Microcosms of Society in Revolutionary Theatre
0915142FR3221
Microcosms of Society in Revolutionary Theatre
The upheaval of the Revolution had a significant impact on social hierarchy, established institutions such as the monarchy and also how people expressed themselves. Freedom of the press saw an abundance of pamphlets and publications which allowed prevailing ideas to become widespread, yet there also became a way of accessing the illiterate and prolificThird Estate: through the theatre. The Revolution influenced heavily what was put on the contemporary stage, within the plays ‘every major upheaval, indeed every significant shift in political opinion, was reflected with remarkable alacrity’[1]. A well-writtenpièce no longer meant success for a playwright, he had to be engagé.Those involved in theatre could ‘vouchsafe their revolutionary credentials,’[2] something that became increasingly necessary as the Revolution progressed. To do this plays often contained microcosms of the Ancien Régime to be turned in ridicule, microcosms representing the abuses of the clergy or indeed the superiority of the sans-culottes. This essay aims to explore such microcosms and also other symbols and representations in order to reveal the contemporary state of society. Focus will be on three plays spanning the period from the start of the Revolution to the infamous Terror: Charles IX[3], Le Couvent[4]and Le Jugement dernier des rois[5].This essay then aims to discuss the difficulties inclaiming that microcosms are truly representative of society due to the ubiquitous use of theatre as a tool for propaganda.
The shift in the types of microcosms displayed in the playsunderpins the notion that they are indeed reflective of contemporary society, which was equally as ephemeral. The focus of the microcosm paralleled the focus within society, whether this was on the monarchy, the clergy or the power of the people. Indeed Marie-Joseph Chénier’s Charles IX touches upon many of these themes as the playwright was benefitting from a relaxing in censorship, his previously banned play could thus be put on the stage. His representation of both the clergy and the monarchy was radical.Although not particularly significant as a theatrical piece, the socio-political aspect made the tragedy a success. Marvin Carlson remarks that the role that theatre played had changed at the start of the Revolution, instead of being mere entertainment ‘[it] became a tool’[6]. Chénier saw how to represent his revolutionary alliances: by creating unmistakeable microcosms. Indeed the court of Charles IX parallels that of Louis XVI in such a way that the spectators would not fail to see it.
Charles IXestablishes a kingdom in disorder by portraying the horrific Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre. The decision to focus on this event is particularly topical as the massacre is heavily associated with monarchical abuse. Matters are made worse by the depiction of Charles IX as indecisive, a weak king, who confesses that he is always ‘prêt à l’obéissance’ (Charles, p.215).Links between the sixteenth-century king and Louis XVI would have been ineluctable. He is quick to change his mind upon hearing the persuasive discourses of others, the Cardinal’s speech reveals the capriciousness of the King in Act II scene II, Charles IX is quick to respond ‘J’obéirai; c’en est fait, j’y consens’ (Charles,p.217). Yet it is the power of one character in particular that is of interest, as it underpins the notion of the court as a microcosm of Louis XVI’s in 1789. Catherine deMédicis is a foreign villainess whose influence is far-reaching; it is stated as a reference to la reine-mère that there are ‘des femmes gouvernant des princes trop faciles’ (Charles, p.204). Foreign dominance is an undeniable reflection of Marie-Antoinette, the Austrian scapegoat for all that was wrong with France.Act II scene IV reveals the power of Catherine de Médicis, as she is able to persuade the King of Coligni’s guilt. This is a microcosm of contemporary fears of Marie-Antoinette’s power due to the ‘countless accusations [that] Marie-Antoinettedominat[ed] Louis XVI’[7]. Doyle refers to the Queen’s sway in Necker’s dismissal, stating ‘the air had been full of far from groundless rumours that the [...] Queen [was] pressing for Necker’s dismissal’[8], such influence even goes as far as the drafting of the minister’s speech which ‘had not enjoyed a free hand’[9]. Displacement of blame onto the female-figure is also present in the play, it allows for the notion that a sovereign is essentially benign.Although this appears counterintuitive to a modern reader who knows the fate of Louis Capet, this play was shown in the early days of the Revolution where it was still possible to be a revolutionary and a monarchist, to be sure many members of Jacobin club were still constitutional monarchists[10]. This contemporary opinion was also held by the playwright himself, revealed in the ‘discours préliminaire’:
O Louis XVI ! roi plein de justice et de bonté, vous êtes digne d'être le chef des Français. Mais des méchans veulent toujours établir un mur de séparation entre votre peuple et vous.[11]
One can thus deduce that the court of Charles IX is in fact a microcosm of such sentiments. ‘Des méchans’ are symbolised by Catherine de Médicis and the Cardinal in the play.The monarch eventually reveals himself to be remorseful, he is aware of the gravity of his actions: ‘je ne suis plus un roi, je suis un assassin’ (Charles, p.266), there is still hope for the King, and therefore for Louis XVI. This idea is reinforced by the character of Henri de Navarre, revealed to be a strong ruler, a ‘roi magnanime’ (Charles, p.208).Not all rulers are malevolent; such a microcosm reflects the spirit of the times, which was quick to change.
