The Works of Claude Boyer 9780231898225

Citation preview

The Works of

CLAUDE

BOYER

The Works of

CLAUDE BOYER CLARA

CARNELSON

BRODY

King's Crown Press MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS · NEW YORK

1947

COPYRIGHT 1 9 4 7

BY

CLARA E . BRODY

Primed in the United States of America by Vermont

Printing

Co.

K I N G S C R O W N PRESS is a division of Columbia University Press organized for the purpose of making certain scholarly material available at minimum cost. Toward that end, the publishers have adopted every reasonable economy except such as would interfere with a legible format. The work is presented substantially as submitted by the author, without the usual editorial attention of Columbia University Press. H M S

PREFACE

THIS STUDY of the seventeenth-century dramatist, Claude Boyer, is an attempt to present all the information that is available about his life and career and at the same time to evaluate his writings. Although not now very well known to the ordinary student of French drama, Boyer was well known for his tragedies, machine plays, and other dramatic productions throughout the second half of the seventeenth century. He first came into prominence as an imitator of Corneille, and later, when Racine's influence was felt on the French stage, Boyer was among the writers who came under that influence. In later years, both Racine and Boileau attacked Boyer bitterly. N o doubt much of their criticism was justified on artistic grounds, but the same cannot be said for the personal rancor that entered into the long-drawn-out feud. Boyer represents the less well-known drama of the seventeenth century. At the same time, he gives us a good picture of the kind of play that the Parisian of that day saw when he did not witness the great works of the masters such as Corneille, Moliere, and Racine. Many of Boyer's plays were tragedies, and most of them drew on historical story to be found in Greek and Latin authors; but some were drawn from historical material belonging to the modern world. On the stage, his plays were usually effective, and many were elaborately produced. Few of them were complete failures. The most striking failure was Judith, but that was due rather to Racine's disapproval than to any special dramatic weakness in the play itself, for it had had a successful run before its spectacular failure. Most of Boyer's writings were dramatic. However, he also wrote a considerable amount of occasional verse which enjoyed much popularity in his day. His own verse seldom rose above mediocre quality, and indeed much of it is decidedly poor. T h e influence of preciosity upon his work can be seen most clearly in his dramatic verse. A member of the French Academy, he liked to write poetry to celebrate its opening meeting each year. Much of his non-dramatic verse was written in a religious vein, for Boyer was educated for a clerical career, and he retained his religious leanings even though he turned to the theatre for his career. The most authoritative work on Boyer that has been done to date is that of Professor Lancaster in his monumental history of the French drama in the seventeenth century ( 1 9 2 9 - 4 2 ) . However, while his treatment of a minor dramatist such as Boyer is adequate, it is in no sense detailed ; and the work contains some notable omissions such as Boyer's Méduse and, of course, his non-dramatic po-

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

etry. In addition, since his work is a history of the drama, it naturally takes up the writings of minor dramatists such as Boyer piecemeal. While this is the appropriate method for a minor figure in such a work, it leaves room for a monograph devoted solely to Boyer. The only other important work dealing with Boyer is Ernst Göhlert's Abbé Claude Boyer, ein Rivale Racines ( 1 9 1 5 ) . This German work devotes only one paragraph to Boyer's non-dramatic writings, and as its purpose was to treat Boyer as a rival of Racine, by stressing that aspect of the subject he fails to focus much attention on Boyer as an independent figure in French drama. Boyer was not always under the influence of Racine, and neither was he invariably his "rival." Frequently Göhlert's critical judgments have to be discounted, either because he leans too much on unreliable authors such as Mouhy, or because he has exaggerated the influence of Boyer's source material on his work. This is so in the case of La Porcie romaine and La Feste de Vénus. On the other hand, Göhlert asserted that the plot of Clotilde, which had been taken from an historical source, was invented by Boyer. My study makes use of all the source and critical material now available on the subject of Claude Boyer and his works. The war has made it impossible for me to find out whether or not the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris has any work of Boyer's that may have escaped the attention of scholars so far. But if any such work were to be discovered, it would almost certainly be of minor consequence, for commentators such as Loret in Boyer's own time and the Frères Parfaict in the eighteenth century let very little pass by without comment of some sort. I have attempted to gather together all that is known about Boyer's life, and I have also tried to include all possible source materials on which he either drew or may have drawn for his works. Very often, I have turned to the original tongues of my sources, making use of my personal knowledge of them, for I have felt that Boyer in most instances used the original languages. I have further tried to give, without wearisome and unnecessary detail, an adequate account of each play so that those who cannot get copies of the works themselves can have fuller information about them than is available in the résumés included in such works as Professor Lancaster's. On occasion, my conclusions have differed from those of others, as in my opinion of Le leune Marius; but I have based my judgments throughout on the evidence afforded by the plays themselves and, whenever possible, on an objective comparison of Boyer's work with similar work of his contemporaries. In the case of Boyer's first tragedy, La Porcie roméne, and first tragi-comedy of any consequence, Porus, and with the machine play, Les Amours de Jupiter et de Semelé, I have gone into considerable detail for obvious reasons. But, on the whole, the length of treatment accorded each play has been determined by the quality of the play itself, and consequently the reader is given this as a yardstick for differentiating between the good and bad plays. Thus, Le Comte d'Essex and Agamemnon, two of Boyer's better plays, are discussed fully ; whereas Le Fils supposé, a weak reworking of the mediocre tragedy Tyridate, is dismissed with a brief notice of the chief differences between it and the earlier play.

CONTENTS

Preface

ν

I. Boy er's Career

ι

II. The Tragedies

73

III. Tragi-comedy and Comédie Heroïque

90

IV. Machine Plays and Others

no

V. Non-dramatic

Poetry

137

VI. Conclusion

149

Appendix

I: Unpublished Plays

155

Appendix

II: Doubtful Plays

158

Bibliography

. 1 6 0

I: B O Y E R ' S

CAREER

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, which saw the rise of Corneille, Racine, and Molière, was one of the brilliant epochs of the French drama. There were, of course, other men who wrote for the stage, lesser lights, and of such a sort was Claude Boyer. One of the less obscure of the prolific writers of tragedy and tragi-comedy for the seventeenth-century French stage, he was born at Albi, Tarn, in 1618. From 1646 onwards, his plays appeared in the Parisian theatres almost yearly, and many of them were received with flattering acclaim. The sudden failure of Judith ( 1 6 9 5 ) , following its spectacularly successful opening, was due rather to the hostility of Racine than to its own mediocrity. Few of the plays, however, were revived after their initial runs. As a playwright, Boyer enjoyed distinction in some Parisian literary circles, especially among the "débris des précieuses," 1 but he remained a minor figure largely because his work lacked the style and other artistic qualities that made Corneille and Racine the leaders of seventeenth-century drama in Paris. Boyer's preoccupation with the tragic implications of unhappy love, together with his choice of historical and literary settings for the plots of his plays, appealed to contemporary taste. In addition, his influential literary contacts enabled him to have his plays presented in the theatre under favorable conditions. Before Boyer came to Paris in about 1645, he had entered a local Jesuit college where he worked for and was awarded the degree of bachelor of theology. He became an abbé, but there is little evidence to indicate that he ever followed his theological vocation. Furetière, a contemporary who took violent exception to Boyer, did not think that he ever preached. In his second Factum, Furetière maliciously pointed out that: . . . il n'a pas été assez heureux pour faire dormir personne à ses sermons, car il n'a point trouvé de lieu pour prêcher. La nécessité l'a donc réduit à prêcher sur les Théâtres du Marais et de l'Hôtel de Bourgogne; mais il leur a porté malheur . . .' 1. C.-A. Sainte-Beuve, Portraits littéraires, I, p. 81. 2. A. Furetière, Recueil des factums, I, p. 172. Furetière's hatred of Boyer arose from an incident connected with the Académie française s projected Dictionnaire. T h e episode led to Furetière's expulsion from the Académie, and Boyer was partially involved in his humiliating experience. However, his hostility to Boyer was no doubt also connected with his close friendship with Boileau, who held Boyer in great contempt.

2

The Works of Claude Boyer

On the other hand, the Frères Parfaict, eighteenth-century historians and critics of French drama, believed that he had pursued his vocation as an abbé.3 At any rate, Boyer turned quickly from theology to the drama, and his Jesuit training served him in good stead, for it fitted him well to deal with the ancient history, lore, and story on which he drew freely for his dramatic inspiration. Boyer must have given thought to becoming a writer of plays rather than a cleric even in his student days, for when he reached Paris with his friend, Michel Le Clerc,4 he had in his pocket a tragedy, entitled La Porcie romaine, with which he hoped to build his literary fortunes. As soon as he reached Paris, his chief preoccupation must have been the furtherance of his writing career, for he apparently set to work to make influential contacts in literary circles, and his exertions in this direction seem to have borne considerable fruit. Before long, he was admitted to the Hôtel de Rambouillet, the most distinguished of all the Parisian salons. It is possible that he gained admission to the charmed literary coterie through Gaspar Daillon du Lude, Bishop of Albi—Boyer's home town— and well-known man of letters.5 Be that as it may, Boyer lost no time in demonstrating his appreciation of the honor that had been done him, by dedicating La Porcie romaine to Mme de Rambouillet in very flattering terms ; he included in his dedication a complimentary poem. At the Hôtel de Rambouillet, Boyer made friendships that were later to prove most advantageous to him. Chief among these was his acquaintance with Jean Chapelain, who was a member of the inner circle of the Hôtel. Chapelain was one of the earliest of the Academicians, a scholar and, on the whole, an intelligent and discreet critic.® Of greater importance to Boyer, however, was the fact that Chapelain was to be held in high esteem by Colbert at the time when this statesman became politically important. Chapelain had Colbert's confidence so completely that he later became his principal agent for the distribution of royal bounties to writers of France and even of all Europe. In this office, Chapelain was instrumental in putting Boyer's name on the list of royal pensioners. 3. Frères F. et C. Parfaict, Histoire du théâtre jrançois, X I I , p. 112. 4. Furetière constantly coupled Boyer's name with Le Clerc s. He called them two Albigeons, who had come to Paris to learn the language but who did not yet know its pronunciation, although they wanted to teach it to others. He underscored his thrust at them by adding, " U s se sont fourrés parmi ce petit nombre de Messieurs qui s'en veulent rendre les maîtres absolus." Furetière, op. cit., II, p. 171. 5. The grounds for this supposition are ( 1 ) that Boyer dedicated his Usimene (1672) to the Comte du Lude and, in the course of his complimentar)· remarks, Boyer said, " I l y a longtemps que je dois à Monseigneur d'Alby, vostre Oncle, des marques publiques de mon respect et de ma reconnoissance, et j'ay cru que je pouvois luy rendre cet hommage en vostre Personne" ; and ( 2 ) that he saw fit to write a poem on the death of the Maréchal de Schömberg, the uncle of du Lude. 6. Bédier et Hazard, Histoire de la littérature française, I, p. 237.

Boyer's

Career

3

Boyer's literary associations, however, were not at all limited to the Hôtel de Rambouillet. H e also established himself as a regular visitor at the salons of M m e Deshoulières and of M m e de Bouillon, to whom he later dedicated his tragedy, Agamemnon ( I 6 8 O ) . Boyer seems to have lived at the home of the Tallemants for some time, although here again it is not quite clear how his association with this family began. T h e first record of their acquaintance was dated December 2, 1656, when Boyer went through the picturesque ceremony of "emancipation" at the shop of Antoine Ronzières. In the legal document of emancipation, he was named as "mis à la suitte de Monsieur de Taleman." Not only this, but he received financial benefits from this "Monsieur de Taleman," for according to the document Boyer . . . a profitté de certaines sommes asses notables et est en estât de profiter davantage; pour l'encourager à continuer son travail et qu'il n'y puisse estre frustré par ses frères, le d. sieur Boyer père desire icellui esmanciper et sortir de la puissance paternelle pour ce chef tant seulement.' There is no indication as to the capacity in which Boyer was employed, but it is probably safe to assume that his duties were of a secretarial nature. T h e "Monsieur de Taleman" referred to in this document was not, as has been suggested, 8 Paul Tallemant, because Paul was not born until 1642 or 1652. It was rather Paul's father, Gédéon, who became "conseiller au parlement de Paris" in 1637, "maître des requêtes" in 1640, and later intendant of the ancient province of Guyenne which at that time included the province of Gascony. His position as intendant was an important one and entailed many duties as well as residence in the province. It is probable then that, except for occasional visits, Boyer spent several years away from Paris in the service of M. de Tallemant. Gédéon Tallemant has been described as a patron of letters, . . . qui vivoit en grand Seigneur, se faisait un mérite particulier d'obliger les gens de Lettres; il en avoit toujours quelqu'un de logé chez lui, il donnoit des Pensions à d'autres et les recevoit tous honorablement.* This may explain the relationship between the two men. Gédéon Tallemant may have become interested in the young man first of all because of the latter's literary aspirations, then welcomed him into his home as a "domestique," in accordance with the custom of the age, and later, when he assumed his new administrative position, he may have employed Boyer. Apparently Boyer kept u p his cordial relations with the Tallemant family, because when he visited his native 7. "Archives notariales d e M . M a l p h e t t e s d'Albi, n° 359 de l'Inventaire, f o 4 1 6 V o , " quoted in Revue historique, . . . du Tarn, janvier-avril, 1914, X X X I , pp. 8-9. 8. Ibid., p. 9, f o o t n o t e 1. 9. Histoire de l'Académie des inscriptions et de belles lettres . . ., Ill, pp. 307-8.

4

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

country in 1667, he was accompanied by Paul Tallemant, the son of his earlier benefactor and close companion. Following his arrival in Paris with Le Clerc, Boyer had become known for his work for the theatre. La Porcie romaine, which marked his debut as a playwright, was published in 1646. There is nothing to indicate whether Boyer followed customary procedure and read his work before a salon audience, or whether he simply had it performed at once in a theatre before it was published. The play showed that he was following Corneille. But, in striking contrast to the latter's brilliant gifts in charactcrization, La Porcie romaine was somewhat stiff and feeble and revealed the fact that the young dramatist from Albi had much to learn about character development and presentation through the medium of the stage. A second play, La Sœur généreuse, also appeared in 1646. Unlike La Porcie romaine, this play was a tragi-comedy, another genre in which Boyer did some work. Whatever possible promise his first play may have indicated, this melodrama quickly shattered ; for, centering about the motive of conjugal jealousy, it sank quickly into romantic nonsense. The following year saw two new plays from Boyer's pen, both tragedies; and in 1648, he produced two more plays. These were doubtless applauded by Boyer's admirers and so were a source of gratification to his pride, but they added little to his initial distinction as a dramatist. Nevertheless, if nothing else, they did serve to keep him in the public eye. From 1648 until 1659, when his Clotilde was performed and published, nothing of Boyer's appeared.10 Two more of Boyer's plays appeared by 1662, a year that holds special interest for us in connection with a list of those who were to receive the king's bounty. This list was published in Chapelain's Mémoire de quelques gens de lettres v'tvans en 1662 and had been drawn up at the order of Colbert. Chapelain included in his Mémoire an article on Claude Boyer, in which he called him a poet of the theatre ". . . qui ne cède qu'au seul Corneille en cette profession, sans que les défauts qu'on remarque dans le dessein de ses pièces, rabatent de son prix. . . , " n But Chapelain's literary judgment was obviously unreliable, for he used his official capacity to favor his mediocre friends. He gave short notices to such men as Molière and Corneille, whereas he devoted considerable space to men whose work could not possibly be ac10. One reason for this long silence may well have been the disturbance created by the Fronde ( 1 6 4 9 - 1 6 5 } ) , during which the Parisian theatres were closed for some time. Political disturbance that affected the theatres, seriously tended to discourage playwrights. A number of them, including Boyer, wrote no inore for the stage until more favorable conditions for their work could be re-established. 11. J . Chapelain, Nielanges de littérature, p. 190. P. Mélèse, in his Le Théâtre et le Public à Paris sous Louis XIV, commented on this remark of Chapelain's, calling it "un enthousiasme qui nous semble bien exagéré pour un Boyer,—qui n'était pas encore l'auteur de la fameuse Judith," p. 129.

