Neophilologus (2010) 94:557–567 DOI 10.1007/s11061-009-9195-3
Metatheatricality and Subversion in the Comtesse de Murat’s Voyage de campagne Theresa V. Kennedy
Published online: 31 December 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract In his book Le roi-machine, Jean-Marie Apostolide`s describes Louis XIV as the principal director of his own spectacle at Versailles. Alongside this micromanaged world, the petite socie´te´ represents another permanent space of representation which escapes the court’s watchful eye. The Voyage de campagne by the Comtesse de Murat highlights the adventures of a group of six aristocrats who spend two months in the Comte de Se´lincourt’s country chaˆteau entertaining one other. We shall examine the metatheatrical aspects of this dramatic space, in which the characters, aware of their own role-playing, continually perform, becoming spectacles of one another. Colored with theatrical rhetoric, the characters’ language is seen as a symptom of the intermediate space. A closer look brings the insubordinate aspect of this ‘‘prise du pouvoir’’ to light. Far from the constrictive domain of the capital, the characters improvise their own spectacular world which at times spills into the realm of the supernatural, in direct opposition to the constraints of aesthetic codes. I will argue that the subversive nature of their otherworldly existence is in reaction to the controlled rational literary space of the capitol. It is through their own embracement of the irrational that these six romantic sojourners are able to escape, for a short time, the tragic puppeteered space of the roi-machine. Keywords Metatheatricality Subversion Spectacle Petite socie´te´ Voyage de campagne Comtesse de Murat Supernatural
Aristotle says in the fourth chapter of Poetics that men have the tendency to represent and to represent themselves, each according to his nature. It is almost T. V. Kennedy (&) Department of Foreign Languages, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97391, Waco, TX 76798-7392, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
558
T. V. Kennedy
cliche´ to emphasize to what extent seventeenth century courtly society indulged in the art of representation, spectacle, and illusion in the seventeenth century, when theater had become such an obsession.1 For instance, there is something quite theatrical about how courtly society conducted itself with its formalized behavior and attention to biense´ances. As the principal director of his own spectacle at Versailles, it is the King who chooses the text, the de´cor, the costumes, the heroes, and the heroines (Apostolide`s 1981). It is clear that in the late seventeenth century, the age of the Sun King, theater and the world of politics are tightly interwoven. While Louis XIV, metteur-en-sce`ne par excellence, makes Versailles his own stage, the French Academy sets out to codify theatrical production in order to render the nation state that is embodied in the Sun King all the more glorious. Theater and all other arts translate and advocate the glory of the King’s absolute power. Alongside the micromanaged world of Versailles, the petite socie´te´,2 whether it meets in the Salon or in a country chaˆteau, signifies another permanent space of representation which often escapes the Academy’s watchful eye.3 The Voyage de Campagne by the Comtesse de Murat, a novel or ‘‘pseudo-me´moires,’’4 highlights the adventures of her petite socie´te´, a group of six aristocratic men and women who spend two months in Comte de Se´lincourt’s country chaˆteau entertaining each other with promenades, music, dance, conversation, and stories. This far-removed maison de campagne represents a dramatized world where the characters, freed from social restraints and aesthetic codes are at liberty to act out their desires in a wooded and verdant space that the Sun King’s rays cannot permeate. Despite the ‘‘limits’’ that are normally associated with the romanesque genre, the Voyage, including its characters, exhibits themes and structures associated with that of the theater. My study of this work examines the blurring of the borders between real and fictive space (an essential characteristic of Baroque theater) and its metatheatrical aspects. In this dramatic space, the characters, aware of their own role-playing and the presentational aspects of the world they are constructing continually perform, becoming spectacles of one another. Colored with theatrical rhetoric, the characters’ language is seen as a symptom of the intermediate space. Far from the constrictive domain of the capital, the characters are free to improvise their own spectacular world, which at times spills into the realm of the supernatural and the occult, in direct opposition to the constraints of classicism. I will argue that the subversive nature of their otherworldly existence is in reaction to the controlled rational literary space of the capital. It is through their own embracement of the irrational that these six romantic sojourners are able to escape, for a short time, the tragic puppeteered space of the ‘‘roi-machine.’’ 1
See Forestier (1981) 35.
2
In the first edition of the Dictionnaire de L’Acade´mie franc¸aise (1694) Furetie`re defines the petite socie´te´ as ‘‘une compagnie de gens qui s’assemblent ordinairement pour des parties de plaisirs.’’