However one institution does not escape the wrath of the playwright so easily: the Church.The Revolution saw a growth in anticlericalism, revealed in the decision to sell Church assets[12]. The Cardinal embodies the abuses of the Clergy, illustrated in Act IV scene V where he blesses the murderer’s weapons. His hold on the kingdom is thus a microcosm of the Church’s authority over France: ‘Ce n’est pas lui qui règne, et la France est à nous’ (Charles, p.207). Susan Maslan goes further in her exploration of the text by professing that the play actually ‘encouraged the anticlerical feeling that had become a veritable fashion in the Paris of 1789’[13]. The Cardinal embodies traits associated with the Church, he was cunning, a powerful influence over the King, and intolerant, especially of other religions: ‘tous les protestants sont ennemis des lois’ (Charles, p.229).This microcosm reveals the changes taking place in contemporary society with the selling of Church assets and the permission to portray the clergy on stage.
The court that Chénier thus represents is a microcosm of the monarchy currently reigning in 1789.A focus on such a microcosm reveals the burning issues present early in the Revolution. A reform was necessary and was indeed reflected in the focus on laws and the people in The Declaration of the Rights of Man (August 1789), and discussions of drafting the first Constitution. However, the shift of focus will soon befrom the monarchy to the monastery as anticlericalism was increasingly present.
Although there is only a year between Charles IX and Olympe de Gouges’ Le Couvent,the type of Microcosm on display reveals the changes within society. The Church takes centre stage in de Gouges’ play as her convent becomes a symbol which encompasses repressive ecclesiastical orders.1790 saw the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, announcing their subordination to the government. Equally, there were discussions on closing down monasteries and convents. Such a focus is replicated within Le Couvent, indeed the ‘convent play’ became a genre in itself, and a popular one, during the Revolutionary years[14]. The fact that de Gougessuccessfully portrays the contemporary opinions aboutthe clergy is revealed through the popularity of the play which had over eighty performances, the usual being around ten[15]. Another explanationfor the shift from monarchy to monasteries is also explored by Carlson, who states that ‘the Comédie company […]agreed to attack a part of the feudal system for which few of them had any particular warm feelings-the Church.[16]’This reveals that there were still royalist tendencies within society, yet abhorrence of the Church was ubiquitous. A convent thus becomes an effective microcosm to attack feudal society whilst not straying from hope of a constitutional monarchy.