Bayer's Career

5

cepted as good. 12 However, Boyer was given his share in 1662, and in June 1663, he addressed a sonnet to Gilbert in which he expressed "sa reconnaissance d'une manière asses noble" 18 for the royal munificence. In an extant manuscript of Colbert's, there is a list of pensions paid in 1663. Boyer's name is once more included with the comment "excellent poète françois." Boyer received 800 livres— the same amount as Racine, simply "poète françois," something that may be explained by the fact that as yet none of Racine's dramatic works had been either performed or published. With the notable exception of the year 1667, in which his name is missing from this pension list, Boyer apparently retained his place thereafter on the royal pension list. He expressed his satisfaction in the dedication of his tragedy, Le leune Marius ( 1 6 6 9 ) , to Gilbert to whom he spoke of giving ". . . des marques publiques de ma reconnoissance au nom de toutes les Muses en général, et de la mienne en particulier." Later in the same passage he referred to having been "choisi pour estre un des suiets des gratifications du Roy." 1 4 These statements doubtless point to a welcome restoration of the pension. In the meantime, the year I666 proved to be most auspicious and exciting for Boyer. In January, his latest play Les Amours de Jupiter et de Semelé was performed before Louis XIV. It was a spectacular "machine" play, the kind that the monarch liked so much, and it had been produced on a scale so lavish that its lack of literary merit was cloaked by the magnificence of its spectacle. Perhaps out of sheer gratitude for his place on the royal pension list, perhaps even because he knew that King Louis liked this type of work, Boyer dedicated this play to him and flattered his sovereign with the most eloquent phrases that he had at his command. This practice was not unusual in the seventeenth century—several other men did just the same thing, even a Racine and a Boileau. Later in the year, this highly gratifying royal notice was followed by Boyer's election to the Académie Française, an honor that Chapelain's affection for him 12. The unreliability of Chapelain's reports was felt in his own day, for Loret, in his La Muze historique, July 7, 166}, stressed the fact that men of letters had to be "well recommended" if they were to receive a share of the pension fund: Notre roy continue encore De régaler d'argent et d'or Mainte Muze scientifique Qu'à Sa Majesté, l'on indique, Un fonde destiné pour cela Se prodigue, par ci par là Aux Sieurs Courtisans du Parnasse. Mais pour obtenir cette grâce, Il faut, dit-on, à tout hazard Etre indiqué de bonne part. IV, p. 7i. 13. J. Chapelain, Lettres, II, p. }10. 14. Dedication of Le leune Marius.

6

The Works of Claude

Boyer

may have helped to obtain. This was a distinction that Boyer appreciated highly, and the occasion was duly noted in Robinet's Lettre en vers à Madame, September 19: Ces jours passez, le sieur BOYER. Digne d'un immortel loyer, Et dont souvent on idolâtre, Sur l'un et l'autre Théâtre, Le Grand COTHURNE et Γ ESCARPIN. Fut, par un glorieux Destin, Receu dam nostre ACADÉMIE, . . . Entrant dedans ce CORPS illustre . . . Il harangua bien tout-à-fait, Si que la docte Compagnie Admira son ardent Génie Et tinst, certes, à grand honneur, Comme aussi même à bon-heur, De l'avoir dans ses hauts Mystères, Pour l'un des braves Confrères Proud of his membership in what he called "cet illustre Corps de Scavans, " 10 Boyer attended its meetings faithfully, 17 and whenever the Académie Française "opened its doors," he had ready a religious poem to grace the occasion.18 Interest in the proceedings of the Académie Française did not prevent Boyer from maintaining his literary output. With infrequent interruptions, he kept on producing either tragedies or tragi-comedies. He dedicated many of them to exalted personages; in so doing, he was following the accepted practice of the times, when writers had to live from the generosities of the "grands seigneurs," and was not therefore necessarily dedicating them to actual personal acquaintances. Susceptible to flattery himself, Boyer—like his contemporaries— did not hesitate at all to flatter almost without distinction those to whom he wrote his dedications. But he was sensitive to adverse criticism of his work. Throughout his literary career, he was fated to head that discordant note more and more frequently until at last the severe criticism that greeted his tragedy Artaxerxe ( 1 6 8 2 ) drove him to give up his writing for the theatre. This denunciation of his work was the culmination of long-standing hostility that Racine and Boileau had felt for him and had, no doubt, by their influence inspired in others. Boyer in turn was extremely bitter as a result of the harsh treatment he received at the hands of his critics, especially since he felt that it had been unjustified. 15. Les Continuateurs de Loret, II, pp. 307-308.

16. La Mort de Demetrius ( 1660), dedication.

17. Cf. the speech of l'abbé Genest, his successor to the Académie Française, Frères Parfaict, op. cit., X I I , p. 1 1 3 ; also the answering discourse of l'abbé Boileau, ibid,, p. 115. 18. Infra, p. 145.

Boyéis

Career

7

There is no record of Boyer's activities again until the year 1691, when he was asked to write a play on a Biblical subject for Saint-Cyr. This was followed four years later by another Biblical play, Judith, especially notable for the fact that it was amazingly popular at its initial performances and then failed miserably almost overnight. Deep bitterness once more overtook him as his career drew to its close. His last work, in reality an opera although classified as a tragedy, appeared in 1697, the year before his death. In the closing years of his life, Boyer seems to have turned his attention more and more to non-dramatic poetry of which he had written samples from time to time throughout his literary career. H e was very much interested in the occasional poetry that was fashionable at the time. But he also devoted much time to writing paraphrases of passages from the Bible, an interest that no doubt stemmed from his earlier religious training. Fellow "immortels" of the Académie must have come to know his religious verse well, but what they thought of it is shrouded in the deepest silence. Boyer gave frequent public readings of his verses, and, with the "aimable vivacité de sa province," 1 9 he looked forward with relish to the glory and praise that his admirers heaped upon him and that he was even willing to solicit if they were not forthcoming spontaneously. During his lifetime, Boyer had his share of admiration—even if posterity has not been kind to him. Corneille himself, to whom Boyer had been generously likened, apparently held a favorable impression of him. 2 0 H e was classed even among famous men by Le Noble in Les Barons Flêchois, in which a wretched, conceited writer ". . . ne cède à pas un, c'est un Corneille en herbe, Il surpasse Ronsard, Boyer, Quinault, Malherbe." 2 1 There was lavish praise for him that must have flattered his vanity in a letter addressed to the Queen and included in Boursault's Lettres de respect: J'oubliois un autre homme Illustre Qui du Languedoc est le lustre Et qui, Cadejoux, est tout cur (ROYERIUS

SUD-AUDITUR)

C'est un auteur de fine trempe; Jamais son Pegaze ne rampe; Quand il prend l'essor comme il faut, D'ordinaire il monte si haut Que bien souvent, quoy qu'on s'y tue, On ne peut le suivre de veue. 19. Pellisson et d'Olivet, Histoire de l'Académie, II, p. 326. 20. In a letter dated April 25, 1662, Corneille spoke of Boyer, Quinault, and the unhappy lot of the Marais, to l'abbé de Pure and commented: Si ces Messieurs ne Ies [ t h e actors] secourent ainsi que moi, il n'y a pas d'apparence que le Marais se rétablisse . . . P. Corneille, Œuvres, X, pp. 493-494. 21. H. N . Le Noble, Les Barons Flécbois, Act I, scene 1. This play was probably acted in 1665.

8

The Works of Claude Boyer Par des vers pompeux, Cadedis, Il soutient l'honneur du Pah On peut adjouter à sa gloire Que ce qu'il faut n'est point Grimoire Et, qui did un Autheur bien pur BOYERIUS SUB-AUDITUR." Mélèse points out that in this letter Corneille was praised in much the same

language as Boursault used for Boyer, Quinault, and Gilbert, and that therefore his critical judgments were to be treated with reserve. 23 The same exaggerated praise—or, as the Frères Parfaict suggested, 24 ironical comment—appeared in Boursault's Satyre des Satyres

( 1 6 6 9 ) , in which he wrote:

Boyer, quand il compose, est toujours tout en jeu; Dans ses moindres discours on voit ce feu qui brille, Et dans les Vers qu'il fait, le Salpestre pétille. Quand d'un crime parfois il exprime l'horreur, La fureur Poétique est sa moindre fureur. S'il faut peindre Bellonne au milieu du carnage, Son Pégase bondit, et sa Muse fait rage: Il sçait camper, résoudre, assaillir, effrayer, Et dans ses Vers pompeux étaller tout Boyer: Mais s'il faut de Vers doux embellir quelques Scenes; On le saigne d'abord de trois ou quatre veines. Pour faire évaporer par ces canaux ouverts, La grandeur du Génie, et la force des Vers And yet he added: // écrit nettement; et pour dire encor plus. Ses Vers ont de la pompe, et ne sont pas confus; Car enfin, . . . , et souvent on s'y trompe, Le galimathias est voisin de la pompe.x But soon afterward, Boursault spoke of Boyer with Corneille and Racine! L'abbé de Pure, who according to Mélèse was called the "ennuyeux célèbre" by Boileau, 2 7 thought of Boyer in connection with people of considerable distinction in the world of letters: " M M . Corneille le Jeune, Desmarets, Molière, Quinault, Gilbert, Boyer, Racine et Mlle Desjardins ont droit aux plus justes louanges qu'on ait jamais données . . . " 2 8 And while it is possible that Boursault was ironical in what he had to say of Boyer, the abbé de Pure was sincere in his praise of him. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

July 19, 1665. Cf. Les Continuateurs de Loret, I, p. 121. P. Mélèse, op. cit., pp. 153-154. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., XII, p. 118. E. Boursault, Satyre des Satyres, Act I, scene 6, p. 399. Loc. cit. Cf. Boileau, Satire VI, v. 12. Cf. P. Mélèse, op. cit., p. 131.

Boyéis

Career

9

The Mercure galant, although it gave a wonderful picture of the literary life of the age, was influenced by the préciosité of the age and was generous in its praises of authors such as Quinault, Cotin, Mlle de Scudéry, and Boyer, while it was bitter in its hatred of Racine. It had nothing but panegyrics for Boyer until his death in 1698, when it published what might almost be considered a funeral oration : L'Académie Française . . . vient de faire [une perte] fort considérable en la personne de Mr. Boyer, l'un de ses plus anciens membres. . . . Il y a plus de cinquante ans qu'il avait commencé à travailler pour le théâtre, et loin que l'asge luy eust rien osté de ce feu d'esprit qu'il a fait paroistre dans toutes ses Pièces, il sembloit estre augmenté dans ses dernières. Sa Tragédie de Judith, dont le succès a esté si grand depuis peu d'années, en est une preuve." Quiet compliments, rather than panegyrics, were offered to Boyer in Loret's La Maze historique, a publication more concerned with the worldly affairs of the theatre and literature than with anything else. When discussing the respective merits of Quinault and Boyer, Loret asserted that he considered the "feu" that inspired Boyer both "herolque et brillant." 30 Loret had hardly closed his eyes in death when two of his rivals, both admirers of Boyer, decided to continue his work. According to the critic Deltour, Robinet, one of these, evidenced a "tendresse, un culte particulier de Boyer." 31 La Gravette de Mayólas, the other author who carried on Loret's work, spoke of Boyer in terms of admiration: Princesse éclatante de gloire Et qui vous plaizez à l'Histoire, Je voudrois, quand je vous écris, Imiter les plus beaux Esprits, Les Chapelains et les Corneilles Qui produizent tant de merveilles, Les Scudérys et les Gombauds, Les Boyers, Gilberts et Quinauts After his death on July 22, 1698, Boyer became the subject of numerous bits of praise. The Mercure galant of July 1698, as we have indicated, noted his passing in eulogistic terms; Dangeau referred to it in his Journal on July 26, 1698; the Gazette d'Amsterdam spoke cordially of him in its account of his death, which it published on July 31, 1698; the Mercure historique of the Hague referred to his death in August 1698; and so did the Gazette de France on October 4, 1698. Among the pleasantest of the personal tributes to Boyer was the recognition 29. Ibid., p. 103, footnote 7. 30. J . Loret, La Muze historique, December 31, 1665, III, pp. 587-588. 31. F. Deltour, Les Ennemis de Racine, p. 61. 32. La Gravette de Mayólas, Lettre en ven à ion Allesse Madame la Duchesse Nemours, July 18, 1665. Cf. Les Continuateurs de Loret, I, p. 101.

de

io

The

Works

oj Claude

Boyer

that he was kindly in his judgment of his fellow writers and that he was always ready to help young authors w h o came to him for advice. H e was frank and cordial, ". . . cherchant la bienséance dans ses ouvrages, l'ayant toujours observée dans ses mœurs, Heureux d'avoir travaillé toute sa vie pour aller à la belle gloire." 3 3 L'abbé Genest, who succeeded to Boyer's seat in the Académie Française, substantiated this opinion of Boyer's character: "Il a traité si longtemps les passions humaines sans jamais en éprouver le désordre, et . . . il a pour ainsi dire, habité ce Pays de l'illusion et des fictions sans altérer en rien sa probité exacte et sincere." 3 4 However, there were other and weightier voices than these that had not spoken in terms of eulogy of Boyer, either during his lifetime or after his death. Mme de Sévigné, w h o usually had a great deal to say about people and topics of interest of her day, gave very little attention to Boyer. This is her only reference to him: "M. de Tallard dit qu'elle [Baiazet de Racine] est autant au-dessus de celles de Corneille, que celles de Corneille sont au-dessus de celles de Boyer: voilà ce qui s'appelle bien louer. . . ," 3 5 Racine, Boileau, and Furetière were among his severest critics, Racine even joining Boileau in a feud with Boyer that lasted for many years. Racine represented an element that was definitely inimical to the fortunes of the lesser playwright, inimical as far back, perhaps, as the Alexandre incident. 3 6 Racine's open dislike for Boyer was not confined to an epigram against Judith; he mockingly suggested that the sifflet at the theatre originated with Boyer: Ces jours passés chez un vieil histrion, Grand chroniqueur, s'émut en question Quand à Paris commença la méthode De ces sifflets, qui sont tant à la mode. "Ce jut, dit l'un, aux pièces de Boyer." Cens pour Pradon voulurent parier: "Non, dit l'acteur, je sais toute l'histoire, Que par degrés je vais vous débrouiller: Boyer apprit au parterre à bâiller; Quant à Pradon si j'ai bonne mémoire, Pommes sur lui volèrent largement; Or quand sifflets prirent commencement, C'est, j'y jouois, j'en suis témoin fidèle, C'est à l ' A s p a r de Fontenelle,"" 33. Pellisson et d'Olivet, op. cit., p. 345. 34. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., X I I , p. 114. 35. Mme de Sévigné, Lettres, II, p. 466. Lettre à Madame de Grignan, le 13 juin, 1672. 36. The rival representations of the Alexandre plays took place in 1665. In the dedication of Le Ieune Marius ( 1 6 6 9 ) , Boyer mentioned "la cabale" which combined with fortune to bring about the success or failure of theatrical works. 37. J. Racine, Œuvres, ed. Paul Mesnard, IV, pp. 184-185.

