Any Fans of Moliere?

[cacian]

I was well read of Moliere when I was a wee teanager and I think L'Avare or the Avarice was one of my favourite.
Le Malade Imaginaire is my second one.
Would you compare Moliere to Shakespeare in the sense that they are both into theatrical writing?
If you would pair up two plays from each which would pair up if any?
And do you have a favourite quote from Moliere


Mine is

'qui se sent morveux se mouche'
means people who usuall feel touchy about something will complaint and turn it against you.

[dark desire]

I read Tartuffe and Misanthrope - Penguin translation by John Wood. I have a feeling that the translation made the plays lose significant humour. The plays, dialogues and characters looked awkward. Yet there was some brilliance to the plays that was very visible. I do not understand much about structures but I got this feeling that there are several layers whatever is being said. I did not like the overly moralizing tones of the characters of Alceste and Orgon. This situates the plays in aristocratic atmosphere. The criticism of aristocratic society is awesome. I haven't found the time to read other of his plays. What do you think about these issues that I have mentioned above? And did you read the plays in French or English?

I have difficulties situating Shakespeare in literature. He definitely does not rank as highly as he is in the canons for me. Reason being that he wrote 'literature of patronage'. I understand that writers did not even manage to get to eat without patronage in those times and writing for patrons was the only option. Still my personal tastes are bent towards satirical writings. And Moliere qualifies closer to that taste.

[Charles Darnay]

Are you implying that satirical writers do not receive patronage? Swift and Fielding (two of the greatest satirists) certainly did. As far as Shakespeare writing "literature of patronage" that is very ill-informed to think that Shakespeare's work is a reflection of a censored pen of someone not wishing to offend their patrons. Essex and company acted as patron for love of poetry and theatre - not for control over content. In fact, Macbeth alone is a play that seems to be written to gain favour (in this case, with James I): favour with a king he was fairly critical of in other cases.

As far as Moliere goes: the plays are wonderful, but there is a bit lost in translation.

[OrphanPip]

Moliere himself had a number of patrons, and he often enjoyed the protection of Louis XIV against the Church. It's a bit odd to criticize a populist playwright like Shakespeare for something that fits the aristocratically oriented Moliere far better.

I've said this before in Moliere threads, but it is a mistake to construe his plays as critiques of the aristocracy. The characters are aristocratic because the plays were intended for aristocratic audiences. A few of his plays, including Tartuffe, were performed specifically for the court at Versailles.

[dark desire]

Some flaw with my understanding then. A misguided opinion perhaps. I messed up personal taste with objective information. But Moliere did go on exile. Didn't he earn money during that period by presenting his plays?

[Charles Darnay]

I am no Moliere expert, but I do not recall any exile. His career was a steady (albeit slow) rise to the top. He was imprisoned once or twice for debt reasons, but that's as much as I know as far as impediments.

[OrphanPip]

Some flaw with my understanding then. A misguided opinion perhaps. I messed up personal taste with objective information. But Moliere did go on exile. Didn't he earn money during that period by presenting his plays?

He was never exiled that I know of, but a few of his plays were banned due to pressure from the clergy and the conservative nobility that tended to be the political rivals of the king's circle. However, Moliere was a favourite of Louis XIV, and he was always protected at the height of his career.

[cacian]

I read Tartuffe and Misanthrope - Penguin translation by John Wood. I have a feeling that the translation made the plays lose significant humour. The plays, dialogues and characters looked awkward. Yet there was some brilliance to the plays that was very visible. I do not understand much about structures but I got this feeling that there are several layers whatever is being said. I did not like the overly moralizing tones of the characters of Alceste and Orgon. This situates the plays in aristocratic atmosphere. The criticism of aristocratic society is awesome. I haven't found the time to read other of his plays. What do you think about these issues that I have mentioned above? And did you read the plays in French or English?

I have difficulties situating Shakespeare in literature. He definitely does not rank as highly as he is in the canons for me. Reason being that he wrote 'literature of patronage'. I understand that writers did not even manage to get to eat without patronage in those times and writing for patrons was the only option. Still my personal tastes are bent towards satirical writings. And Moliere qualifies closer to that taste.