3
See Lopez (2006) 239. ‘‘Tout e´ve´nement, toute situation peuvent eˆtre transforme´s en sayne`te, en intrigue, en pe´ripe´tie: un bon tour joue´ a` un ami, une invitation, une apre`s-midi de campagne, une surprise invente´e pour e´merveiller un visiteur… tout lieu peut devenir une sce`ne.’’
4 See Rivara (2003) 91. ‘‘Le roman en crise e´clate en recueils, comme le Voyage et les «pseudome´moires» apportent alors une solution interlope entre «Histoire» et roman…’’
123
The Comtesse de Murat’s Voyage de Campagne
559
Henriette Julie de Castelnau, Comtesse de Murat (1670–1716), a French writer whose ancestry may be traced back to a noble family of Brittany, is best known for her fairy tales, and her unconventional lifestyle. At the age of sixteen the Comtesse was sent to court in Paris to marry the Comte de Murat and soon became known as a woman of little virtue. Later in life, in her pseudo autobiographical Me´moires de Madame la comtesse de M*** (1697), she emphasizes the contradictory expectations her society placed on women, which resulted in her less-than-spotless reputation. In 1694 she published her first work, Histoire de la courtisane Rhodope, which was considered a libel against the court and resulted in her exile in that same year to the provincial city of Loches, a sentence which was not revoked until the death of Louis XIV in 1715.5 Perhaps this was not the only reason for her exile. Reports written in between the years of 1698 and 1702 note her ‘‘unnatural’’ affections for other women: ‘‘Les crimes qu’on impute a` Mme de Murat ne sont pas d’une qualite´ a` pouvoir eˆtre aise´ment prouve´s par la voie des informations, puisqu’il s’agit d’impie´te´s domestiques et d’un attachement monstrueux pour des personnes de son sexe’’ (Cromer 1984). Her husband having since died, she went to Loches alone and pursued her career as a writer. In 1698 she published Contes de fe´es and Les Nouveaux Contes des fe´es. Her final collection of tales, Histoires sublimes et alle´goriques appeared in 1699. Besides her novel Le Voyage de campagne, she wrote at least one other novel entitled Les Lutins du chaˆteau de Kernosi, 1710. It would appear that the Comtesse thrived and found both creative and social freedom in a world outside of the capital city. This is a motif that seems to be threaded throughout the folds of the narrative in Voyage de campagne. In the Voyage de campagne, comprised of numerous histoires enchaˆsse´es, some of which are fairy tales, the Comtesse blends theatrical structures with narrative. The female narrator’s use of metatheatrical techniques in which she explicitly calls attention to the theatrical elements of her dramatic re´cit du voyage is observed from the beginning paragraphs in which she addresses an anonymous ‘‘Madame’’: ‘‘Puisque j’ai commence´ a` peindre, je vous dois donner une le´ge`re ide´e de tous les acteurs de la sce`ne.’’6 The ‘‘troupe’’ or the ‘‘actors’’ as they are commonly indicated by the author seem to be aware of the masks they wear throughout the re´cit, allowing certain qualities of their personalities to emerge while hiding their negative flaws in order to dazzle in the eyes of his or her beholder: Le chevalier & madame d’Orselis paroissoient avoir de´ja` une passion dans les formes; elle se contraignit dans ce commencement, & ne fit voir que le brillant de son esprit a` son nouvel adorateur, qui en e´tait enchante´. Lui, de sa part, ne montrant que sa vivacite´, & gardant son inconstance pour une autre saison, avanc¸oit conside´rablement ses affaires: & vous voyez bien, madame, qu’ils se trompoient tous deux. (18)
5
See Patard (2006) 11. Patard notes in the introduction to her critical edition that it is Mme de Maintenon who first flagged Mme de Murat (1699) for her libelous writing.
6
Voyage de campagne. Par Madame la Comtesse de M**** (Paris: Veuve de Claude Barbin, 1699) 3. All subsequent quotations are taken from this edition.