Boyéis

Career

11

Mesnard found another instance of this long-sustained malice in a marginal notation that Racine made in a copy of Pliny's Letters,38 In the thirteenth letter, addressed to Sosius Senecio, Pliny referred to the fertility of poetical productions and lamented that audiences, invited to listen to readings of these literary works, either paid little attention to them or else tried to avoid being present to hear them, adding: "So much the rather do those authors deserve our encouragement and applause, who have the resolution to persevere in their studies and exhibit their performances, notwithstanding this indolence or pride of their audiences." Beside this Racine had written "—BOY." Not even Boyer's death could erase the disdain that Racine felt for him. In a letter to his oldest son, Jean-Baptiste, dated July 24, 1698, Racine told of Boyer's death and said that people believed that Boyer had written more than five hundred thousand verses during his lifetime. He continued: "Si c'étoit la mode de brûler les morts, comme parmi les Romains, on auroit pu lui faire les mêmes funérailles qu'à ce Cassius Parmensis, à qui il ne fallut d'autre bûcher que ses propres ouvrages, dont on fit un fort beau feu." Then, as if fearing that he might have overstepped the mark, he added, "le pauvre M. Boyer est mort fort chrétiennement . . ." 8 9 Boileau took part in this feud against Boyer, but in his writings subjected the latter to contemptuous silence. Feeling that Boyer was worth little more than one line, he compared him to an insignificant author in the one reference to him in his Art Poétique: "Boyer est à Pinchêne égal pour le lecteur." 40 But, according to the Bolaana,*1 Boileau discriminated even among miserable writers. The story goes that Le Verrier was reading a tragedy to the dying Boileau, but after listening for a while Boileau asked: "Quoi, Monsieur, cherchez vous à me hâter l'heure fatale ? Voilà un Auteur devant qui les Boyers et les Pradons sont de vrais soleils." But of all the men who wrote disparagingly of Boyer, the most violent was Furetière. Scornfully he compared Boyer and Le Clerc with Racine and went out of his way to show up the two Albi writers in the most unfavorable light. Racine, he said, had honored many heroes by the characters he gave them, whereas the two authors from Albi ". . . ont tellement défiguré le Théâtre, qu'ils l'ont changé en un triste échafaut, où ils ont dégradé plusieurs grands hommes qu'ils ont rendus si méconnaissables qu'au lieu d'attirer sur eux la compassion, ils les ont exposés à la riseé publique." 42 Boyer was leaving the theatre to return to the pulpit, Furetière had reported maliciously, "par la 38. Ibid., V I , pp. 340-341. 39. Ibid., V I I , pp. 263-264. 40. Boileau, Œuvres complètes, I, p. 359. Etienne Martin, Sr. de Pinchêne, was a nephew of Voiture and a writer of insipid verse. He has been forgotten so completely that almost nothing can be found about him. 41. Monchesnay, Bolxana . . ., pp. 441-442. 42. A. Furetière, op. cit., I, p. 216.

The Works of Claude Boyer

12

même nécessité qui l'avoit fait renoncer à la chaire pour se donner au Théâtre." 4 3 Along with mendacity, Furetière indulged in vituperation of his victims, calling them "les insectes et les reptiles du Parnasse." 44 Boyer limited his remarks on his critics to brief comments in the dedications affixed to his plays, but he answered Furetière directly with three epigrams: Avec une fade Satyre, Furetière a crû faire rire. Je ne sçay si quelqu'un en rit, Et la peut lire toute entière: Pour moy je ris de Furetière, Et ne ris point de son écrit." To this Furetière answered: Mon Factum est fade à tel point, Que Boyer dit qu'il n'en rit point: C'est ce qu'il trouve à redire Je le croys certes sans jurer: Il est mauvais, s'il le fait rire Il est bon, s'il le fait pleurer The second of Boyer's epigrams followed: C'est prudemment que nôtre Académie Dans son ignorance affermie, A banni Furetière et l'a mis hors des rangs, N'aurait-ce pas esté dommage, De laisser ce grand Personnage, Au milieu de tant d'ignor ans.r' Furetière's answer was: Il connoti bien l'Académie, Mais il connoti mal l'Ironie, L'Auteur de ce Sixain piquant, Il dit plus vray qu'il ne sembloit promettre: Il ne croioit parler qu'en se moquant; On l'entend au pied de la lettre The third epigram was the most scathing of all: Ce beau Factum qu'on admire, Qui de l'Académie est la fine Satire, Damon, te parôit plat et sot; 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Ibid., pp. 312-313. Ibid., p. 352. Ibid., II, p. 242. Ibid., pp. 242-243. Ibid., pp. 243-244. 4 8 . Loc. cit.

Boyer's

Career

13

Comment peut-il ne te point plaire? C'est l'ouvrage de Furetière Corrigé par le grand Gayot." To this, Furetière replied : Damon, quand vous trouvez sot et plat mon Factum, Que mille honnêtes gens disent être fort bon, Vous faites voir une ignorance extrême. Apprenez la force des mots: Quand vous voudrez parler pertinemment des sots Il faut auparavant vous connottre vous-même Posterity, though less malicious toward Boyer than Furetière, has scarcely been kinder. Saint Marc, the editor of Boileau's works who was born in the year of Boyer's death, thought that Boyer had "beaucoup d'esprit" and that his "difïerens ouvrages sont animés d'un feu qui ne fut point affoibli par l'âge," but that he had no "connoissance du fond de l'art qu'il pratiquoit, et manquoit également de goût et de sens." His style was almost always "enflé," his language "peu correct" and his verses "ordinairement très durs." 5 1 The Frères Parfaict, who had much to say in the eighteenth century about Boyer, made some penetrating observations about him: Aussi sterilement fécond que le Poète Hardi, ainsi qu'à ce dernier tout sujet lui étoit propre. La Fable, l'Histoire, le Roman, n'avoient aucune différence dans ses mains. Dans presques toutes ses Tragédies, l'épisode l'importe toujours sur le fond. Nous ne parlons point de l'inutilité de la plupart de ses Acteurs et de ses Scènes; passons à sa Poesie et à sa façon de dialoguer. Sa Poésie est dure, chevillée, pleine d'expressions froides ou basses, et jamais nulle image. Son dialogue n'exprime rien de ce qu'il doit dire, et c'est un perpétuel galimathias." They further commented that: Monsieur l'Abbé Boyer avoit une imagination bien singulière: il cherchoit des plans bizarrement compliqués, et s'en droit toujours très-mal; des personnages équivoques, qui soutiennent si peu leur caractère, qu'on peut douter s'ils en ont aucune. Voilà le défaut général de l'Auteur.51 Clément and the abbé de Laporte agreed with these judgments in their Anecdotes dramatiques (1775). 5 4 Beauchamps was inclined to credit Boyer with genius and thought that Boileau's line on him was too harsh. 55 Despois thought 4 9 . Ibid.,

p. 243.

50. Loc.

cit.

51. Frères Parfaict. o f . cit., 52. Ibid.,

p. 1 8 3 .

53. Ibid.,

X , p. 3 7 6 .

X I I , p.

54. C l é m e n t et Laporte, Anecdotes

119.

dramatiques.

55. P.-F. G o d a r t d e B e a u c h a m p s , Recherches

III, p . 6 8 . sur les théâtres

de France,

II, p. 2 3 5 .

14

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

that Boyer was known to posterity only through Racine's epigram. 56 Victor Fournel accepted the judgment that Claude Boyer was a mediocre artist and commented : Ce feu que lui reconnaissent tous ses contemporains s'est bien refroidi avec le temps et aussi par l'impression; c'est un de ces feux de paille qui pouvaient faire illusion sur la scène, mais qui ne durent pas, n'étant point soutenus par la justesse et la solidité du style. Poète dramatique médiocre, Boyer est un écrivain plus mediocre encore: son vers est à la fois faible et dur, mou et enflé." Recent scholars, such as Professor Lancaster, have shown interest in Boyer because they feel that men such as he play an important part in literary history. These minor figures, unspectacular, ordinary, and often uninspired though they are, often reflect contemporary fashions and tastes far more accurately than the great literary men do. Without a knowledge of men such as Claude Boyer, we can scarcely draw an accurate picture of the actual life and times of men such as Racine, Corneille, Molière, and Boileau. 56. Eugène Despois, Le Théâtre français sous Louis XIV, p. 15. Here he refers, no doubt, to Racine's other more famous epigram on Judith, infra, pp. 84-85. 57. V. Fournel, "Contemporains et successeurs de Racine," Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France ( 1 8 9 4 ) , p. 241.

II: T H E

TRAGEDIES

of Boyer's plays may be classified as tragedies. Tragedy was exceedingly popular in the second half of the seventeenth century, and playwrights responded eagerly to the demand for it. To Boyer, as to some of his contemporaries, tragedy represented something romantic in story, with sensational incidents and often with startling situations, involving the fortunes of kings, queens, princes, princesses, and personages of importance in history and legend. Their woes and their violent deaths, whether in battle, by suicide, or by other means, which kept sympathetic audiences in tears and emotional turmoil, more than satisfied the playwright's circle of ardent admirers. THIRTEEN

La Potete romaine showed to theatre-goers that Boyer was following in the footsteps of the illustrious master tragedian. For Porcia, the heroine, with her lofty patriotic sentiments and her exercise of will power, was clearly a character in the tradition of Corneille. The influence of Corneille can be traced clearly in Boyer's work until at least 1672, when Le Fils supposé (a revision of an earlier tragedy, Tyridate [1648]) appeared; and Boyer was recognized as one of Corneille s imitators. In almost all the tragedies he wrote during the period from 1646 to 1672, Boyer chose very involved and somewhat unnatural situations for his plots. Thus in Porus (1647), 1 there are no less than three sets of romances involved in a dominant theme of domestic jealousy. In Aristodème (1647), a substitution of children had taken place before the action of the tragedy began; and, to the tragic complications involved in that situation, he added the further complication of two men in love with the same girl. Substitution of children was also an element in the plot of Tyridate (1648), but in this play there are, in addition, a Prince in love with his own sister—although the relationship is unknown to him—and another man in love with the girl the Prince is supposed to marry. Danger of incest was ever present to heighten the tragic implications. These situations were typical of the kind that Boyer used for the plots of many of his earlier tragedies. With Le leune Marius (1669), Boyer began to change to greater simplicity in plot construction ; that is, so far as his tragedies were concerned. This change 1. Boyer classified Porus as a tragedy; but because it really b e l o n g s to the tragi-comedy, in this study it is classified and discussed as such.

16

The Works of Claude Boy er

became marked from Essex (1678) onwards. It was due in part to the fact that he used subject matter that was less complicated ; but it was due mainly, no doubt, to the great popularity of Racine's plays with their pronounced simplicity in plot and construction. Thus Boyer's change in technique indicated that he was sensitive to current trends in the drama and that he was ready to follow them in order to woo public favor. As Boyer gained in experience as a dramatist, he developed a technique that proved effective on the stage, even if it added nothing to the literary quality of his plays. His most marked advance in this direction was the way in which he prepared for the entry of his heroes. This was reasonably well done in Porus ; his Artaxerxe ( 1 6 8 2 ) , in which the entry of the hero was delayed until Act II, scene 4, showed that he had learned much in timing and in building up an appropriate setting for his hero. This technique was used most effectively in Jephtê (1693). In addition, he let his audiences know from the beginning exactly what the dramatic situation was. Boyer also liked to employ a sort of "time-bomb" technique, in which the complications introduced into the plot were apparently resolved to everyone's satisfaction at a point well before the end of the play, only to be thrown into even greater confusion in preparation for the usually tragic dénouement. This device helped to keep the audience interested in the somewhat unpredictable action of the play. Unfortunately, Boyer was not a good enough dramatist to make his catastrophe always follow, logically and inevitably, from the dramatic situation at hand. Frequently one has the feeling that his characters are killed at the end only because there was no other way in which he could remove them from the scene of action. Boyer showed good judgment in often preferring action to long-winded, wearisome descriptions of it by messengers. He planned to have such incidents as dramatic meetings take place on the stage, and sometimes he even had fights enacted. However, he observed the proprieties, as well as the unities, almost meticulously and therefore seldom allowed his characters to die on the stage. On the other hand, he made use of many hackneyed devices, such as letters, to convey information to his audience and seldom, if ever, displayed any originality here. Like other playwrights, Boyer indulged a great deal in bombastic verse. It proved reasonably effective in the theatre, as may well be imagined, but it served only to emphasize the lack of literary value of much of his work when one read his plays. For the most part, his Alexandrines relied for effect on repetition, enumeration, antithesis, and balance ; as verse, they hardly ever rose above mediocrity. A. LA PORCIE ROMAINE

(1647).

Although the Frères Parfaict thought that La Porcie romaine was Boyer's sec-

The Tragedies

17

ond work, 2 it was, as a matter of fact, his first. Indeed, it was accepted as such by the abbé Genest, 8 Boyer's successor in the Académie Française, who referred to it as his predecessor's first play in the course of his speech immediately after his admission, on September 7, 1698. 4 The abbé Boileau, director of the Academicians, in his answering discourse, repeated that La Porcie romaine was their late colleague's initial work. Not only was this opinion substantiated by Maupoint, 5 but it would seem to have the support of the playwright himself, for Boyer, in the dedication to Mme de Rambouillet, called it "mon essay." The plot of Boyer's play may appear unduly complicated because he took the two parts of the battle of Philippi—the battle of Cassius and that of Brutus— and made them one action. But he did this because, in following classical tradition, he had to heed the time element and the unity of action. Moreover, in his anxiety to observe the unity of place, he made Porcia's tent the scene of the action in which the future Augustus struggled for power with Brutus and Cassius, the chiefs of the Republican army. This also was unfortunate because it gave a sense of unnaturalness to the whole dramatic situation, since there was no good reason at all for Porcia's presence at the scene of battle. Act I began before the battle was to be joined. Brutus was confronted with a spectre whose identity he could not determine. It vanished, and with it went some of his confidence also ; he knew that the gods were angry, a state of affairs that his friend Maximus had feared. Cassius too was shaken by the dire portents, and for that reason counselled patience and postponement of the battle. He feared for the safety of Porcia, Brutus' wife, and, responding to the warnings of the far-from-cowardly Cassius, Brutus urged Porcia to exile herself for a while. She proudly refused to leave him, and as always had her own way. In terms worthy of a French gallant of the seventeenth century, Brutus lamented : Mais las! elle le veut, Vous le voulez Madame, Estes vous si contraire aux desseins de mon âme!" She, however, held firm: le verray ces horreurs [of battle] servir à vostre Et ces torrens de sang haster vostre victoire. le pourray pour le moins voir de prés avec ioye Tous nos Persecuteurs devenir vostre proye. Voir briser tous nos fers, voir vanger nos parens. Triompher nostre Rome et tomber ses Tyrans 2. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., X I I , p. 114, footnote a.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Ibid., VII, p. 11. Ibid., XII, p. 114. Maupoint, Bibliotèque des théâtres, p. 257. La Porcie romaine. Act I. scene 4, p. 13.