Le Couvent presents an institution that abuses its power by forcing young girls, like Julie to take vows and become trapped within the system. Indeed the extent of the Church’s cruelty is revealed by Julie when she says ‘vous désapprouvez la violence qu'on veut me faire.’ (Couvent, p.31)Use of the word ‘violence’ has a significant impact, especially when paired with the repeated referral to Julie as an ‘innocente victime’ (Couvent, p.38)., reinforcing the notion that such an act by the church is in fact a crime against all that is natural. Indeed it is clearly stated that ‘Les loix, l'humanité, les droits de la nature, nous protégeront contre le fanatisme’ (Couvent, p.50).The play continues with this notion when the Commissaireinvades the convent in order to save Julie and the Curé exclaims that ‘la justice vient à notre secours!’(Couvent,p.54). What happens within de Gouges’ convent thus becomes a microcosm for the proceedings of contemporary society. The Declaration of the Rights of Man had promised to protect the liberty of others, highlighted in Article V: ‘nul ne peut être contraint à faire ce que [la loi] n’ordonne pas’[17]. The National Assembly had gone further by targeting the Church in order to safeguard liberty. Article XX of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy stated:
‘titles and offices[…] both regular and in commendam, for either sex, as well as all other benefices and prestimonies in general, of whatever kind or denomination, are from the day of this decree extinguished and abolished and shall never be reestablished in any form.’[18]
This meant an official withdrawal of the ‘recognition of existing vows and [an opening of] monasteries for those inmates who chose their freedom’[19]. De Gouges states her intentions for her convent to be a microcosm of current society when she explains in the preface of her play: ‘J'en ai puisé les matériaux dans le sein de l'Assemblée Nationale’ (Couvent, p.iii). One can therefore witness the context surrounding Le Couvent within the convent itself: the fanaticism of the church with its attack of innocent ‘victims’, reinforced by the enclosed space a convent creates. This negligence of the people at the hand of the Church was equally present in the Cahiers de Doléances:
‘That the ecclesiastical tithe be taken from the large tithe-collectors of this parish, who do not fulfil any of their obligations for maintenance of the church or relief of poor people, of whom they take no care and to whom they give no charity’[20].
Such a fierce attack of this institution within the play is a lucid parallel to the same attack in society. However Le Couvent is not absolute in its condemnation of Clergymen, yet this only serves to underpin de Gouges’ microcosm. The Curé stands as a stark contrast to the Grand-Vicaire. He is tolerant,just and sensitive to the plight of Julie. The Curé also seems willing to work with the new order which highlights the importance of the law: ‘les vrais Magistrats sont l'appui des opprimés’ (Couvent, p.54).Indeed thecurés in de Gouges’ contemporary society were equally as open to the reform, ‘it was unthinkable that the curés would desert the Revolution and wreck the reform’ as it greatly enhanced their status[21]. This enhancement is also reflected in the play as the Abbesse states: ‘M. le Curé sera désormais le Pasteur que je consulterai sur l'administration de ma maison.’ (Couvent,p.82). The convent thus encompasses the same dependencies on law, attacks on the church, and characters becoming symbolic of their order, evident in the case of the Curé.
As Terror becomes announced as a form of government in September 1793,the previous institutions of the Monarchy and the Church are viewed as having no redeeming features. Indeed society saw no room for moderate opinions, expressed in the previous arrest of the Girondins after eighty thousand armed sans-culottes are used topressurise the National Convention[22]. Such ideals filtered as far as the theatre, where the Terror had no tolerance for theatrical pieces performed to provide amusement, dramas had to serve the needs of the new French republic[23]. Such intolerance is represented in our final play, Le Jugement dernier des rois.Sylvain Maréchal’s carnivalesque approach to theatre creates a platform for both the monarchy and ecclesiastical order to be ridiculed. The playwright’s ‘upside-down’ world in fact presents a microcosm of society, which was doing the exact same thing. France had beheaded both their King and Queen and sans-culottemobs were growing influential; powerful enough to impose the arrest of the Girondins. Society was indeed a mirror image of the Ancien Régime. The fact that this play spoke so clearly to its audience, who, given the nature of this genre, would have been of a lower class,[24] is reflected in the popularity of the play.Rousselin describes in the Feuille de Salut Public that:
‘Le Jugement dernier des rois[…] a été reçu avec enthousiasme […] parce qu’on ne traita jamais de sujet plus à l’unisson des désirs des spectateurs, aussi glorieux pour les Français et d’un intérêt plus général’. [25]
Maréchal’s play was effective as it was a clear representation of society. There are many microcosms in the play that can be explored in order to reveal the context surrounding Le Jugement dernier des rois. For instance studies have been conducted on the significance of the volcano within the piece[26]. It is indeed an important element of the play: it acts as a microcosm for the reign of the Terror.As Jean-Marie Apostolidès remarks, it symbolises, more specifically, the guillotine so often associated with the period.[27] This is an important aspect of contemporary society as March of 1793 was the first month in which the Revolutionary Tribunal condemned more than one hundred people to death in Paris and this number rapidly increases.[28] Thus as the guillotine loomed in Maréchal’s society, it loomed equally in his play. It is important to note here that the play was first performed in October 1793, the day after Marie-Antoinette’s execution. This event would have been on the minds of all spectators and therefore a comparison of the deaths of the monarchs in Le Jugement dernier des rois with those of Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI would have been overwhelming; making the volcano and the guillotine one and the same.Much like in society, the downfall of the King or Queen is not sufficient, death becomes the only solution. Maslan has conducted a rather extensive study on the theatricality of revolutionary society and states that executions were indeed highly theatrical,[29]thus the borders between Maréchal’s play and society become blurred making it an effective microcosm. The death of these monarchs represents the death of the entire Ancien Régime in France. Indeed this homology is continued even within the title of the piece. The use of the word ‘jugement’reflects the trial and condemnation of Louis XVI and also refers to the Revolutionary Tribunal, a powerful engine of the Terror, put in place to protect the interests of the republic.This aids in buttressing the idea that the volcano is a metaphor for the guillotine; just as the volcano spares the good Viellard and the sans-culottes,the guillotine protects good republicans by ousting the Ancien Régime and all those against the new order.