123
560
T. V. Kennedy
The author attempts to respect the unity of place in referring to the ‘‘sce`ne’’ as the country chaˆteau in Se´lincourt, belonging to the Comte de Se´lincourt from the beginning and throughout the re´cit. For instance, after a brief trip to Paris to go to the opera the company returns to their own stage: ‘‘On monta dans les carosses, que le comte avoit fait venir, & nous retournaˆmes au lieu de la sce`ne’’ (114). The setting of the play as well as its structure is reminiscent of a comedy, complete with a double marriage ending. Yet, the Comtesse draws attention to the plot’s ability to turn tragic as well. For example, she describes the Marquise’s unfounded jealousy of the Comtesse’s seemingly blossoming relationship with Se´lincourt as tragic: ‘‘C’e´tait tout le nœud de l’intrigue; qu’elle deviendroit a` la fin tragique…’’ (97). Also tragic in nature is the scene to which the narratrice directly refers as a ‘‘sce`ne sanglante.’’ Se´lincourt, in his jealousy and desire to win the affections of the Marquise d’Arcire, attempts to challenge his rival, the Marquis de Bre´sy, in a duel (101). Happily, their intentions are thwarted by the rest of the party. Often, the Comtesse specifically refers to certain events in the re´cit as ‘‘scenes’’ or ‘‘spectacles’’ which tend to be comical in nature. For example the discussion between the Comtesse herself, Mme de Talmonte and the Marquis, represents a nœud in the plot and drives the action forward. Talmonte, in love with the Marquis, begs him to drive her home to Paris while the Marquis, wanting to prove his fidelity to the Comtesse, begs her to stay two or three days more. In her desire to intentionally ‘‘faire durer cette sce`ne’’, the Comtesse, aware of each of their motives, teasingly suggests that he give into her demands, and succeeds in frustrating both of them for having interjected her thoughts on the matter (120). Another ‘‘constructed’’ comic scene, considered to be a ‘‘spectacle’’ in itself by the narratrice is when Mme de Richardin, an elderly aristrocrat who is in love with the Marquis, pays them a visit. Sensing his indifference, she feigns illness and pretends to faint. The Comtesse says of the incident: ‘‘Le spectacle nous parut nouveau, & la petite Richardin e´vanouie, ou plutoˆt en jouant le roˆle, nous causa un tel e´clat de rire, que le comte fut oblige´ de nous faire taire’’ (168). The ‘‘troupe’’ plays along in her comedy, gently picking her up and placing her on the sofa. While the narratrice explicitly draws attention to the theatrical aspects of the re´cit, the other characters are immersed in their role play. The concept of ‘‘staging’’ is important in the artificially constructed world of these six players who attempt to create an illusion or spectacle that is pleasing to the eye and to the ear in order to impress one another. Se´lincourt plays the role of metteur-en-sce`ne, a powerful role that he is free to play perhaps only outside of the capital city. In fact, it would not be surprising if the Comtesse intended Se´lincourt to play the role of Louis XIV, which would add to the subversive aspect of this dramatic work. References to ‘‘Louis le Grand’’ are peppered throughout her other works (Patard 36). It is quite possible that Se´lincourt’s character and his physical description found in Le Voyage is a direct allusion to Louis XIV.7 The Comtesse describes his long flowing hair and his brilliant mind in his portrait at the beginning of Le Voyage: ‘‘Le comte est tre`saimable, qu’il a de grands cheveux blonds & naturellement frise´s, dont la quantite´ 7 Rivara, ‘‘Deux conceptions,’’ 104. ‘‘La longue chevelure de Selincourt pourrait bien e´voquer celle de Louis XIV, si vante´e par les courtisans.’’