7. Ibid., pp. 16-17.

gloire,

18

The

Works

of Claude

Boy

er

Act II began with Cassius speaking words of encouragement to his men. Brutus, however, was depressed ; he spoke to his wife, and then he left. Dramatic tension heightened in the third Act when Cassius appeared to tell Porcia that her husband was dead. She was overwhelmed, but put thoughts of ending her own life aside until she had lamented Brutus in pompous verse strangely lacking in personal feeling and depth: Doncques

Brute

n'est

plus,

Si cher à tout le Monde, Ma gloire Héros

et mon

brillant

Jadis

toute

Dernier Vous

espoir,

traits

fléau

maintenant et de

aujourd'huy

des Tyrans, maintenant

qu'un

tous:

plus

qu'un

pâle

et

ombre, sombre,

douleur.

craint

tronc

de

valeur,

ma

et plus

épous,

aux yeux

n'estes

de grace,

ma joye,

n'estes

vous

d'honneur,

Incomparables

et cet aimable

est mort

que

la

couvert

foudre,

de

poudre.'

In Act I V , Maximus appeared to tell her that Brutus was alive and triumphant. His report was confirmed by Philippus, Cassius' freedman. Unfortunately, Cassius, despondent and ignorant of this good fortune, had asked his men to kill him and they had obeyed. T h e emotional key of the play was struck when Porcia turned her thoughts not to the joy o f her husband's safety, but rather to the proud subjects of fatherland and liberty: Grands

Dieux,

Est-elle

à rostre

la liberté avis

que

une

Ou nous

regardez-vous

avec

Que pour

la rachepter

il faille

Ne

nous

devez-vous

N'est-ce

pas

Maistres

de

vostre

pas une cause,

l'Univers,

Rome

faveur

vous

demande.

si

grande?

tant de

mépris,

un si grand entière

ainsi

prix?

victoire?

que

nostre

gloire?

souffrirez-vous

des

Roys?

Brutus entered to find his wife thus upset. She was keenly aware of the vicissitudes of fortune, and Cassius' death had made her wary. T h e news that Caesar had triumphed confirmed her misgivings. Brutus suggested that they should both die bravely, at their own hands, and so escape the yoke of the vanquished. Porcia assented to this. Like Corneille's Sabine, who foolishly proposed to her brother and husband: "Qu'un de vous deux me tue, et que l'autre me venge." 1 0 Porcia wanted to die alone and to let Brutus avenge her death. But Brutus, knowing the military situation was hopeless, said that he alone should die. Porcia was indignant, but Maximus came in to tell that Octavius had broken 8. Ibid., Act I I I , scene 4, p. 47. 9. Ibid., Act I V , scene 2, p. 62. 10. P. Corneille, Horace, Act II, scene 6. (cf. P. Corneille, Œuires, p. } 0 9 . )

ed. Marty-Laveaux,

The Tragedies

19

through their lines and that Brutus was in grave danger of capture. Brutus then decided to make a last, heroic stand. In Act V of the play, the center of interest moved from the fortunes of Brutus and Porcia to young Octavius, who had come into Porcia's tent in search of Brutus. Porcia was brought in and begged for death, but he turned aside from her pleading with cruel retort: Allez vomir ailleurs le poison qui vous reste . . .u Maxi mus, who was soon captured, begged Octavius to show clemency and allow Porcia to commit suicide. Octavius finally consented on condition that Brutus implore it "soubmis aux pieds de son vainqueur." But Brutus had committed suicide, and Porcia found death by swallowing burning coals. The news of her death had a surprising effect on Octavius, who now uttered only words of sorrow and self-reproach. The accent of the play is on Porcia, the heroine, who clearly belongs to the Corneille type of character. Her strong will is her dominating trait. The powerful nature of her sentiments and actions, as well as her manner of suicide—although a more or less historical fact—is hardly the conduct of an ordinary person. She is, indeed, almost a worthy female counterpart of young Horace in her fierce love for Rome. Although her great love for Brutus was born of her recognition of the good that was in him, "ce dernier des Romains," she admits that her love for Rome is greater: Il est vrai, t'aime Brute avec toute l'ardeur Qu'une amitié constante exige d'un grand cœur: Mais avec quelque ardeur dont ïaime un si grand home, Si ie l'aime beaucoup, c'est un peu moins que Rome." Porcia was an historical figure, and Boyer may have turned to any one of a number of sources for the subject matter of his tragedy. Plutarch's Life of Brutus was an obvious source, for in this was told the story of the battle of Philippi and of the phantom that appeared to Brutus on the eve of the battle. Evil omens, which are emphasized in Plutarch, play a considerable part in La Porcia romaine, Appian gave much the same account of these happenings as Plutarch, so that Boyer may have used him also as a source. 13 Dio Cassius stressed the importance of the portents in his account of these events, and it is probable that Boyer had read him also. 14 Almost all of these writers dealt at length with Porcia's dramatic death, 11. La Porcie romaine, Act. V, scene 2, p. 88. 12. Ibid., Act II, scene 2, p. 25. 13. Appianus The Roman History ii, "The Civil W a r s , " Book iv, chap, xv, fl 110-112, 113, 114, 123, 128; chap, xvii, fl 130-131, 134-136. 14. Dio Cassius Roman History v, Book xlvii, chap. 38, Π 40, 48.

20

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

stressing the fortitude with which she swallowed the live coals. She did not die on the battlefield, where Boyer placed her, but Plutarch wrote that she "snatched burning embers f r o m the fire, and closing her mouth, so died. 1 5 Appian also told how Porcia, when she learned that both Brutus and Cassius had died, "seized some coals of the fire . . . and swallowed t h e m . " 1 6 Dio Cassius closed his tale of the outcome of the battle in which Brutus and Cassius were involved with the brief statement that "Porcia perished by swallowing a red-hot coal." 1 7 Her death attracted the attention of other ancient authors also. Polyaenus devoted an entire chapter to it, calling her death a "memorable instance of resolution and fortitude, and of conjugal affection." 1 8 Valerius Maximus, too, sang her praises as he told of her fortitude in meeting death. 1 9 Martial eloquently summed up the story that Boyer was to u n f o l d in his play : When Porcia had heard the fate of her husband, Brutus, And grief looked for weapons that had been withdrawn from her, She said: "Do you not know that death cannot be denied? 1 had believed that my father by his death had taught you this!" She spoke and with greedy mouth drank the glowing embers. . .

One other ancient work, Lucan's Pharsalia, a poem of the civil war that Julius Caesar waged wth the Roman Senate (49-46 B.C.), dealt with similar fortunes of war. Göhlert believes that Boyer took his material for La Porcie romaine principally from this Latin source. 21 It probably was an important source, although it was scarcely the principal one. There were many points in Boyer's tragedy which bore a close resemblance to Lucan's story. According to Lucan, Pompey had a vision the night before the battle and, just as Cassius, averse to battle, had been harangued by Brutus, so was Pompey urged to begin the battle by Cicero. Before the battle, in each case, portentous signs appeared. Lucan described the carnage that followed : He [Caesar] beholds rivers swollen with gore and he looks upon bodies equalling in heaps the lofty hills, and piles flattened down in corrupted gore, and he counts the people of Magnus Pompey; . . . And . . . he denies the fires of the pile of wretched slain, and exposes Emanthea" to a noisome atmosphere . . . whether putrefaction, or the pile destroys the carcasses, it matters not; . . . Thou to whom nations are paying the penalty of a death ungraced with burial. . . . Why dost thou desert the 15. Plutarchus Plutarch's Lives iv, "Life of Brutus," p. 453. 16. Appianus op. cit., Book iv, chap, xvii, fl 136, p. 384. 17. Dio Cassius op. cit. ν, Book xlvii, chap. 38, fl 49. 18. Polyaenus Polyanus's Strategems of War, Book viii, chap, xxxii, p. 338. 19. Valerius Maximus Œuvres completes, Book iv, chap, vi, fl 5. 20. Martial is Selected Epigrams, ed. Edwin Post, Book i. xliii. [The translation is mine.] 21. E. Göhlert, Abbé Claude Boyer, ein Rivale Racines, p. 15. 22. Macedonia. Pharsalus is a region of Macedonia. The district was anciently called Pharsalia.

The

Tragedies

21

carnage-smelling fields? . . . Caesar; inhale, if thou canst, this air. . . . Loathed, the greatest part of the Latían multitude lay, which the sun and the showers and the lapse of time, mingled, when decomposed, with the Emanthian earth." Boy er's Porcia gave a description of a scene not unlike that of Lucan: Icy tous les objets me causent mille horreurs. Ces restes malheureux d'une effroyable armée, Rome dedans ces lieux à demy consommée Ce tas de corps pourris, ces ossemens épars, Que nos derniers combats sèment de toutes pars; Ce théâtre fameux de nos guerres civiles, Ces champs par nos mal-heurs devenus plus fertiles, Ces lieux à peine secs du sang de nos parens . .

Two earlier plays on the subject of Porcia had appeared before Boyer wrote La Porcie romaine. They were Robert Garnier's Porcie (1568) and Guérin de Bouscal's La Mort de Brute et de Porcie, ou La Vengeance de la mort de César (1635 or 1636). It is obvious from a comparison of these plays that Boyer's tragedy owed not a little to them. Brutus did not appear in Garnier's plot, neither was Porcia subjected to capture and humiliation as she was in Boyer's play; nevertheless, Garnier, like Boyer, portrayed Porcia as essentially a proud woman who was shaken by a secret fear of impending events. When she heard of Cassius' death in Garnier's play, she called him "le dernier des Romains," 25 a title that Boyer's Porcia gave to Brutus. Garnier spared her a cruel interview with the inflexible and haughty Octavius, whom Aree in vain bade be lenient because "La clémence est l'honneur d'un prince débonnaire," 28 a sentiment that Boyer's Maximus echoed when he told Octavius : Le sort donne souvent Mais celuy de Clément

le titre de vainqueurs, est l'effet d'un grand cœur*

In Bouscal's play, as in Boyer's, the ever-faithful Porcia looked on while the leaders of the two factions were engaged in battle. When the Republican leaders were killed, she swallowed live coals and so died. Bouscal's heroine, in spite of 23. Lucanus The Pharsalia, Book vii, vv. 787-846, pp. 289-290. 24. La Porcie romaine, Act II, scene 4, p. 34. Professor Lancaster (A History of French Dramatic Literature in the Seventeenth Century, Part ΓΙ, II, p. 594) suggests that Boyer placed the battle at Pharsalia rather than at Philippi, where it really took place, so that his speech about decaying bodies could be made by the heroine. This may be so, but it must be pointed out that Lucan himself was guilty of committing the error of taking Philippi to be identical with Pharsalia. This is a mistake common to other Latin poets as well. Boyer may very well have fallen into the same error as they did. 25. R. Garnier, Œuvres complètes, Vol. I, "Porcie," Act IV, scene 1, p. 69; C. Boyer, La Porcie romaine, Act V, scene 2, p. 85. This is exactly what Brutus called Cassius at his death. Cf. Plutarch and Appian. 26. R. Garnier, op. cit., Act III, scene 2, p. 47. 27. La Porcie romaine, Act V, scene 4, p. 92.

22

The Works of Claude Bo y er

her long lamentations, did not attain the importance of Boyer's heroine because the interest of the play was not focused on her, as in Boyer's play, but rather upon the fortunes of the warring factions and the political discussions of their leaders. Just as patriotic as Boyer's Porcia, although not as fiery, she insisted in the earlier play that she would not leave the scene of combat ; in fact, she wanted to go into the battlefield and fight with sword in hand. The closing scenes of both plays were very much alike. Porcia's death was announced and described in both, and in both instances it had a striking effect on the character of Octavius. Guérin de Bouscal's Octavius, who had previously insisted that not enough blood had been shed, was visibly shaken by Porcia's death and, as a result, spared the lives of the conquered people in his hands. He was even glad that the war had come to an end. Boyer's Octavius, too, was greatly touched by her suicide and promised clemency to those in his power. Beside the above similarities with Bouscal's and Garnier's plays, Boyer did not hesitate to imitate some of Corneille's verses. Thus Augustus speaks of : Cette grandeur sans borne et cet illustre rang; Qui m'a jadis coûté tant de peine et de sang. Corneille, Cinna, Act II, scene 1 (cf. Œuvres, III, p. 402)

Octavius says: Que je hay ma fortune, et ce superbe rang Qui pour un peu de gloire a cousté tant de sang." Boyer, Act V, scene 5, p. 99.

But that is not all, for in the final softening of Octavius, the future Augustus, Boyer had him say: Après tant de rigueurs signale ma clémence. This remark would seem to presage his future clemency in much the same manner as Corneille had done in Cinna,29 In the original edition, moreover, the other title of Cinna was La Clémence d'Auguste. These are the outstanding ties between the two works. La Porcie romaine was a successful play, for according to the abbé Genest, it received "de grands applaudissemens,"30 a fact substantiated by Maupoint, who said that it attracted "tout Paris lors de ses premières représentations en 1646." 3 1 Godart de Beauchamps, another eighteenth-century critic, added to this information the statement that, by a strange fate, it was only this first play and Boyer's last play (Judith, 1695) that actually enjoyed any measure of success.32 ". 28. [ T h e italics are mine.] 29. Professor Lancaster (op. cit., Part II, II, p. 5 9 4 ) notes the similarity between the clemency themes in Corneille's and Boyer's plays. 30. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., X I I , p. 112. 31. Ibid., p. 257. 32. P.-F. Godart de Beauchamps, op. cit., II, pp. 230-231.

The Tragedies

23

Me flattant par avance du succèz de mon essay, je m'eslève à des plus grands desseins," Boyer wrote in his dedication, as he dreamed of a golden future as a tragedian. However, other critics of La Porcie romaine were not so generous. T h e Frères Parfaict ranked Boyer's play with the first productions of such writers as Mairet, Rotrou, and Scudéry, "par la versification, la conduite et le peu de bienséance dans le caractère des personnages." 3 3 The subject, they added, "est noyé . . . dans un déluge de vers empoulés, qui par conséquent ne disent rien en beaucoup de mots." 3 4 Even Rolland, who was one of Boyer's compatriots and admirers, felt obliged to admit that he thought La Porcie romaine had been given too generous a reception. H e could find nothing in it that revealed a "superior touch," for with with the exception of a few fine verses, "on se demande ce qui peut exciter de si nombreux applaudissements." 3 5 M. Fournel, in the Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France, gives from greater perspective what is perhaps the most significant and carefully weighed judgment of La Porcie romaine. He recognizes that Boyer had made an effort to make Porcia speak like a Cornelian heroine, but in this he had failed to a certain degree because he had placed in her mouth verses that were more bombastic than emphatic. "Quelques alexandrins," he adds, "d'un relief assez rigoureux se relient l'un à l'autre par des tirades molles et redondantes." 3 6 He thinks that the abbé Genest's Statement about the great success of Boyer's tragedy was somewhat exaggerated but agrees that it was a successful play. Its success is not to be entirely wondered at; for, as must be remembered, it was presented at a time when Corneille enjoyed great popularity. Porcia, Boyer's first heroine, is a fairly well-drawn character and is a worthy forerunner of the strong-willed women of his later plays. But she dominates the tragedy so completely that the other characters in it are overshadowed and consequently lose much of their significance as individuals. La Porcie romaine has the merit of moderate simplicity; but it suffers from the disadvantage of too much imitation. 37 B. ARISTODÉME ( 1 6 4 7 ) . Aristodème, one of Boyer's earlier dramatic triumphs, was a better play than either La Porcie romaine or Porus.38 It showed him becoming even more sure of himself, especially in dramatic technique. H e now showed greater ability to create suspense. This is apparent in the scene in which two girls awaited the an33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 595. 38.