Just as the volcano is a microcosm for the removal of French monarchy, it equally is symbolic of a new ‘natural’ governing of society. It is immediately established that in this new order it is the sans-culottes that rule as it is they who enter ‘menant [les rois] en lesse avec une chaîne’ (Jugement, p.291).The influence of the sans-culottes within the play is a microcosm of the power that the ordinary people then had, or at least thought they had. The Jacobins used, and therefore gave more power to, the mob, in order to control the streets of Paris and intimidate more moderate members of the Assembly[30]. One may also witness the importance accorded to the peuplein the speeches of Robespierre: his constant mention of the citoyen and his rights, or even in this statement, where he declares: ‘La démocratie est un état où le peuple souverain’.[31]The sans-culottesin the play thus become a microcosm for the Third Estate under the Terror. This is also reflected in way of speaking within the text. The monarchs are more inclined to refer to their sans-culotte counterpart in the vous form: ‘pardonnez-moi’ (Jugement, p.291)marking respect. Naturally they are often replied to in the tu form, lacking respect but also reflecting the abolition of tutoiement[32] within contemporary society. The juxtaposition of the sans-culottes with the monarchs serves to highlight their inherent ‘goodness’. This is demonstrated for example in the Viellard’s story, his exile is due to arbitrary power and becomescontrasted with the unanimous, therefore democratic, choice to exile these European sovereigns.
The theatre was often regarded as an integral element of the ‘old hierarchical, monarchical system that sanctified social and political distinctions.’[33] It therefore becomes imperative to turn such a notion on its head, Maréchal’s carnivalesque tendencies succeed in doing so. Such an intention was stated by the playwright himself when addressing the citizens before the play commences. Maréchal proclaims that he wants to stop the ridiculing of the lower classes and instead ‘parodier ainsi un vers heureux de la comédie du méchant’ (Jugement,p.273).Such an idea may originate directly from Robespierre’s speeches as he states: ‘il faut faire précisément tout le contraire de ce qui a existé avant vous’[34].Apostolidès lucidly explains that ‘le texte de Maréchal marque une rupture avec le théâtre qui l’a précédé. Il crée un renversement, non seulement des thèmes mais des formes littéraires de l’Ancien Régime’[35]The entire play becomes an inversing of expectations, serving to make the whole notion of the play a microcosm for the abolition of the Ancien Régime as well as the power of the sans-culottes and the intense anticlericalism of the time.This microcosm reveals the changes in society since Chénier’s Charles IX was put on stage. Maréchal cannot contemplate the notion of a benign ruler in his playlike the eponymous character in Chénier’s piece. After being abandoned on the island the rulers reveal themselves as incapable of adapting to their new surroundings in the way the Viellard did, this illustrates their incompatibility with the new order. The play therefore is a microcosm of society, which was also revealing the incompatibility of the past orderwith contemporary life. Paris was erasing indicators of the Ancien Régime, signs of feudality and monuments were being removed[36]. Le Jugement dernier des rois demonstrates this degradation of monarchs as their clothes and finery becoming progressively destroyed.