123
The Comtesse de Murat’s Voyage de Campagne
561
prodigieuse lui descend jusqu’a` la ceinture; qu’il a le visage agre´able, & que son air est galant & noble; pour de l’esprit, il en a infiniment…’’ (2). His chaˆteau, the ‘‘sce`ne par excellence’’ is a spectacular setting fit for a King: Vous savez, madame, que cette terre doit une de ses grandes beaute´s a` la rivie`re de la Seine, sur le bord de laquelle elle est situe´e: vous n’ignorez pas aussi qu’elle a des avenues magnifiques, des eaux admirables, de beaux jardins, des bois, dont les rayons du soleil ont peine a` pe´ne´trer l’aimable obscurite´; que les appartemens du chaˆteau sont superbes, tant pour leur grandeur, que pour les meubles dont ils sont orne´s…la che`re qu’on y fait est de´licate & bien entendue, & que l’ordre brille par-tout dans ce lieu de´licieux… (2) His spectacularly orchestrated promenades are intended to impress his guests and the Marquise in particular, with whom he is in love. Se´lincourt proposes an excursion to a neighboring chaˆteau with intricate gardens featuring pools of water and a labyrinth. Guiding his admiring friends through the labyrinth they hear the voices of singers that seemed as ‘‘un enchantement’’ to the party (110). Exiting the labyrinth they stumble upon a table set for them at the foot of some cascades. It is only later that the party learns that Se´lincourt had had the musicians brought in from Paris and that he had hired one of the best composers to compose the vocal pieces. Oftentimes the staging is quite elaborate as in the scene in which the party goes for a promenade in the woods and ‘‘happens upon’’ a tea set for them on the rocks alongside a stream of water shaded by fragrant flowering trees: On trouva les branches de ces arbres courbe´es en berceau, & entoure´es de chaıˆnes d’œillets, de fleurs d’oranges & de jasmins. Des sie`ges de gazon tre`spropres re`gnoient tout autour du berceau; & les bords de la source e´toient garnis de soucoupes de crystal & de porcelaine charge´es de toutes sortes d’eaux, de liqueurs & de glaces. Des corbeilles remplies de figues, d’abricots & de peˆches, d’une beaute´ parfaite, se´paroient les soucoupes: & cela faisoit un effet si joli & si brillant, que notre e´tonnement nous empeˆcha long-tems de manger. (145–146) Here, the attention to detail, and nature blended with artifice are reminiscent of ‘‘le tendance du baroque’’ to drown itself in a ‘‘profusion d’objets et dans des descriptions prolixes et de´taille´s’’ (Flœck 1989). As in the previous scene, the characters refuse at first to admit that the tea had been staged by one of the party. The Comtesse exclaims: ‘‘Quelle est la fe´e, dis je en arrivant en ce lieu qu’on avoit rendu si aimable; quelle est la fe´e favorable qui prend ainsi soin de nos plaisirs?’’ A participant in the jeu, the Duke responds: ‘‘C’est plutoˆt un enchanteur…’’ (146). Although they do not admit it, the characters are well aware that it is Se´lincourt attempting to impress the Marquise. In addition to creating drama through staging, the Comtesse exploits the stylistic discourse associated with the genre de´libe´ratif. During one scene of the re´cit-cadre, she plays a double role: the Comtesse ready to give into her feelings for the Marquis de Bre´sy and reap all of the joys of a budding relationship, and the Comtesse who forces herself to temporarily stifle her emotions in order to better determine the Marquis’s true intentions towards her. Here in the exorde, she expresses her
123
562
T. V. Kennedy
dilemma and her hesitation to join the Marquis on his brief trip back to Paris, after putting him in his place for causing her to feel guilty about poking fun at Lady Talmonte’s ridiculous affections for him: ‘‘De mon coˆte´, j’en mourois d’envie, & j’avois pour moi l’ordre de ma me`re: je me sentois du gouˆt pour Bre´sy; c’e´toit meˆme un parti fort proportionne´ pour moi. Cela pouvoit devenir une affaire se´rieuse; mais j’avois senti un chagrin si piquant de ce qu’il avoit obe´i a` mes paroles plutoˆt qu’a` mes sentiments, que je ne voulus pas me de´mentir’’ (121–22). Here the emphasis is on her confusing emotions: while she is ‘‘dying’’ to go with him at the same time she feels ‘‘un chagrin piquant’’ that he is inviting her to Paris only because he feels obliged to her. In the end of the scene we arrive at her decision that it is ‘‘superflu de faire tant de pas inutiles’’ (123) and she sends a note out to the Marquis who has been awaiting her decision in the carriage. Her decision is not a logical one and she immediately suffers the consequences of having stifled her feelings: ‘‘Il est vrai, madame, qu’il me prit un chagrin extreˆme de`s qu’ils ne furent plus a` porte´e de revenir: j’en souffris cruellement, & d’autant plus que je voulus me contraindre…’’ (123). Concerning the narrative structure of the Voyage de campagne, the concept of ‘‘le the´aˆtre dans le the´aˆtre’’ is significant. We have already established the fact that Se´lincourt plays the role of the metteur-en-sce`ne who goes to great lengths to ensure that his guests are fully entertained, and impressed. These diversions in the story are sometimes interrupted however by the amorous tensions between the characters themselves, creating intrigue and plot, in what functions as the re´cit-cadre of this work. The re´cit-cadre frames the inserted short stories that are told by each of the invite´s in order to entertain one another, much in the same spirit as L’He´ptame´ron. There are a total of seventeen short stories inserted throughout parts one and two of the novel, of which the majority are ghost stories, or histoires d’esprits. While some are intended to entertain, others have a direct impact on the action in the re´cit-cadre, and are often meant to teach a moral lesson, as those found in the Princesse de Cle`ves. While most of these are in the form of the short story, one is a proverb comedy (136–144).8 This comedy proverb both frames and mirrors the action in the re´cit-cadre in which the Comtesse recounts the party’s visit to the chaˆteau of Mme de Richardin and her family. Mme de Richardin, madly in love with the Marquis, represents the female counterpart of the vieillard amoureux comic type often found in French comedy. Her portrait emphasizes both her ugly features and her attempts to dissimulate them: Nous apercuˆmes la ve´ritable madame de Richardin couche´e sur un lit de repos, dans le fond de la salle, habille´e d’une robe de chambre gris-de-lin & argent.