Frères Parfaict, op. cit., VU, p. 11. Loc. cit. J. Rolland, Histoire littéraire de la ville d'Albi, p. 252. V. Fournel, Revue d'histoire littéraire de la France ( 1 8 9 4 ) , p. 239. For another discussion of this play, cf. H. C. Lancaster, op. cit., Part II, II, pp. 594· To be discussed later.

24

The

Works

of Claude

Boyer

swer to their fate following the revelations of the oracle. Aristodemus, saddened, did not immediately reveal the outcome of the lots. Alcidamas, a Messenian prince who was in love with one of the girls, and the king, who was in love with the other, did not know what the lots had determined when they joined the group, and so the sad news had to be broken to them also. W i t h such dramatic situations, Boyer, instead of telling the audience indirectly what had happened, made those who saw the play witness and endure the sufferings of his leading characters. He also made the most of the element of surprise, and henceforth one of his favorite devices was to arrange his situations to the satisfaction of most of the characters, only to throw in a bombshell and upset everything. So in Aristodéme,

the Spartan prince offered an almost complete solution by revealing his

identity and pledging peace and also security for Argia, Aristodemus" daughter and the beloved of Alcidamas. But at the crucial moment, Alcidamas lied, and the consequences were fatal for all, although unnecessarily so. Boyer had here a more sensible and a better plot than he had for Porus, but even so he introduced a melodramatic rather than a tragic element when he piled up deaths in an unnatural sequence at the end of the play. Only the death of the girl doomed by the oracle was obvious ; surely less reason existed for the murders and suicides of the others—certainly not in such hurried sequence. His play opened on the mountain Ithome, where the king of Messenia was lamenting the unhappy lot of his people. Aristodemus, a Messenian prince, felt that they were not unduly unfortunate, but the king, against his own better judgment, decided to make a last, desperate stand against the Lacedaemonians (or Spartans). Alcidamas related that the oracle bearer, the brave soldier Tisis, had been miraculously saved from death, although grievously wounded by the Spartans. A mysterious voice had suddenly ordered the Spartans to save this "porteur de l'Oracle," 3 9 and they obeyed it. Overjoyed at the news, the king proposed celebrating the rescue of the oracle bearer by marrying Merope, the sister of Alcidamas, who in turn wanted to marry Argia. The king joyfully gave his consent to this latter marriage. Everyone was happy except Cresphontes, the son of the Spartan king, who had come incognito among his enemies for love of Argia. In the meantime, Tisis, who was dying of his wound, was brought in to give the king the message of the oracle : Que Que Aux Pour

l'on iette le sort sur les Vierges d'Epyte l'une de ce sang immolée au Cocyte, lieux d'où le Haly précipite ses eaux, appaiser Androcle, et ses mânes funèbres, Sans regret et dans les ténèbres Tombe sous les sacrez cousteaux

39. Arijtodème, Act I, scene 2, p. 9. 40. Ibid., scene 3, p. 13.

The Tragedies

25

He then bade them execute the will of the gods lest woe befall the people of Messenia. Aristodemus at once realized that the oracle referred to his daughter, and Alcidamas revealed that his sister also was of the blood of yEpytus. Act II opened with Argia and Merope, each protesting her desire for death, waiting for the interpretation of the oracle. W h e n Merope pointed out that Alcidamas loved Argia dearly, Argia, with the resolution of a Cornelian heroine, replied : S'il plaignoit ma perte, il ne m'aimeroit pas; Et sa lâche pitié mêriteroit ma haine S'il ne pouuoit la vaincre en jaueur de Messene: . . . Si l'en suis la victime, il doit voir avec ioye Cet éclatant honneur que le Ciel nous enuoye; Et loin de l'effacer par de lâches soupirs loindre pour l'obtenir ses vœux à mes désirs." Aristodemus came in and finally revealed that the lot had fallen to Merope, who accepted her fate quietly. The resultant grief of Alcidamas and the king was short-lived, for, in Act III, it was suddenly announced that Merope was not a true member of the ytpytidae family. Her mother, the priestess Ismire, made this revelation when she found that her daughter's life was in danger. N o w the one to die, Argia was unmoved by the thought of death. She comforted her father. But Alcidamas, in his fierce love for her, even insisted that Merope was his sister. In Act IV, Cresphontes, the Spartan prince, had returned from the enemy's camp with an offer of peace. In fact, the war was one of vengeance which his father, the Lacedaemonian king, was waging because he thought that the Messenians had killed his son. Cresphontes had concealed his identity so that he could be near Argia, whom he loved. N o w he revealed himself and asked the king and Aristodemus for permission to marry her, which they gave. Alone with Cresphontes for a few minutes, Alcidamas announced that Argia was his wife, whereupon Cresphontes left. When, in Act V, the war was renewed, Cresphontes was attacked, but the Messenian king was killed, and the Spartans were victorious. Alcidamas confessed to Argia that he had told the Spartan prince that they had been secretly married, whereupon Argia went in anger to tell her father the truth. Alcidamas had also told Aristodemus the lie about the secret marriage. Confounded, Aristodemus had gone into the temple ; and, weeping bitterly, he was asking Jupiter for vengeance. Argia, trembling, entered while he was doing so ; but, interpreting her silence as an admission of guilt, Aristodemus grasped his sword and stabbed her. Before she died, she told her father that Alcidamas had lied to them. Half mad with grief and anguish, Aristodemus sought death in 41. Ibid.,

Act II, scene 1, p. 19.

26

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

combat with the enemy. Alcidamas stabbed himself to death in anguish over Argia and in grief at the news of the death of the king and of the suicide of Merope. 42 At the sight of this, Cresphontes prepared to seek death too. Boyer found the story for his Aristodème in Pausanias' Description of Greece,*3 in which the account of the friction between the Lacedaemonians and the Messenians was given in some detail. The Messenians had been forced to retreat to the mountains of Ithome and had sent a seer, Tisis, to Delphi to consult the oracle. On his return, Tisis was waylaid and wounded by the Lacedaemonians; however, he was allowed to go on his way when a mysterious voice was heard to say, "Let the bearer of the oracle go." A virgin selected by lot from the family of the ¿ïpytidae was to be sacrificed by night to the gods; if a member of this family could not be found, then any willing victim was to be offered in sacrifice. The lot fell upon Lyciscus' daughter, but she proved to be ineligible since her mother confessed that she was not really the daughter of Lyciscus. Then Aristodemus, who also belonged to the /Epytidae family, offered his daughter as a sacrifice to the gods, but a Messenian "whose name is not known" was about to marry her and lied, saying that she was pregnant by him. Her father killed her and cut her up in his fury, only to find that the story was not true. Dejected by his continued misfortune, Aristodemus cut his throat at the grave of his daughter. Diodorus Siculus, in his Excerpta Vaticana,44 also told the story of the plight of the Messenians and of how they sent to the Pythian lady at Delphi. Her answer was much the same as that reported by Pausanias. Boyer followed his sources fairly closely and showed but little originality in his treatment of them. Critics were a little more kindly in what they said about this tragedy of Boyer's. The Frères Parfaict, who made no favorable comment about his earlier works, grudgingly admitted that Aristodème was "un peu plus passable que les précédentes du même Auteur," but they added that it was "toujours remplie de Scènes inutiles, ou trop allongées, et d'une versification misérable." 45 It is true that Aristodème suffered from the weaknesses of melodrama and that it is not 42. Aristodème, Act V, scene 3, p. 83. This suicide takes place on the stage, the stage direction being: "Il se frappe." 43. Pausanias, Παυσανίον της 'Ελλάδος περιήγοις; cf. Description of Greece, Book iv, chap, ν, pp. 236-238; chap, ix, pp. 244-246; chap. xiii. 44. Diodorus Siculus, Excerpta Vaticana, Vol. III of Diodori Bibliotheca histórica ex recensione Ludovici Dindorfii. Since Boyer made use of Diodorus Siculus in his next play, Tyridate, it is reasonable to suppose that he knew his work when he was writing Aristodème. There is no doubt, however, that Pausanias was the chief source of his information, since the details he used in Aristodème resembled closely the information found in Pausanias. 45. Frères Parfaict, op. cit.. VII, p. 179.

The Tragedies

27

nearly as good as Boyer's far better work in Le Comte d'Essex; but, on the other hand, it was—as the Frères Parfaict said—a considerable improvement over Boyer's earlier plays.46 C. TYRIDATE ( 1 6 4 8 ) .

Boyer's next play, Tyridate, was scarcely more than a mediocre melodrama. The story itself will bear out this contention. The royal palace at Caesarea was the scene of action. When the play opens, we learn that Antichides, queen of Cappadocia, had encouraged her son Tyridates to fall in love with the Bithynian princess Berenice; but the king now wished their elder son, Ariarathes, to marry her on the morrow. Tyridates was profoundly distressed at this turn of events, but was amazed when his mother urged him to murder his brother. The queen explained to her confidante Arsinoë that Ariarathes was the child of Orontes, a Cappadocian lord, and his wife, and that she had become his "mother" when the king threatened to give her up because she was childless. Later she had given birth to Tyridates, but she now feared that the king would not believe her if she told him the truth. To secure her own son's rights, she was prepared to have Ariarathes murdered, but she was hampered by the constant vigilance of Orontes. In Act II, we find that Berenice, like Tyridates, was sorrowful. She had long accepted as inevitable her marriage to the king's elder son. But the queen tricked her by sending her a portrait of the supposed elder son and by having Tyridates come incognito to see her. At that time, she fell in love with Tyridates and gave him her pledge of faith. Now the weeping Tyridates begged her to hate him and to obey the king's orders. His weakness merely made her impatient. Meanwhile Ariarathes told the king of the deception to which he had been subjected, and turning to his brother he offered Berenice to him. The king, however, insisted upon her marriage to Ariarathes, as he feared wars with the Bithynian monarch. Driven to distraction at the failure of her pleas in behalf of Tyridates, the queen turned to Orontes for help, only to hear him sneer that Ariarathes was not his son. Tragic intensity heightens in Act III when the consequences of the queen's deception become apparent. While Ariarathes explained to Tyridates that he was in love with Euridice, the daughter of Orontes, and not with Berenice, Arsinoë betrayed the queen's secret to the king. Much bewildered, the king did not know whether or not Tyridates was his son, but he decided to test Orontes by telling him that a double wedding would take place. Tyridates was to marry Berenice, 4 6 . For another discussion of this play, cf. H . C. Lancaster, op. cit., 599.

Part II, I I , pp. 597-

28

The Works of Claude Boyer

and Ariarathes was to wed Euridice. Caught unawares before he could realize what he was saying, Orontes cried out : Ce n'est pas un hymen, c'est un crime

effroyable."

But he hastily covered u p what he had said, and only when he was alone was he willing to admit that he would accept incest to have his two children in so important a position: Ah! je vais le presser avecque tant d'ardeur, Que par là je prétend confirmer son erreur; S'il consent, bien loing que mon coeur en fremisse, Voyant avec mon fils couronner Euridice, Tout mon sang sur le trosne, un si rare bonheur De l'inceste à mes yeux effacera l'horreur,e Γη Act IV, Euridice, whose mother had warned her against marrying Ariarathes, was full of misgivings and so could not share his joy. A tragic turn of events comes in Act V when Arsinoë entered with the news that Ariarathes committed suicide upon learning of the futility of his love. Euridice was also dead. T h e king, stunned by the news, accused the queen of causing their son's death because of a mere suspicion, a charge which Orontes supported. Orontes was enraged when his dead wife's letter was produced in which the truth was told. T h e royal couple forgave him, but as the play ended he shouted that he had nothing left to live for. According to Boyer, the subject matter of his play appeared to be so new that people took it for pure invention on his part. But to disprove this, he furnished the passage f r o m Diodorus Siculus that had suggested the theme to him. It was a Latin translation of the Greek original and told the story of the marriage of Ariarathes 4 9 to Antichides, an exceptionally cunning woman. 5 0 Thinking she was not going to have children of her own, she pretended that Ariarathes and Holofernes were her own children and persuaded her husband to accept them as such. Later she had two daughters of her own and one son, Mithridates. Boyer explained that he used only one of the foster children and only one of the royal couple's own children in his plot. He changed the name of Mithridates to Tyridates, explaining that he was obliged to do this because his play might otherwise be confused with another play of that name, no doubt La Calprenède's La Mort de Mithridate, which had been produced some years previously. T h e suggestion was made by the Frères Parfaict that Boyer's Tyridate

was a

47. Tyridate, Act III, scene 5, p. 70. 48. Loc. cit. 49. In Boyer's play, Ariarathes is also the name of the king, but throughout he is referred to simply as the king, and Ariarathes is used for the supposed son. 50. Diodorus used the adjective "πανοΰργον" in describing her. This really means "ready to do anything," and it is true also of the queen in Tyridate.

29

The Tragedies

copy of Corneille s Héraclius (1646). 5 1 It is true that there were striking points of resemblance between the two plays. In each one a throne was at stake, and in each case the young men involved were unselfish and friendly so that the rival claims to the throne failed to break their friendship. They were more concerned with love than with ambition. 52 Boyer did not, however, introduce as much confusion over names as Corneille did in Héraclius, in which Martian was incorrectly known all his life as Léonce, and through the greater part of the play was mistaken for Héraclius, until he protested : . . . Jans le cours d'une seule journée Je suis Héraclius, Léonce et Martian; Je sors d'un emperor, d'un tribun, d'un

tyran."

Both plays were overshadowed by the danger of incest, but the characters of Boyer's play stepped much closer to it, for not only were brother and sister so deeply in love with each other that the revelation of their relationship to each other was a direct cause of their deaths, but also Orontes was quite willing to see it take place. Pulchérie and Héraclius, on the other hand, felt nothing more than admiration for each other, never love. Though Boyer's strong-willed queen of Cappadocia, in her determination to achieve her end, insisted throughout on Ariarathes' real paternity, it was the weight of evidence contained in a dead woman's letter that finally gave support to her claim. This is almost exactly what happened in Héraclius. Léontine's word should have been sufficient to prove that Héraclius was the genuine royal heir, but it was the letter of the dead empress that gave the corroborating evidence which established his identity at the end of the play. Thus it would appear that Boyer indeed had Héraclius in mind when he wrote Tyridate. Gros thinks that Boyer also had in mind Du Ryer's play, Bérénice (1645), 5 4 the story of a motherless family that left Sicily to escape a tyrant, only to become involved in the fortunes of the royal family of Crete. One of the girls of this family was really the daughter of the king of Crete. By a twist of fate, the king proposed that his son Tarsis, who was in reality a supposititious son, should marry her sister Amasie. But Amasie was the real sister of Tarsis. At the end of the tragi-comedy, a letter was produced that proved the identity of the girl in question. The great difference between Tyridate and Bérénice is that in the former, the spectators were aware of the true state of affairs almost from the beginning, while Du Ryer kept his audience in the dark until Act IV, scene 5, and did not tell the whole story until the end of the play. Moreover, in Boyer's play, incest was a very real danger, but in Bérénice there was little danger of it because 51. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., VII, p. 205. 52. This was almost identical with the complicated love situation in Corneille's earlier play, Rodogune (1644). 53. P. Corneille, Héraclius, Act V, scene 5 Cf. Œuvres, V, ρ 235. 54. E. Gros, Philippe Quinault, p. 287.