Hi Dark Muse.
Yes I have read Moliere in French and yes I agree that his works is lost in translation as far reading him outside his original language.
It is not the same again.
One thing about Moliere however was I would say that he wrote for the masses because he was part of the masses himself. Everything he wrote about and 'mocked' was very much de facto or 'of the moment' if you like.
I think it was swiftier/cleverer for him to depict a certain class, the nouveaux rich, because they were easier to sketch. They were that ridiculous he could not have missed them. I consider Moliere to be like a modern reporter a journalist of his time who wrote about the bourgoisie society and happen to be very good at it.
So he wrote for all but only excuted a minority's decadence and fauxpas. The idea behind his plays was that the nuances were a miss, not quite understood. and so the more stupider the characters got the more laughter he got out of it. Les nouveaux richs are not supposed to be clever and so it was easier for him to shriek at their own expense an make them laugh and make a living out of it.

[Charles Darnay]

Yes, I'm sure the "masses" welcomed Moliere as one them as he lounged about Versailles. "You know that playwright whose plays none of us have seen? Isn't he wonderful!"

[Pierre Menard]

I have difficulties situating Shakespeare in literature. He definitely does not rank as highly as he is in the canons for me. Reason being that he wrote 'literature of patronage'. I understand that writers did not even manage to get to eat without patronage in those times and writing for patrons was the only option. Still my personal tastes are bent towards satirical writings. And Moliere qualifies closer to that taste.


Sorry, why should that affect your judgement on the quality of his work or his place in the canon?

[OrphanPip]

I'm not sure one could say Moliere was part of the masses either. He was born into a fair bit of wealth, albeit from a bourgeois class background, and he probably mingled with nobility during his school days. His father also had court connections as the official provider of carpets to the king (which apparently was an honorary title he had to pay for). He was more like a rebellious rich kid who decided to shun the family business, but it's also likely that it was his father who bailed him out of debtors prison when his first theatre troupe failed.

Also, his famous plays were all performed at the best theatres in Paris or at Versailles. While his plays were sometimes available to the public, the cheapest tickets would be out of reach to anyone but the bourgeoisie. The kind of people who would be in the pits of his theatres would be artisans, less prosperous merchants, students, prostitutes, and adventurous young noblemen. They aren't quite the "masses" either.

[cacian]

Yes, I'm sure the "masses" welcomed Moliere as one them as he lounged about Versailles. "You know that playwright whose plays none of us have seen? Isn't he wonderful!"

From what I know he laughed out the bourgoisie hence his plays.
He was very much a people's person.
I am pretty sure his plays were read or seen by all in theatres.
The common person could still attend theatre in those days just like Shakespeare in England. In fact all his performers were from the masses.

[JBI]

Footnotes Cacian. His plays were performed for nobility, and they were not mocking the rich in the sense that you would think. They are playing with the idea of richness, and nobility. We see something similar in Mongol China where mongol aristocrats got good laughs watching Chinese dramas that outright were critical of their regime. The idea that one cannot laugh at oneself is a misconception.

Either way, it wasn't the masses that saved him after the rejection by the church of his most famous play Tartuffe. It was the king himself, a fan of his. Hardly a lowly patron, the sun king.

Shakespeare would be more of a "masses" poet, as can be seen by his more humble birth, and the actual ability for lower classes to congregate in the theaters of England at the time. Shakespeare also put lots of low humor in his work to attract such followings.

French theatre was almost entirely aristocratic. Who cares that the players were of the masses - for the most part they were dismissed once the drama was over. even in England theatre and actors were regarded as lowly sorts for hundreds of years after Shakespeare. In France it was as bad.

[cacian]

Footnotes Cacian. His plays were performed for nobility, and they were not mocking the rich in the sense that you would think. They are playing with the idea of richness, and nobility. We see something similar in Mongol China where mongol aristocrats got good laughs watching Chinese dramas that outright were critical of their regime. The idea that one cannot laugh at oneself is a misconception.

Either way, it wasn't the masses that saved him after the rejection by the church of his most famous play Tartuffe. It was the king himself, a fan of his. Hardly a lowly patron, the sun king.