8
See Brenner (1977) 2. The dramatic proverbs were a product of the salons in the second half of the seventeenth century. Clarence Brenner names the Countess as one of the first to publish a proverb comedy. In terms of form, these plays are brief so that they might be performed in 10–15 min by the salonniers. Each play illustrates a proverb in such a way that allows the spectators or readers to decipher the mot at the very end. Oftentimes it is not so obvious, so as to present a challenge.
123
The Comtesse de Murat’s Voyage de Campagne
563
Cette attitude ne pouvait cacher une bosse qui occupe son coˆte´ droit. Son visage est long, e´troit & pointu; ses yeux sont petits & creux, sa bouche plate, & toute sa personne est faite de fac¸on a` faire rire…Ses cheveux e´toient ce jour-la` releve´s d’un air de portrait, pleins de rubans or & vert. Ses mains qui sont grandes & se`ches, e´toient charge´es de bagues; & elle avoit une croix plus propre a` mettre au chevet d’un lit, qu’a` pendre au col. Il me prit une telle envie de rire, & je vis dans les yeux de toute notre troupe quelque chose de si plaisant… (127–128). After receiving the Marquis’s exaggerated compliments (of which she feels quite deserved), she immediately requests that he follow her to her bedchamber so that she may show him her portrait and some verses she had written as a younger woman. The Marquis, who is forced to obey the mistress of the house, is overcome with horror at such an intimate invitation, and promptly faints. After some refreshments, the ‘‘troupe’’ inspired by such a comical situation, proposes to improvise a comedy proverb. The Marquise plays the role of Mme de Vieillardis, (a vieille amoureuse who is obviously inspired by Mme de Richardin’s performance), the Comtesse plays the role of Catos, (Mme de Vieillardis’s handmaid), Chanteuil plays the knight, (inspired by the Marquis’s performance) and the Duke plays the role of his servant Champagne. In the comedy proverb, the knight’s attempts to flatter Mme de Vieillardis, who easily falls in love with young men, gets him into trouble, like the Marquis in the re´cit-cadre. Resembling Mme de Richardin in the re´cit-cadre, Mme de Vieillardis is blind to her age, believing herself to be a goddess. The knight becomes afraid of his predicament the moment she gives him a priceless ring and invites him into her private chambers. He promptly faints at her feet, just as the Marquis faints in the re´cit-cadre. While Mme de Vieillardis goes to fetch some water, he flees with Champagne never to return. The mot of the proverb is ‘‘N’aille au bois qui a peur des feuilles’’ (He who is afraid of foliage should not go into the woods). While the Marquis guesses the proverb and learns his lesson, Mme de Richardin, true tragic heroine, having assumed the mask she wears, is still convinced of her youth and beauty, and immediately finds fault with la vieille amoureuse claiming that ‘‘il n’y avoit rien de si affreux qu’une vieille amoureuse’’ (144). Another instance of a mise-en-abıˆme is the scene in which the party leaves the scene of their own comedy to attend the opera in Paris, becoming somewhat of a spectacle themselves, having been spotted by their friends who had not seen them for some time. Se´lincourt, still playing the role of the metteur-en-sce`ne manages to place ‘‘des relais en trois endroits de la route; qu’on reviendroit le meˆme jour’’ (183). They arrive just before the beginning of the opera. Their friends who chance to spot them in the audience are surprised, and believing them to have returned from their trip, arrive at their doorsteps the following morning. Others ‘‘crurent qu’ils reˆvoient’’ (184). The troupe, enjoying the effect of surprise they have on their friends, makes a quick exit, and returns to Se´lincourt’s chaˆteau the same day. Just as the characters in le Voyage are aware of their own theatricality, at times they choose to intentionally violate certain aesthetic codes such as la vraisemblance, which we recognize as a basic criterion used to measure the quality of theatrical