30

The Works of Claude Boyer

Amasie and Tarsis were not in love with each other, and there was very little likelihood that they would marry. The question of incest and the letters of the dead women supporting the stories of the substitution of children are the points that the two plays have in common. It is possible that Boyer was acquainted with Du Ryer's play, but it does not seem to have been very important as a source for Tyridate. In spite of the play's mediocrity, it marked an important advance over his earlier plays in that Orontes, the villain, was a well-sustained and at times a convincing, forceful character. He was represented as a strong, intriguing, vividly evil person, clever enough to carry his audacious deception through successfully until almost the end of the play. Orontes was the outstanding character in the play, since none of the others was especially important ; but even he was disappointing as Boyer failed to provide an appropriate fate for him at the end of the play. One senses a feeling of futility and of anticlimax when, at the request of the king, the queen merely forgives him for the wrong he has done. Here Boyer obviously missed an opportunity for a dramatic treatment of his villain. Tyridates was an ineffectual young man who was willing to fall in with his mother's schemes for his marriage. In spite of attractive and virtuous traits, he had no initiative and no fighting spirit—not even as much spirit as Ariarathes, who was nevertheless, like him, a straightforward young man. The queen, his mother, was an unhappy woman who was faced with a strange problem, for she had to scheme desperately hard to win for her one son his rightful station, which she herself had compromised. She had the strength of character to restrain herself when hurt by Orontes' biting remarks, and she endured the bitterness that followed the king's refusal to believe her when, with the fortitude of a tragic figure, she confessed to him that the heir-apparent was a foster child and not their own. In addition to improved, characterization, Tyridate

had an interesting, although

incredible plot. The intrigue-fostered love of Tyridates for the princess Berenice and their proposed wedding were followed by the revelation that the heir-apparent was a changeling. The solution of this delicate problem was constantly left hanging in mid-air because of Orontes' diabolical part in the whole affair. Tyridate

evidently enjoyed some measure of success, for, in the dedication,

Boyer mentioned "quelque favorable acceuil qu'il [Tyridate] a receu jusqu'icy, par tout où il a paru. . . . "

There must have been some good in it, for the

Frères Parfaict conceded that "En général, le sujet de cette Tragédie est beau, et imaginé avec hardiesse. . . . On peut la mettre au nombre de ces Copies, que M. Corneille dit qu'on fit de son Hêraclius,

belles55

aussitôt qu'il parut." 5 6

55. [The italics are mine ] 56. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., VII, p. 205. For another discussion of this play, cf. H. C. Lancaster, op. cit., Part II, II. pp. 599-601.

The Tragedies D. CLOTILDE

31

(1659).

Turning to French history for his next tragedy, Boyer found very good dramatic material in the story of Clotilde. The royal palace at Metz was the setting for Clotilde. Here at the court of Theodobert were the young and beautiful Clotilde and her widowed mother, Deuthere. T h e mother had just jilted the royal favorite, Clidament, in the hope of winning the affections of the king. But Theodobert was interested in the daughter rather than in the mother ; and, for her part, Clotilde was in love with Clidament, the jilted lover of her mother. Clidament, although much in love with Deuthere, had not been fooled by her ambition to win the king, and warned her not to overlook his influence with his royal master. As Act II opened, Deuthere felt that she could brave the favorite's vengeance, but she soon found that the king loved her daughter. In sheer despair at her helplessness, she cried out to her confidante: le meurs de jalousie et de haine, et d'amour. Tache sur tant d'horreurs à jetter quelque jour; Donne quelque remède à des maux si sensibles: Ordonne si tu veux, des efforts impossibles, Pour me tirer d'un gouffre où tout choix m'est fatal, Et souuiens-toy que rien n'est pire que mon mal." Clotilde assured her mother that she did not intend to marry the king, whereupon Deuthere suggested that she should marry Clidament. Clotilde agreed t o this, but when Clidament was informed of it, he was incredulous and turned on Deuthere in hatred. In Act III, Deuthere was visibly shaken and thought that perhaps her daughter had better marry the king after all. She informed the latter that she was ready to sacrifice her jealousy to his love and to give him her daughter. To complicate the situation yet further, Clodomire, the king's son, confessed his love for Clotilde. After a moment's hesitation, the king said he would renounce his love for her in favor of his son's. Meanwhile Deuthere decided that she had acted too hastily and that she should have offered her daughter to Clodomire rather than to the king. T h e king also had had time to reflect, and he regretted his offer to his son. Clotilde, however, refused to marry the king lest she should thereby betray her mother. As Act IV opened, Clodomire went in distress to Deuthere, who assured hirr that she still controlled her daughter's destiny and that he could marry her if he wished to do so. But when she informed Clotilde that the prince loved her, tht girl protested. Her mother explained simply: 57. Clotilde,

Act II, scene 2, p. 21.

The Works of Claude Boyer

32

. . . ie côsens qu'il espère, l'ay disposé de vous, ie puis encore le faire. Quad pour un choix si noble, on brise d'autres noeus, Le changement est juste, et n'a rien de honteux* Clotilde was unafraid of her mother, but Clodomire, w h o was present while they wrangled, was unable to do more than look to the mother for help. Painfully aware of his lack of spirit, Deuthere impatiently told him to hide his shameful despair and to carry off Clotilde. H e was too timid to do any such thing, and feebly insisted that Clotilde must marry him of her own accord. Angered, Clotilde retorted that she would seek the throne as a haven against his love. Like the other characters in the play who made hasty decisions only to regret them immediately afterwards, Clotilde was sorry for what she had done and turned to Clidament for guidance. But Clidament advised her to marry the king, whereupon she confessed that she really loved him, not the king. His flat refusal to marry her left Clotilde humiliated ; and, to add to her humiliation, her mother came to tell her that she had decided to let her daughter marry Clidament after all. Clotilde in despair asked for pardon, telling her mother that she now hardly knew what her duty was. In Act V, Deuthere decided to put her own ambitions first and determined to murder Clotilde; while Clodomire went about with drawn sword in search of Clidament, whom he blamed for his own misfortunes. T h e king was quickly sobered by this turn of events and realized at length that his passion had been very foolish. While he was speaking to his son, Clidament came in to announce the death of Deuthere, who had killed herself in remorse when she thought she had killed her daughter. In the presence of Clotilde, the king asked his son what he intended to do. In delicacy, he said that he would wait. Touched, Clotilde said : D'un si digne respect vous pouuez tout attendre Göhlert thinks that the story of Clotilde was pure invention on Boyer's part. 6 0 This was not so, for Gregory of Tours had told the story in his Histoire des Francs.61 According to Gregory, the Goths invaded the territory conquered by Clovis ; and Thierry, the king, sent his son, Théodebert, to regain the lost territories. Théodebert got as far as Béziers, where he fell in love with a beautiful widow, Deutérie, who subsequently became his mistress. A f t e r he returned home, he sent for her and married her. Deutérie had a daughter w h o was growing u p to adulthood ; and, fearing that she might become her rival for the king's love, Deutérie made the girl get into a cart yoked to wild oxen. The daughter was 58. 59. 60. 61.

Ibid., Act IV, scene 2, p. 56. Ibid., Act V, scene 9, p. 8 " . E. Göhlert, op. cit., p. 24. G r é g o i r e de T o u r s et Frédégaire, Histoire

dus Francs, I, Book II, fl 21-26.

The Tragedies

33

hurled f r o m the top of a bridge into a river, where she perished. In these incidents, Boyer f o u n d the material f r o m which he developed his tragedy. In Clotilde,

Göhlert sees the influence of Corneille's Rodogune.

Deuthere in Clotilde

and Cléopâtre in Rodogune

True, both

were ambitious w o m e n , but

apart f r o m that common trait, there is n o close similarity between the t w o plays. Boyer's D e u t h e r e was consumed by her ambition to become a q u e e n ; whereas Corneille's Cléopâtre was dominated by a rabid jealousy and hatred of R o d o g u n e . Any other connection between the two plays seems negligible. In the dedication to Clotilde,

Boyer said that people had liked his play, but the

Frères Parfaict took issue with h i m on this point, declaring that "le n o m b r e de ses [the play's] approbateurs a été très petit." 6 2 They conceded that, in spite of its lack of merit, Clotilde

had been given preference over several other plays and

had been presented at Bernay at a festival, given by the Comte de Lyonne, on May 18, 1659, in honor of the king. Loret, in La Muze historique

of May 24, 1659, reported t h e festival, a d d i n g :

Ensuite la Troupe Royale . . . La

CLOTILDE

représentèrent,

Que les Auditeurs admirèrent, Pièce digne d'un grand loyer, Dont est Auteur le Sieur Boyer, Qui, dit-on, d'une force extrême, A réussi dans ce Poème, Bref, qui fut lors en vérité, A merveille représenté Clotilde Véritables

was also referred to with approval by Somaize in his play, Prétieuses,

( I 6 6 O ) in which h e said ". . . Clotilde,

Les

où la boutade est

bien exprimée."® 4 Professor Lancaster thinks it is one of Boyer's most noteworthy productions in the 1660-167 2 period, and sees in the emphasis placed on feelings an indication that Boyer was a predecessor of Racine. 6 5 In stressing the emotional aspect of his play, Boyer f o r the first time struck a note that appealed to h i m and that he could play well. It pointed in the direction of Racine rather t h a n in that of Corneille, whose work influenced h i m considerably in the earlier years of his dramatic career. But Boyer had not yet learned the important lesson of simplicity in plot construction. 6 6 Unfortunately, he spoiled his play by introducing too many complications into the plot, thereby preventing his audience f r o m following uninterruptedly the fortunes of the beautiful Clotilde, who became a tragic pawn rather 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Frères P a r f a i c t , op. cit., V I I I , J . Loret, La Muze historique, A . B a u d e a u de Somaize, Les H . C. Lancaster, op. cil., P a r t For a n o t h e r discussion of t h i s

p . 266. M a y 24, 1659, III, p. 57. Véritables Prélieuses, p. 29. III, II, p . 860. play, cf. ibid., p p . 4 4 7 - 4 4 9 .

34

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

than the central figure in a series of complicated love intrigues. Her unscrupulous, ambitious mother had jilted the royal favorite to marry the king, whose thoughts were not on the mother. Finding that she was not going to win the king for herself, the mother, in the space of one day, offered her daughter in marriage to the king, to the jilted and passionate royal favorite, and to the king's son. Boyer's besetting sin of turning a plausible situation into an incredible one, once again led him into melodrama rather than into tragedy. In Clotilde, Boyer maintained his improvement in character delineation. Deuthere, the mother, is a well-drawn character whom we can dislike heartily. She was haughty, ambitious, and so unscrupulous that she was even willing to kill her daughter, and throughout the play she was consumed by her ambition. Clotilde was scarcely more than a nonentity, while Clidament, the king's favorite and the jilted lover, is reminiscent of Porus ; 67 for he, like Porus, was completely dominated by his emotions. Clidament was consumed with hatred and a thirst for vengeance, and was thoroughly angry whenever he appeared on the stage. He loved the mother, but he was not sorry to see her dead. The vacillating king, his son, and Clotilde were all in love with an unobtainable someone. As a result, almost all the characters were the playthings of their passions; while the mother and the king's favorite stood out among them as clear-cut and striking individuals. E. LA MORT DEMETRIUS OU LE R É T A B L I S S E M E N T D'ALEXANDRE D EPIRE

(1660).

Boyer went back to Greek history for the plot of his next tragedy, La Mort

Démétrius ou Le Rétablissement In La Mort de Démétrius,

d'Alexandre

de

d'Epire.

Boyer took his audience to Epirus to witness the

unfolding of the ill-fated destiny of king Demetrius. After the death of Pyrrhus, Artaban had seized the throne and was bent on putting Alexander, the rightful heir, to death. But to save Alexander, who was his childhood friend, and to limit his suffering to exile, Demetrius had married Arsinoë, the daughter of the tyrant Artaban, and became the puppet king under the orders of his father-inlaw. When Artaban died, Demetrius wanted to return the throne to its rightful occupant, Alexander. He also wished to get rid of Arsinoë, whom he disliked intensely, in order to marry Ismenie, a princess of Epirus, with whom he was in love. In Act I, Milon, the royal favorite and villain of the play, reported to Demetrius that Alexander was on his way back. The king wished to atone for Artaban's crimes, but he also revealed to Milon that he loved Ismenie. Ismenie, on the other hand, was unhappy when she learned that Alexander was coming back, for she loved him and she feared the hostility of the queen Arsinoë and 67. Cf. Porus,

infra,

p. 9 9 .

The Tragedies

35

Milon. She feared also Demetrius, and his dreadful ultimatum. He left it to her to decide upon the fate of Alexander, but if he was to be made king, she must become the wife o f Demetrius. Milon, in Act II, revealed that he was more interested in Demetrius' love for Ismenie than he had shown. Because he himself loved her so much, he was ready to kill her if he could not have her. He reasoned that Alexander and Demetrius, rivals for her love, would destroy each other. In that case, he could become king, and to that end he aroused violent fury in the queen. When Alexander arrived, Demetrius welcomed him and offered him the throne. Alexander asked his generous friend to keep the throne; but in the end, Demetrius offered him Ismenie as well, asking only that they shed tears at his

forthcoming

death.

When

the somewhat

confused

Alexander

told

Ismenie what had happened, she replied : Malgré tout mon amour te vous cède à l'Empire. Par cet effort mortel que te fais sur mon cœur, honneur; Pour payer vostre amy sans trahir vostre Par ces larmes qu'arrache un si grand sacrifice; Par cet amy si cher et si plein d'injustice, Escoutés un deuoir de vostre rang jaloux: Cédez rostre lsménie, elle dépend de vous." Moved by her eloquence, Alexander decided to go back into exile; and at once she decided to join him. As Act III opens, it is clear that they had counted without Milon, who sowed seeds o f dissension by telling Demetrius that Alexander had not accepted his good faith: Mon Riual, disoit-il, quite tout; I'apparance! Quelque piège est tendu sous de si beaux appas, pas." Fuyons, fuyons, Princesse et ne l'attendons Demetrius was stung to the quick. In a fury, he told Arsinoë that he loved Ismenie and intended to make her his queen. With the rage of a woman scorned, Arsinoë threatened vengeance. She told Milon that she loved Demetrius and begged him to help her. She offered him the crown in return for her husband's death. Milon pledged his help, for with Arsinoë as an ally, his plans had greater chance of success. Meanwhile, in Act I V , Alexander spoke with bitterness when told that he was under arrest; for his flight had, as a matter of fact, been prompted by his friendship for the king. Ismenie came in with a letter from Demetrius, which she showed him: Princesse, si vos loix m'ordonnent de périr, Il faut que mon Riual partage ma fortune; 68. La Mort de Demetrius, Act II, scene 4, pp. 28-29. 69. Ibid.. Act III, scene 2, pp. 35-36.