Shakespeare would be more of a "masses" poet, as can be seen by his more humble birth, and the actual ability for lower classes to congregate in the theaters of England at the time. Shakespeare also put lots of low humor in his work to attract such followings.

French theatre was almost entirely aristocratic. Who cares that the players were of the masses - for the most part they were dismissed once the drama was over. even in England theatre and actors were regarded as lowly sorts for hundreds of years after Shakespeare. In France it was as bad.

Hi JBI.
How do you mean by footnotes?
Have you read him in French?
I read all of his works and in French and I certainly thought there was mockery from his part to the bourgoisie. The whole concept of Moliere was satire and mockery to the nouveau rich.
''quand il y en manger pour huit il yen a manger pour dix''
That was how it came across to me when I read it.
Interesting you think differently.
I feel that his plays were performed by the masses and therefore it could not have been a better mockery to the bourgoisie. It was not the well educated who performed but the more modest albeit masses they were not as common as the bourgoisie themselves.
It is a bit like adding insult to injury.

[OrphanPip]

Hi JBI.
How do you mean by footnotes?
Have you read him in French?
I read all of his works and in French and I certainly thought there was mockery from his part to the bourgoisie. The whole concept of Moliere was satire and mockery to the nouveau rich.
''quand il y en manger pour huit il yen a manger pour dix''
That was how it came across to me when I read it.
Interesting you think differently.

But who is more hostile to the bourgeoisie than the aristocracy, particularly when you're a young aristocrat who might be poorer than many merchants and only have your "good breeding" to distinguish yourself from them. Moliere is making fun of the upper class, but it is an in joke for the benefit of the aristocracy. They laugh at their own follies, and the follies of their peers. Which is the same with most comedies today, they tend to involve "average" sort of working or middle class people, because those are the people who go to the films.



I feel that his plays were performed by the masses and therefore it could not have been a better mockery to the bourgoisie. It was not the well educated who performed but the more modest albeit masses they were not as common as the bourgoisie themselves.
It is a bit like adding insult to injury.

The position of actors in society was iffy. Usually they would have had a better than average education, with basic knowledge in reading and rhetoric. It would be rare for a woman outside the upper classes to be able to read, which meant actresses were often pretty well educated for women. Of course, not all of them could read, but the one's in the best companies usually could, and the men certainly could.

Actors were more akin to specialized trades people of the time. They were often the children of actors or some other kind of professional performer, like dancers or musicians. When they were not born into the profession, they were usually educated members of the middle class who entered the profession later.

We actually know a fair bit about the performers of Moliere's company. Some like Mme. Du Croisy were maybe from the gentry, since there is a record of her first marriage being to a lord. Most came from acting or performing families.

They often didn't mix well with the masses since they were officially part of a pariah class, and the women were usually considered analogous to prostitutes. They didn't quite fit in amongst any group, except with other performers.

[Charles Darnay]

He was certainly a satirist (in many plays) - it it was not a satire that the masses would understand or appreciate. And, as was mentioned, the theatre was more restricted in France than it was in England: the vagabond players that made up so much of English theatre (and was really Shakespeare's humble base) did not exist in the high aesthetic of Louis XIV's world.

[RicMisc]

I have read one play of Moliere in French and I read another one in Dutch. I had French in secondary school which is why I read one play in French, and that is also the only good thing that specific teacher accomplished in his two years of teaching at my school. I loved the play 'Le Medecin Malgre Lui' (too lazy to use the accents), which was the one I read in the original language. In drama class we did another play by him but I don't remember which one that was, it didn't stick with me like the other one. During this drama class we also looked into the background of Moliere.

He was indeed from a relatively wealthy family of carpet merchants and when he decided not to join the family company but instead become a playwright he changed his name from Jean-Baptiste Poquelin to Moliere. Being in theatre, an actor or a playwright, was considered one of the lowest professions possible and he therefore changed his name in order to prevent any harm to his family name. He had some patrons, the sun king being the most prominent one. But even with the king himself as a patron he was still mostly treated as a playwright without the privileges that we might otherwise assume to be part of the package when having the king as your patron.

I considered the two plays I read to be satirical, and actually quite funny. It was hard to fully understand the humour of course because I'm not native in French (at all), but I still found his plays entertaining.