123
564
T. V. Kennedy
works as well as novels.9 Seventeenth century writers base this concept on Aristotle who states in Poetics that the ‘‘function of the poet is not to say what has happened, but to say the kind of thing that would happen, i.e. what is possible in accordance with probability or necessity’’ (16). As for the irrational, Aristotle maintains that stories ‘‘should not be constructed from irrational plots’’ (41). As a general rule the seventeenth century tended to exclude from the serious dramatic arts any and all aspects of visual merveilleux. For Boileau, ‘‘l’art judicieux’’ could ‘‘offrir a` l’oreille’’ an account of supernatural manifestations, but that they should never be directly presented to the audience.10 Furthermore, comedy should never indulge in the merveilleux: ‘‘Dans une come´die tout doit estre ordinaire et naturel’’ (Perrault 284).11 While poets were supposed to depict ordinary life in comedies and avoid le merveilleux, some seventeenth century writers gave into the demands of popular culture and their obsession with the supernatural.12 However, even in these comedies the supernatural elements that appear to be real at first turn out to be disguises and other artifice meant only to pull the wool over the eyes of certain cre´dules. While these comedies only feign supernatural activity, the ‘‘troupe’’ in Le Voyage allows itself to both indulge and believe in the irrational. Even the room that the Comtesse has chosen for herself in Se´lincourt’s chaˆteau, is described as haunted: Enfin, insensiblement on tomba sur le choix que nous avions fait des appartemens que nous voulions habiter. Pour moi, dis-je, le mien paroıˆt le mieux entendu: je suis se´pare´e de tout le monde: le bruit de l’eau & le chant des oiseaux ne pourront me re´veiller que doucement…Oui, dit le comte: mais si je vous disois que dans cette chambre on entend souvent des esprits, & que ceux qui y ont couche´ une nuit, en veulent sortir le lendemain. (6) The Duke, one of the most seasoned members of the party, confesses his belief in ‘‘les choses surnaturelles’’ especially when these ‘‘spectres’’ have been seen by those he believes to be of sound mind and body: ‘‘Mesdames, dit-il, je ne suis pas plus sot qu’un autre; on ne me persuade pas aise´ment les extravagances qu’on de´bite sur les ames en peine; mais quand je vois des gens a` bonne teˆte me dire qu’ils ont vu, je trouve qu’il seroit injurieux pour eux, & ridicule a` moi, de les traiter de visionnaires’’ (70-1). The Duke’s comments reflect attitudes about ghosts and the supernatural in the seventeenth century. Despite the limitations theoreticians placed on le merveilleux and its usage in literary works, the human mind was inclined to believe in the spirit world. If there were no longer ‘‘de glace au ve´rite´s’’ there was sometimes ‘‘de feu pour les mensonges.’’13 Despite this time period and its 9
See for instance Valincour’s discussion concerning vraisemblance and the Princesse de Cle`ves in Valincour (1972).
10
Cited in Delaporte (1968).
11
Charles Perrault (1971), 284.
12
For instance see L’Esprit follet, by d’Ouville (1641); La Devineresse, by Thomas Corneille and de Vise´ (1679); La Pierre philosophale, also by Thomas Corneille and de Vise´ (1681); La Dame invisible ou l’Esprit follet by d’Hauteroche (1684) and La Baguette by Dancourt (1693). 13
See La Fontaine (1964), liv. IX, fable 6.
