigner – a barbarian – kidnapped a Greek princess, would have set the hackles of all the Greeks on edge). There is only one other Greek king that plays a major role in the play: Achilles. Achilles is also torn because he has been betrothed to Iphigeneia, but he also wants the glory of going to war against the Trojans. He forms the catalyst of the whole mission, and is also the key to Agamemnon's power: he is the king that can pretty much decide whether Agamemnon remains overlord.

The other interesting thing is that the whole nature of this event reminds me of another story; one of the foundational stories of Christianity: Abraham and Isaac. In this story Abraham, after waiting a very long time and growing to an age that nobody could consider him to be fit to have a child, gives birth (or his wife does) to a son. God then tells him to take his son up onto Mount Moriah and to offer him up as a sacrifice, something that Abraham dutifully does. However, at the last moment God intervenes and sends a lamb. I wonder whether, in producing this play, Racine is causing his audience to remember this Bible event (which no doubt the audience would be much more familiar). It is difficult to tell, though I suspect that since we are in an age of rationalism at the time of the writing of this particular play, Racine is probably questioning, and using the fickle Greek gods as a platform, the nature of the Christian god.

Tailleur pour dames. Comédie en trois ac...

I must say that this was a pretty forgettable play that seemed to have been put into a collection of comedies simply for completeness. Since this particular book seemed to be running along the theme of confusion and mistaken identities, one sort of wonders if this is the case with this play, but sadly it is not. Rather it falls into a category of plays known as the bedroom (or sex) farce which, as the name implies, has a lot of sexual overtones (as well as the slamming of lots of doors) and tends to revolve around the private lives of the main characters.

I must say that this particular style of play, or comedy, really does not impress me, and when I note that Wikipedia refers to Woody Allen having created a number of similar movies, it makes a lot of sense. I must admit that since I am not a big fan of Woody Allen, and since Woody Allen made a lot of bedroom farces it says a lot about my opinion to this particular play. In fact it is very difficult to find any decent commentary on this play, which sort of suggests that the play, and the author of the same, really do not appear very high on the literary radar. Oh, the French Wikipedia does have a page on this play, but once again it is very brief and not all that indepth, which goes to further demonstrate the forgettable nature of this piece of comedy.

This is the last play that Racine ever wrote and produced and it did not seem to go down all that well with the people of the time, maybe because there had recently been a political affair involving a woman who was trying to set herself up as Queen (read king) of France. However, it did garner some accord from a number of intellectuals at the time, including Voltaire, who believed that it was one of Racine's greatest plays. The political machinations that Racine manages to bring out of his plays do exalt him to the position of one of the great playwrights, and in a way he is set apart from Shakespeare because of this. However, despite the fact that he is French and he wrote in French, he still does not seem to attract the popularity that the Bard's plays tend to (probably because he is French).

Athalie is one of two plays that Racine wrote based around biblical stories, both of them from the Old Testament. The other biblical play that he wrote is Esther, and anybody somewhat familiar with the Bible is probably familiar with the book of Esther. However the story of Athalie (or Athaliah in English) is much less familiar, and I would not be surprised if there are a number of Christians out there who have been Christians for a long time that are unfamiliar with the story of Athalie.

The story itself comes from 1 Kings 11 and occurs after the brutal murders (not that they weren't asking for it) of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel (the monarchs of the northern Kingdom of Israel) by King Jehu (the king of the southern Kingdom of Judah – Racine explains this in his introduction). While at the time Jehu did what was right in the eyes of God, as he grew old he become corrupted with power, and no doubt threw away his faith in God. It appears that he did not produce an heir because his mother, Athalie, took hold of the reigns of power in Judah and then proceeded to execute the rest of the royal family, leaving her firmly in control.

The play begins pretty quickly after she had ascended to the throne of Judah and had brought the worship of the Baals (foreign gods) back into Judah. However the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem continued the worship of the one true God, and they also had an ace up their sleeve – the only surviving heir to the throne of Judah and the only surviving descendant of the line of King David. Thus the play is set up to be a play where the queen and her prophets struggle and fight against the high priest and his prophets, who are also trying to keep the soul surviving heir a secret.

Some have suggested, and this is probably true, that this play comes out of Racine's Jansenist upbringing. In fact after Phaedre, Racine left the lime light and returned to the faith of his youth, and it was only later in life that he returned to the stage to produce a couple of plays outlining his new found faith. However it is interesting to note that Racine still does not bring the extra-ordinary into his plays. This is similar to what we see in Shakespeare and which differs from the great tragedians (and even the old comics) of the Ancient world who had the gods playing an important role in the plays. However, it is also the case that in the Ancient World the gods played an important role in civil life.

It is not that the Christian god did not play an important role however, it is just that it appears that ever since Christ's ascension to heaven, literature tended to drift away from the direct intervention of a divine ruler. Most of the stories that have come about have either come directly from the Bible, or simply focus only on the physical aspects of the world. We see this in Racine's Greek plays where the gods simply do not appear (which differs from Euripides, who would have the gods introduce and conclude the play, and also appear so as to set things right). In the European plays we tend to see a much more humanist aspect in the action, in that the play is not resolved through divine intervention, but through the acts of mere mortals.

Maybe this is what Schaeffer is talking about when he talks about nature eating up grace. Namely, we divide the world into an upper and lower story (that is heaven and Earth) and by separating heaven from Earth we restrict the power of heaven's influence over Earth. We also see this in discussions on the Greek plays where modern commentators will criticise Euripides' use of the deus ex machina, in that it is a poor attempt to resolve the play's conflict when in Eurpides' time such scenes were accepted by the audience. I suspect that it has a lot to do with us moderns drifting further and further away from the acceptance of a divinity that can actually influence the world in which we live.