36

The Works of Claude

Boyer

Que nous tombions tous deux d'un chûte Ou que vostre pitié songe à me secourir.™

commune,

Alexander understood that Demetrius' conduct was a tyranny dictated by love. At length Alexander decided to fight for Ismenie, who told him to bide his time and to have faith in her. When Arsinoë offered to help Alexander, she was told that he would bring about her husband's death by war, not by murder. At that moment, Demetrius came in and Alexander warned him indirectly that Arsinoë meant to harm him. Left to themselves, Arsinoë and Milon readily admitted that they could not break the friendship of the two men. It was therefore necessary to get rid of Demetrius, and Arsinoë assented to whatever Milon should propose in that connection. At the beginning of Act V, Milon reported that Demetrius had met his death at the hands of Ismenie, adding that a criminal was in league with her. He ordered the guards to pursue this miscreant, but disclosed to the captain of the guards that he himself had killed Demetrius—with an instrument belonging to Alexander. Milon listened to Arsinoë's reproaches, but he turned from her to Ismenie whom he was ready to make his queen, in spite of the fact that she was suspected of being the murderess. Warned that the people were on Alexander's side, Milon refused to give up either the throne or Ismenie so easily; but he had reckoned without the queen, who now repented her part in the death of Demetrius. Melodramatically, she opened the palace doors and told the people outside to take vengeance on Milon. "Ce poignard la commence," 71 she said, and with these words, she killed herself. Milon was mortally wounded in the fighting that ensued, but Alexander gained the upper hand. The play closed happily for Alexander and Ismenie, who were reunited. Justin was the chief source for La Mort de Démétrius.72 In this work, Boyer found the story of Alexander king of Epirus, and his attempt to avenge the death of his father, Pyrrhus, while Antiginus was away at war. Alexander ravaged the Macedonian frontiers, and Antiginus returned to fight him. However, Antiginus' men went over to Alexander, so that the former lost both his army and Macedonia. His son, Demetrius, gathered together an army and with it recovered Macedonia and also drove Alexander from the throne of Epirus. Later Alexander was restored to the throne, and after telling how this came about, Justin added some gossip about Arsinoë, the wife of Magas, king of Cyrene and a contemporary of Alexander's. No doubt Boyer took the name Arsinoë, which he used for one of his characters, from this source. As Professor Lancaster points out, there is evidence in the play to indicate that 70. Ibid., Act IV, scene } , p. 52. 71. Ibid., Act V, scene 8, p. 80. 72. Justin, The History of the World,

Book xxvi, chaps, ii and iii.

The Tragedies

37

73

Boyer was imitating Corneille. In Le Cid, the following lines are closely paralleled by lines in Boyer's play: Don Rodrigue:

Milin:

Tout autre que mon père L'éprouveroit sur l'heure. Don Diègue: Agréable colère! Le Cid, Act I, scene 5.

Agréable colère! A ces marques en vous ie connois vostre père.' 4 La Mort de Démétrius, Act III, scene 6, p. 43.

He notes also that in Rodogune ( 1 6 4 4 ) , the brothers Seleucus and Antiochus offered the throne to each other in a spirit of generosity and sincerity ; while in La Mort de Démétrius, the two friends, Demetrius and Alexander, did exactly the same thing. In each play, the two men were in love with the same woman. All these points taken together would indicate a following of Corneille on Boyer's part rather than merely coincidental resemblances. 75 Loret said that La Mort de Démétrius was performed at the Hôtel de Bourgogne on February 28, 1660, and he praised both the author and the performance: . . . depuis huit jours. Dans l'Hôtel de Bourgogne on joue Un sujet que la Troupe avoue, Un des forts & des mieux traités, Qu'on ait vû, depuis dix étés. Boyer, habile personnage, Est l'Auteur de ce grand Ouvrage, Intitulé,

DE'ME'TRIUS,

Et qui tient le superius Entre plusieurs Pièces nouvelles, Si l'on en croit bien des cervelles.'* T h e Frères Parfaict, w h o relished any opportunity they could find to make disparaging remarks about Boyer, took u p the word "superius," and remarked that their outline of the play would show how little "superius" the tragedy was "sur les autres Pièces nouvelles." 7 7 73. H . C. Lancaster, op. cit., Part III, II, p. 450. 74. Professor Lancaster has noted this parallelism. T h e italics however, are mine. 75. Professor Lancaster also draws attention to the fact that in both Corneille's and Boyer's plays, political maxims are included. This may indicate a tendency on the part of both writers to follow a practice of introducing political and moral maxims (cf. Hamlet, in which Shakespeare, following the popular fashion set by Montaigne, Lyly and others, put many such maxims into the mouths of Polonius and Claudius ; e.g., Hamlet, Craig and Parrot ed., pp. 88-89, 184-185) that was especially popular in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and even eighteenth centuries. It may not necessarily indicate that Boyer was here imitating Corneille. Cf. H . C. Lancaster, op. cit., Part III, II, p. 450, footnote 5. 76. J. Loret, op. cit.. I l l , p. 172. 77. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., V I I I , p. 369. For another discussion of this play, cf. H. C. Lancaster, op. cit., Part III, II, pp. 449-450.

38

The Works of Claude

Boyer

Not since his first play had he attained as much simplicity and unity of action as he did in this one. He observed the unities here in the best classical manner. In fact, this play was in sharp contrast to Clotilde, which was marred by the seemingly endless ramifications of plot. Here there were three men who were all in love with the same woman, Ismenie, without further complications. Jealousy and politics played a part in the plot as it unfolded, and once again Boyer introduced a king's favorite, a type of character he seemed to like to use. He also employed a technique that he was to use on other occasions with dramatic effect. It consisted of presenting the heroine with a sort of ultimatum or a situation in which she was obliged to make up her mind as to her course of action and to take the consequences of her decision. Improvement in characterization was maintained in La Mort de Démétrius. From the beginning, Boyer seemed anxious to whitewash the character of Demetrius and to win sympathy for him. Inspired by altruistic sentiments, Demetrius sacrificed both reputation and happiness in becoming the son-in-law of a murderous tyrant. It was true that he confronted Ismenie with an ignominious ultimatum; but the sight of his friend, Alexander, made him feel remorse for what he had done; and, to atone for it, he was willing to give up his all to Alexander. Boyer made him an emotional man, capable of great things and gestures of extreme generosity, but basically weak. Arsinoë, his wife, knew that he did not love her, but because she loved him she made no move until she discovered that another woman was to be made queen in her stead. She was hardly the conventional, cold character that Gros thinks she was.78 On the contrary, she was cowed at first by her fault-finding husband, but she was roused to violence of emotion and language when she realized that her downfall was imminent. Alexander was one of the few virtuous characters in the play, but he lacked the fire necessary to make him an outstanding individual. F. OROPASTE OU LE FAUX TONAXARE

(1662).

The royal palace at Susa, Persia, was the setting for the daring and intrigue of Boyer's Oropaste. As the play opens, we learn that, although he had been king for six months, Tonaxaris showed little interest in his former friends. This fact troubled the Persian prince Darius considerably, for Darius had been promised the king's sister, Hesione, in marriage. Zopire, another prince, returned to Persia with the story of a troublesome dream of Cambyses in which Tonaxaris, Cambyses' brother, usurped the throne and was crowned king. Cambyses thereupon decided that Prexaspes and Patisite were to put Tonaxaris to death. However, their report that they had carried out Cambyses' instructions was quickly followed by news of Tonaxaris' coronation. Prexaspes assured Cam78. E. Gros, Philippe Quinauh. p. -185.

The

Tragedies

39

byses that they had killed his brother, but that Oropastes, who closely resembled Tonaxaris, had taken the throne. Megabise, who heard the whole story, vowed that he would avenge the prince's death if it proved true that his sons, Patisite and Oropastes, had played the part Prexaspes said they had. But to add to the confusion, Prexaspes later said that the story he had told the late king was false. W h e n he heard all this, Darius felt that he understood the monarch's coldness. Hesione suggested that they should all try to find out what had really happened but that they should do this without Megabise's knowledge. Oropaste nearly betrayed all when, forgetting that Hesione was supposed to be his sister, he declared that: Ce que te sens pour vous de tendresse et de zèle, Me peut rendre à l'Empire, à moy-même infidelle; Et quand te vous fais voir des transports si puissans, le ne dis pas encor tout le feu que te sens.™ But seeing that Hesione's suspicions were aroused, he hastily apologized that he had almost lost sight of the fact that she was his sister. In Act II, Zopire told Megabise falsely that all was well. T h e latter was saddened when he realized that this meant that his son was dead. Later, when the king arrived, Zopire blurted out his misgivings to him. Patisite, who was present, gave away his secret when he murmured: " J e puis reprendre haleine," 8 0 Zopire did not hear this remark, but he was sure that a great hoax had been perpetrated. Left to themselves, Patisite addressed Oropastes as his brother and suggested doing away with Zopire. T h e king hesitated to do this, but said that he could marry Hesione as his sister, a precedent set by Cambyses. Not only so, he felt that he could truly be king, and so he instructed his brother: Accoutume tes yeux à tromper ta raison, Et tâche d'oublier ma naissance et mon nom. Plein de ce sentiment qui me cache à moy-méme, Enflé de tout l'orgueil qu'inspire un Diadème, Seul ie m'oppose aux traits des Homes et des Dieux. Plus Roy, que iama'ts Roy ne parut à leurs yeux, Qui m'osera traiter d'imposteur et de traistre, Ou s'il l'ose penser me le faire paraistre, Voyant tout Tonaxare à mon front, à ma voix. Et voyant dans ma main la foudre de nos Roys.·" In Act III, Megabise quickly found out the truth. W h i l e glad that his son was alive, he threatened to kill Patisite because he was a murderer. T h e king 79. Oropaste,

Act I, scene 4, p. 18.

80. Ibid., Act II, scene 4, p. 31. 81. ibid.,

Act II, scene 5, pp. 37-38.

40

The Works of Claude

Boyer

denied his identity and promptly upbraided Patisite for the story he had told. However, after a while he also acknowledged the truth. Megabise found it hard to excuse his audacity, but he told Oropastes to continue as king. Oropastes' only source of concern now was Prexaspes, who knew everything and was showing signs of remorse. He therefore had him arrested. Meeting Hesione, Oropastes could hardly restrain his love for her. She warned him against incest, but he pointed to the example of Cambyses in extenuation. With Act IV, we find Megabise and Patisite talking over the king's desire to marry Hesione. The father thought that in imitating an example of a Persian king, Oropastes would be less open to suspicion as an imposter. But Patisite was anxious about Darius. Megabise advised having him arrested. But Oropastes' troubles were not over. The cast-off Araminthe demanded an explanation. His marriage to Hesione, he said, was for the good of the state. Araminthe told him the names of the Persians who had sworn to kill him. In alarm, he turned to Hesione in an impassioned appeal for advice, but she asserted : l'aimerois ce beau jeu de tout autre qu'un Frère; Changez, changez de nom, si vous me voulez plaire. Fussiez-vous Oropaste, à la place du Roy, le croirois cette ardeur moins honteuse pour moy.a

Too shrewd to fall into her trap, Oropastes decided to keep up the deception, and he did this so well that at last she was completely convinced. Act V began with the startling information of Hesione's confidante that guards of the king, led by Patisite, had attempted to murder Darius. Megabise followed with the information that a conspiracy against the king had been discovered. In the resulting confusion, Oropastes was cornered and yielded Patisite to her to dispose of as she might wish. Smarting, Patisite called the king, his brother, a coward and an imposter, but his vehemence made Hesione determine to marry Oropastes. While Patisite was fighting to save his life, Hesione was startled when her confidante came to tell that Prexaspes had confirmed her brother's death. Prexaspes had plunged to his death from the palace tower after telling the populace to avenge their king's death. Zopire entered with the further startling news that Oropastes had been assassinated. Dying, Oropastes told Hesione: Innocent du trépas d'un Prince légitime, Le Sort et ma vertu m'ont fait regner sans crime, Et par un titre encor et plus juste, et plus doux, l'ay régné pour me rendre un peu digne de vous. Adieu, Madame, adieu, ie sens que ma joiblesse Me va jaire expirer aux yeux de ma Princesse; 82.

Ibid.,

Act IV, scene 4, p. 64.

The Tragedies

41

Emporte-moy, de grace, épargne à ces beaux yeux De ce sanglant trépas le spectacle odieux* Touched, Hesione replied: Tout imposteur qu'il est, ¡'en ay l'âme attendrie and thereupon promised herself to Darius. In a paragraph addressed to the reader, Boyer explained that the name Tonaxaris, which he had used in the play, was not an invented one. In explaining that the brother of Cambyses had been called Mergis by Justin, Smerdis by Herodotus, and Tonaxaris by Xenophon, he gave the sources on which he had drawn for his tragedy. Herodotus was the authority he followed most closely. H e not only followed Herodotus' conception of the chain of events, but also made use of the detail of Cambyses' incestuous marriage to his sister and Prexaspes' address to the people from a height and his avowal of the truth before hurling himself to his death. Herodotus told of Cambyses' vision in his sleep, when he imagined that a messenger had arrived f r o m Persia to tell him that his brother Smerdis was seated on the throne. Cambyses thereupon sent Prexaspes to kill Smerdis. Soon afterwards Cambyses married his sister; then, before leaving Persia, he left a Mede in charge as palace steward. Learning of the death of Smerdis, which had been kept secret, the steward put his own brother, also named Smerdis, who bore a striking resemblance to the dead man, on the throne. He sent heralds abroad to tell the Persians that henceforth they were to obey Smerdis and not Cambyses. W h e n Cambyses heard this, he thought he had been betrayed; however, Prexaspes assured him that he had killed Smerdis and had buried him as well. Realizing that this was the Smerdis of his vision, Cambyses resolved to march against the usurper. Unfortunately he was mortally hurt while on the way to carry out his mission, and, gathering around him the principal Persians in his company, he told them everything before he died. But the Persians did not believe his story, and they were impressed by Prexaspes' vehement denial of the crime. Thus the impostor ruled in safety for seven months. Otans, however, had suspected the truth; and he asked his daughter, who once had been Cambyses' wife, to find out what she could. She discovered that the Smerdis on the throne was an impostor. Then Otanes summoned some of the leading Persians, including Darius, to tell them the truth. Meanwhile the two Medes persuaded Prexaspes to ascend a tower and harangue the Persians to assure them that they were being governed by Smerdis, son of Cyrus. H e agreed to do so, but when he reached the top of the turret, he told the crowd the truth and then hurled himself headlong to his death. The Persians, led by Otanes, made their way into the palace and slew the palace steward and his impostor brother. 84 83. Ibid., Act V, scene 8, p. 92. 84. Herodotus, Herodotus, Book ii, fl 30, 61-70, 74-75, 78, pp. 183-184, 196-202, 203205.

The Works of Claude

42

Boyer

Justin told much the same story, but he gave some details that Herodotus did not include. 85 He said that Prexaspes' brother was called Oropastes, who was able to keep the imposture secret because among the Persians the king was hidden from public view. Otanes' daughter had little trouble in finding out the truth because Cambyses had cut off Oropastes' ears. When she reported that the king had no ears, Otanes gave this information to other Persian noblemen, including Darius. They then killed the impostor. Xenophon, in his

Cyropadia,M

simply named the brother of Cambyses and the second son of Cyrus as Tanaoxares, and told of his father making him the satrap of the Medes, Armenians, and Cadusians. Göhlert and Gros both refer to a play of Quinault's that resembled Oro paste closely in title and plot. 87 This was Agrippa,

roi d'Albe

ou Le Faux

Tiberius.