123
The Comtesse de Murat’s Voyage de Campagne
565
emphasis on the ‘‘rational mind,’’ there were still enough ‘‘esprits cre´dules’’ to go around. La Bruye`re admits in the chapter Des Esprits that all men love a blend of ‘‘la fiction et la fable.’’ Many ghost stories were told even among the elite and the most well-educated. For instance one story in particular was circulated just before the death of the Prince de Conde´. A ghost, one said, had appeared in the cabinet des armes in Chantilly, some eight–ten days before his death. Even Mme de Se´vigne´ attests to the ‘‘truth’’ of this tale. A gentleman named Vernillon had seen ‘‘a` la feneˆtre du cabinet des armes un fantoˆme’’ and he had recognized him as his master. Everyone trembled with fear ‘‘pour M. le Prince.’’14 In Le Voyage the stories are not only recounted, but also ‘‘acted out.’’ While promenading in the gardens of a neighboring chaˆteau at dusk, the troupe is startled by the appearance of a ghost: ‘‘Nous ne songions qu’a` nous re´jouir quand nous vıˆmes la figure d’un jardinier en camisole blanche, qui marchoit quelques pas devant nous, dans une des contre-alle´es. Se´lincourt l’appella pour savoir ce qu’il faisoit si tard dans les jardins; le jardinier ne re´pondit rien, & disparut’’ (111). According to Annie Rivara, the ghost, who used to be a ‘‘ministre’’ is an allusion to Fouquet and Vaux-le-Vicomte (104). The Comtesse, in order to attest to the truth of her account, reminds her reader of the fact that all seven of them had seen the vision with their very own eyes: ‘‘Je vous dis, madame, ce que j’ai vu; & sept personnes peu susceptibles de pre´vention, ne s’imaginent gue`re une pareille chose, si elle n’est ve´ritablement fonde´e’’ (111–112). In this scene, their insistence on the ‘‘vrai’’ divorces them from the world of classical theater and the ‘‘vraisemblable.’’ Indeed the entrance of the ghost onto their constructed stage indicates a marked diversion from classic theater, an entrance into another world. Beyond the theatrical space, the theater affirms itself as a ‘‘manifestation d’une re´alite´ qui n’est pas de l’ordre de la re´alite´ quotidienne ni du corps vivant de chair et de nerfs, mais… de l’ordre d’une re´alite´ qui nous conduit au bord de la mort’’ (Borie 1997). This episode leads Se´lincourt, who already believes in the spirit world himself, to admit his sympathy for the cabalists, even to the point of rejecting Descartes and the rational world: ‘‘Je sais bien, ajouta-t-il, qu’ils ne sont pas a` la mode, & qu’il faut dire: vive Descartes, pour donner dans le grand gouˆt: mais les bons cabalistes croyent avec soumission les choses qui prouvent l’immortalite´ de l’ame; & ils ont avec cela bien de bonnes raisons physiques, qui prouvent la possibilite´ des apparitions’’ (113-4).15 The end of this episode and this discussion in the re´cit-cadre seems to mark a return to normalcy and a return to their constructed reality—the ‘‘lieu de la sce`ne.’’ Throughout the play, it is clear that Paris, or the capital, is seen as a tragic space in which it is impossible to escape the watchful eye of society spectators. One is continually on stage. There are many expectations placed upon those who have a reputation to maintain. All is laid bare. Mme d’Orselis expresses the idea that in Paris there is nowhere to hide: ‘‘On est souvent expose´ dans ce lieu [Paris]…’’ (35). At the end of the novel the Comtesse regrets their return to Paris since love, the 14
For this tale see Allaire (1970).
15
See Scholem (1987) 3. Scholem relates the cabale to mysticism in the seventeenth century: ‘‘La cabale peut eˆtre conside´re´e comme un mysticisme dans la mesure ou` elle est la queˆte d’une perception de Dieu et de la cre´ation dont les e´le´ments intrinse`ques se situent au-dela` de la capacite´ de l’intellect, bien que cela soit parfois explicitement minimise´ ou rejete´ par les cabalistes.’’
123
566
T. V. Kennedy
sentiment that is most contrary to all that is rational, can only survive in the idyllic space of the countryside, outside of the capital city: ‘‘Nous partıˆmes ce meˆme jour pour revenir a` Paris. Je vous assure que ce fut avec regret; car il est certain que la campagne est faite pour l’amour: moins occupe´s, moins dissipe´s qu’ailleurs, on s’y aime plus tendrement’’ (194). Their journey into the irrational ‘‘gothic’’ world clearly goes against the grain of the rational discourse and even the orderly society life emphasized in the capital: The most widespread expression for the method associated with Cartesianism was the term ‘‘order’’…. ‘‘Order’’ as generally used in the seventeenthcentury, was both a means and an end. It was a procedure but it also implied all the benefit of the rational approach when applied to any problem. ‘‘Order’’ meant too, the new against the old; historically it was the maxim of the present opposed to the confusion which was commonly associated with the ‘‘gothic’’ past. In all cases it meant the subjugation of the irrational to formula whether in political, social, or intellectual fields.16 As Erica Harth expresses, women writers, such as the Comtesse, were not admitted to the Parisian academies in the old regime, which were among the most powerful institutions to shape this new discourse. But in her view to criticize and to question Descartes was after all to be a good Cartesian.17 Thus the Comtesse joins her fellow female Cartesians in pondering the existence of spirits unseen in the natural world. Another subversive aspect that we examined in the Voyage de campagne is the Comtesse’s rejection of classic aesthetic codes. In this dramatic work, she and her companions express the power of theater to transport us to another place and time— an escape from reality. Her use of theatrical conventions is striking in that it goes against the grain of that which modern classicism intends, which is to depict life as realistically and as appropriately as possible. One also sees this conteuse amidst this group of mondains, who spend their days in Se´lincourt’s chaˆteau entertaining one another, as an extremely privileged group of aristocrats. It is this type of privileged theater, or the idea that the theater is only for the elite, to which philosophers such as Diderot and Voltaire will respond in their efforts to bring theater to the masses and to the bourgeoisie later on in the century. Along with the theater of the petite socie´te´, the magic wand of the Comtesse, fe´e moderne par excellence, grows dim.
References Allaire, E´. (1970). La Bruye`re dans la maison de Conde´ (Vol. 1, pp. 482–483). Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Apostolide`s, J.-M. (1981). Le roi-machine. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Aristotle. (1996). Poetics. London: Penguin books. Borie, M. (1997). Le fantoˆme ou, le the´aˆtre qui doute. Paris: Actes Sud. Brenner, C. D. (1977). The French dramatic proverb. Diss. Berkeley. 16 King (1949) 334. For a contrary argument, see Kingdom of Disorder in which Lyons challenges prevailing notions of a coherent, unified, and widely accepted ‘‘classical doctrine.’’ 17
See the introduction in Harth (1992).
123
The Comtesse de Murat’s Voyage de Campagne
567
Cromer, S. (1984). E´dition du Journal pour Mademoiselle de Menou, d’apre`s le Manuscrit 3471 de la Bibliothe`que de l’Arsenal: Ouvrages de Mme la Comtesse de Murat. Diss, Universite´ de la Sorbonne. De Murat, C. (1697). Me´moires de la Comtesse de M*** avant sa retraite, ou la De´fense des dames. Paris: Veuve de Claude Barbin. De Murat, C. (1699). Voyage de campagne. Paris: Veuve de Claude Barbin. Delaporte, V. (1968). Du merveilleux dans la litte´rature franc¸aise sous le re`gne de Louis XIV. Geneva: Slatkine reprints. Flœck, W. (1989). Esthe´tique de la diversite´: Pour une histoire du baroque litte´raire en France. Tu¨bingen: Papers on French Seventeeth-Century Literature. Forestier, G. (1981). Le the´aˆtre dans le the´aˆtre: Sur la sce`ne franc¸aise au XVIIe sie`cle. Geneva: Droz. Harth, E. (1992). Cartesian women: Versions and subversions of rational discourse in the old regime. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. King, J. (1949). Science and rationalism in the government of Louis XIV. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. La Fontaine. (1964). Fables. Paris: M. Didier. Lopez, D. (2006). Le The´aˆtre a` l’Hoˆtel de Rambouillet. Papers on French Seventeenth Century Literature, 33.64, 239–268. Lyons, J. D. (1999). Kingdom of disorder: The theory of tragedy in Classical France. Purdue University Press. Patard, G. (2006). Madame de Murat: Contes. Paris: Champion. Perrault, C. (1971). Paralle`le des anciens et des modernes 1692, (Vol. 3.) Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Rivara, A. (2003). Deux conceptions de la temporalite´ et de l’Histoire, Le Voyage de campagne de Mme de Murat (1699) et Les Me´moires de d’Artagnan par Courtilz de Sandras (1700). L’Anne´e 1700. Aure´lia Gaillard et al. (Ed.). Tu¨bingen: Gunter Narr, 91–109. Scholem, G. (1987). Kabbalah. New York: Dorset Press. Valincour. (1972). Lettres a` Madame la Marquise *** sur le sujet de la Princesse de Cle`ves. 1678. Tours: Universite´ Franc¸ois Rabelais.
123