In this play, Albine and Lavinie were much distressed at the news of the death of Agrippa. But Agrippa was not dead ; the real king, to whom he bore striking resemblance, was dead. Agrippa's father had suggested the substitution, and all witnesses of the drowning of the real king were dead. The only threat to the security of the impostor Agrippa came from the fact that he loved Lavinie, and not Albine (who was his sister), as the real king had done. Albine was filled with jealousy and thoughts of vengeance when she found that he loved Lavinie. At the end, however, the throne belonged to Lavinie, who offered to marry him and make him king once more. According to Gros, the plays by Quinault and Boyer were published only a few days apart, and the privilèges for both plays bore the same date, January 14, I663. 88 These facts would seem to indicate haste on the part of both authors to publish their works, and Gros is inclined to believe that it was another instance of "concurrence," only this time it was Boyer who composed his work in a hurry to compete with Quinault's Agrippa.89

Professor Lancaster thinks that Quinault was probably the one who

did the borrowing, because he had already done so with other authors and because in this instance Boyer had kept pretty well to historical facts. 90 In the dedication to the Due d'Epernon, Boyer asserted that his play was successful. According to the Registre of La Grange, Oro paste was presented fifteen 8 5 . J u s t i n , op. cit., B o o k i, chap, ix, x, pp. 1 2 - 1 4 . 8 6 . X e n o p h o n Cyroptedia, B o o k viii, xi, p. 2 7 7 . 8 7 . E . G ö h l e r t , op. cit., p. 3 0 ; E. Gros, op. cit., p. 6 5 . 8 8 . " L ' a c h e v é d'imprimer" f o r Agrippa was January 2 5 , 1 6 6 } , and for Oropaste, uary 27, 1 6 6 3 .

Jan-

8 9 . For this "concurrence," Oropaste must have been shown while the other play was still being acted. From La Grange's Registre, we know that Oropaste was played by M o l i è r e ' s troupe on November 17, 1662. Gros felt that, in view of the date of the privilège for Agrippa and of Quinault's habits, this play must have been acted first in O c t o b e r or November, 1 6 6 2 . H e pointed out, moreover, that on the same day, December 31, 1662, Loret referred to plays by both Boyer and Quinault. 9 0 . H . C. Lancaster, op. cit., Part III, II, p. 4 5 2 .

The

Tragedies

43

times by Molière's troupe. Long series of performances were rare in the seventeenth century. Mélèse, in his work, Le Théâtre et le Public à Paris sous Louis XIV, lists the following as remarkable successes: the 44 consecutive performances of the Précieuses in 1659, 27 of Sganarelle in 1660, 23 of Attila in 1667. 91 In view of this, it would seem that Oro paste attained a certain measure of success. Moreover, La Grange added that: ". . . la Troupe a donné à Mons r Boyer cent demy Louis d'or dans une bourse brodée d'or et d'argent, pour sa pièce de Tonnaxare." 92 Despois, however, calls the play a "chute;" and, commenting on the money that the troupe had given Boyer, he says: "C'est beaucoup après un échec, dont Boyer même, . . . convient dans la préface." 93 And in almost the same sentence, Despois recognizes Oro paste as a "chef d'œuvre I" 94 The Frères Parfaict, as usual, were not impressed with the play. They felt that it did not deserve success because the interest of the work was centered on Oropastes, whom they regarded as an odious person. 95 As a matter of fact, Oropaste did show considerable psychological insight into character, but otherwise was not as good a play as La Mort de Démétrius. Once again, Boyer showed his technical skill, but Oropaste failed to reach excellence because its plot included too many incidents and too much detail. Boyer prepared carefully for the entry of his main character, the imposter Oropastes, who entered into his rôle so well that he had ceased to think of himself as an impostor. He did not appear until the fourth scene of the first act. In the same way, he led up to the development of his plot and made good use of suspense. Cambyses' unhappy dream came first; and, when the audience had had time to take in its implications, he brought on the king, whose ardor for Hesione only added to the tension. Then the craven Patisite murmered, when he thought all was safe: "le puis reprendre haleine," 06 and the audience knew that all was far from well. Oropastes, as we have seen, was presented as a man who was virtually caught in the meshes of a dangerous intrigue, coaxed into accepting the Persian crown ; but, having assumed the role of monarch, he acted the part so 91. P. Mélèse, op. cit., p . 282, f o o t n o t e 1. 92. La Grange, op. cit., p . 50. 93. E. Despois, Le Théâtre français sous Louis XIV, p. 35. H o w e v e r , it is not necessary to interpret Boyer's remarks, as D e s p o i s does, as a confession that his play w a s a " f l o p . " Boyer's opening sentence in his dedication was, "Le Faux T o n a x a r e s'estoit d o n n é à Vous, a u a n t qu'il eut droit d'aspirer à cet h o n n e u r , par l'approbation p u b l i q u e ; La F o r t u n e s'est enfin déclarée p o u r luy, après a u o i r esté balancée par le m a l h e u r d u Siècle, qui tombe insensiblement dans le dégoust des Pièces sérieuses." H e admitted that it had had a hard time establishing itself in public favor because at that time the public did not like serious works. 94. 95. H . C. 96.

Some may, of course, choose to interpret this expression as a sarcastic one. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., I X , pp. 158-162. For another discussion of this play, cf. Lancaster, op. at., Part III, II, pp. 451-455. Oropaste, Act Π, scene 4, p. 31.

44

The Works of Claude Boyer

well that he was able to win a character such as Hesione over to his side, in spite of her doubts. Hesione was a sober, level-headed girl who refused to take anything for granted. She led Oropastes on only to trap him when he thought he was charmingly convincing. She was ruled, or at least she tried to be ruled, by her mind only, and throughout the play she cast her emotions aside. Unlike Araminthe who, blinded by a faithful love, tried to follow her heart alone in her attempt to ascertain the true identity of the monarch, Hesione chose the path of sober reason. Once again, Boyer made use of the "bombshell" technique. Everything was going along smoothly for Oropastes, and he seemed to be reasonably sure of himself, when Prexaspes, one of the two men commissioned by Cambyses to kill his brother, Tonaxaris, suffered a most inopportune fit o f remorse and confessed the part he had played. G. LE I E U N E MARIUS

(1669).

T h e setting of Le leune Marius was at Prseneste. Marius, who won the governor of Praeneste over to his side, had attacked Sulla but had almost fallen into his hands. In Act I, we learn that Sulla's forces besieged those of Marius, but the latter was able to turn to advantage an attack being made on Rome by Telesinus, chief of the Samnites. Marius did not enlist Telesinus' aid, but took advantage of the fact that Sulla's daughter, Cecilie, had fallen into his hands. Her father offered large sums of money for her return, but Marius refused to give her up. She was not ill-disposed towards her captor, but admitted that she had lost her heart to Pompey, "un Héros achevé." Then word was brought to her that Marius had miraculously effected a brilliant victory and that he had saved her father's life. As Act II opened, Marius and Sulla were to make peace, and Marius demanded Cecilie's hand as the price for the cessation of hostilities. Sulla was ready to meet his terms, but Cecilie confessed to Marius that she loved someone else. Thereupon Marius rashly bade his friend Maxime go to Sulla with terms so sweeping that they meant virtual surrender of himself and his forces to the foe. Cecilie, frightened, begged him not to do this because her father would think that she did not want to obey. As the tragedy reached its climax in Act III, Sulla came on the scene. He gave Cecilie to Marius and promised that the wedding would take place when Rome was freed. But he had to constrain his hate and anger, for he had destined Cecilie for Pompey. Cecilie's avowal that she loved Pompey led to a dramatic outburst on Sulla's part, but he told her to conquer her emotions as he himself was doing. T h e arrival of a triumphant Pompey freed Sulla from his word to Marius, but left Cecilie in a quandary. She had always kept her love for Pompey secre'

45

The Tragedies

and had been cool and proud in her behavior towards him. Now she pitied Marius, but in this her father gave her scant sympathy: . . . n'aime, ne hay, n'espère Qu'autant qu'à ma grandeur il sera

nécessaire

Sulla's mask fell completely when he allowed his hatred of Marius and his humiliation to gain the upper hand. He believed that he could save his reputation, become dictator of Rome, and then marry his daughter to Pompey who would want to become a member of his family. Pompey, as Act IV opened, was resentful because Marius had the real prize. He would not accept Cecilie at the cost of betraying an illustrious Roman. He was happy for a moment when Cecilie explained that she had really loved him in spite of her mask of coldness, but he then recalled that Sulla and Cecilie both owed their lives to Marius. Not wanting to have Marius die with reproaches of ingratitude for them on his lips, Pompey decided to forget Cecilie in the interests of everyone. Sulla thought that Pompey had scorned his daughter, and consequently he became furious when Cecilie assured him that Pompey's conduct was dictated by a generous interest in Marius. In a frenzy, Sulla declared that she must marry either Marius or Pompey and that the one she did not choose must perish. He exulted in having found a way of removing an enemy while at the same time not subjecting himself to blame for Marius' death. In Act V, Cecilie was in great distress for she could not forget that it was Marius who had once saved her life and had treated her with dignity while she was his captive. Marius came to tell her to abandon him to the gods, but she hesitated, and for that he was grateful. About to choose Marius, Cecilie was confronted by Pompey who assured her that his glory and virtue would be triumphant, while at the same time he warned her to beware of Sulla, who might do some harm to Marius. When Sulla came in, she told him that she had chosen Marius. But Sulla hated Marius and was astonished at his daughter's decision. He had not really meant her to consider Marius seriously at all, and he was further infuriated when Pison informed him that Marius was demanding the fulfilment of the peace terms. Sulla threatened to spare nothing, but Pompey followed him in the hope of averting serious trouble with Marius. Word came that Marius had been deserted by the rebels and that he had committed suicide. Exultant, Sulla planned to leave for Rome, where he would instigate murder and bloody upheaval, and Cecilie urged Pompey to try to stop him. Plutarch, Appian, and Velleius Paterculus were the chief ancient authors who recounted the struggles between Sulla and Marius the younger. None of them went into great detail, but each had something of importance to contribute to 97. Le leune Marius, Act III, scene J, p. 37.

46

The Works

of Claude

Boyer

the story. Boyer almost certainly took the material for Le leune Marius from them and added his own romantic and technical embellishments. The violent hostilities between the elder Marius and Sulla are well known, but what happened between the younger Marius and his father's enemy is less well known. Plutarch said that the younger Marius became master of Rome after his father's death. H e showed great cruelty to the Romans, especially by putting to death the nobles and the best of the citizens. He and Sulla met in battle. Defeated, Marius fled to Prasneste, where his conqueror shut him up. Telesinus, the Samnite, tried to aid Marius, but in vain. Seeing himself hemmed in by Pompey from behind and by Sulla in front, Telesinus turned toward Rome where he was met by Sulla. Telesinus was, however, defeated by Sulla and not by Pompey, as Boyer indicated in the play. After winning this battle, Sulla marched into Rome fully intent upon slaughter. Meanwhile, Marius, who had tried desperately to save himself, committed suicide. Sulla then had himself declared dictator of Rome and, to make sure that Pompey would remain faithful to him, Sulla made him divorce his wife and gave him E m i l i a , the daughter of Scaurus and Metella (his own w i f e ) . She was about to have a child and died in childbirth. Appian said that the Praenestians surrendered their city to Sulla when they saw that Rome as well as the rest of Italy was in his power. This apparently suggested to Boyer the surrender to Sulla of the rebels who had supported Marius, thus leaving Marius completely alone and faced with an utterly hopeless prospect. Paterculus also told of the defeat of the younger Marius at the hands of Sulla in a pitched battle; of his subsequent retreat with his troops to Praeneste, in which he had placed a strong garrison; and of Telesinus, an implacable enemy of Rome and the Romans, harrassing Sulla at the Colline gate. Paterculus gave two versions of Marius' death. One indicated that Marius had committed suicide in desperation, and the other told of his attempt to escape from the city by a subterranean passage but of his meeting death when he emerged from it. Boyer had put more than a little effort in Le leune Marius because he wanted to show his appreciation of having been replaced on the royal pension list, and he felt that his work was a success. Robinet, in his Lettre du 2 février, 1669, agreed with him. Performed at the Hôtel de Bourgogne, the play "ravit maint notable mortel. . . ." C'est Le Jeune et grand M A R I U S Poëme si beau que rien plus; Dont Boyer qui sur le Parnasse, Depuis si long-tems tient sa place, Est le digne et louable Auteur, Et dont vous avez vú, Lecteur, Tant d'autres Poèmes magnifiques, Galans, comiques, et tragiques:

The

Tragedies

C'en est assez dire à son Et c'est, je pense, en peu Faire voir, sans un vain Le mérite de cet ouvrage.

47 los, de mots, langage, . .

Menage, although not so enthusiastic, also considered Le leune

Marius a toler-

able play, for he commented, "Ses Tragédies et sur tout son jeune Marius ne sont pas si méchantes." 9 9 T o the Frères Parfaict, it was "passable"—as far as the "exposition" was concerned. Marius, they thought, was no more than a booby, and the play in general did little more than illustrate Boyer's chief weaknesses: for example, his choice of strangely complicated plots which he handled artlessly. 1 0 0 As a matter of fact, with Le leune Marius, Boyer came definitely under the influence of Racine, whose Andromaque Marius

had appeared in 1667. T h e plot of Le

leune

was not unduly complicated, and revolved around the fortunes of the

four main characters. Like Racine, Boyer sought to gain the sympathy of his audience for his chief character. Consequently, he presented the good-natured Marius in the most favorable light possible. 1 0 1 He was "un des Héros de I'anciêne Rome," endowed, as Boyer explained in the dedication, with some of the admirable traits of Louis X I V . Although hard-pressed, he refused Telesinus' help lest the Romans suffer thereby. He loved the daughter of his bitter enemy, and for her sake spared the life of his relentless foe—and his father's implacable enemy. Cecilie found him virtuous, gentle, and charming. Indeed, he kept in sight the high standards he had set up for himself: Quelques soins que ie donne au secours de ma flame, Iamais rien de honteux n'entrera dans mon âme, Et ie serois indigne et de vous et du iour. Si la gloire n'estoit du party de l'amour: Il n'est point de fureur que mon deuoir n'arreste: Si vous [Cecilie] me soupçonnez, ie vous liure ma teste, Et ie ne vous instruis des périls où ie cours, Que pour mettre en vos mains ma fortune et mes jours.™ 98. Frères Parfaict, op. (it., X , p. 383.

99. G. Menage, Menagiana

. . ., II, p. 311.

100. Frères Parfaict, op. cit., X , pp. 3 7 6 - 3 8 0 . Professor Lancaster believes that Sulla's motives for absolutism and cruelty (begun, as he says, at the end of the play-—op. cit., Part I I I , II, p. 6 0 9 ) are not made clear. His cruel nature manifests itself fairly early in the play. Moreover, it would seem that his ruthlessness and the domineering qualities that he exhibited throughout the play do not gainsay his actions at the end. His intense hatred of Marius and, above all, his strong determination to become dictator of Rome at the price of treachery are certainly obvious factors in the play. 101. O n e wonders whether Professor Lancaster is entirely correct in stating that interest " s h i f t s " from Marius to Sulla. Sulla is a central figure from the beginning although he does not appear until Act III (op. cit., Part III, II, p. 6 1 0 ) .

102. Le leune Marius, Act V, scene 2, pp. 69-70.

48

The

Works

of Claude

Boyer

This was hardly the Marius of Plutarch, the man who accepted the favors of a royal Numidian concubine in order to escape from the king and who had many people in Rome murdered after his father's death. 108 Other characters, too, were drawn with care. Pompey was the proud, selfcomplacent foil to Sulla. He compelled the interest of the audience when he confessed that the hope of winning Cecilie, whom he loved, was not only the inspiration of his military successes but also the real reason for his association with Sulla. In almost the same breath, however, he insisted that he would not accept her as his prize if it meant the betrayal of Marius. That he was aware of his own merits to the point of self-righteousness was apparent from his boast that: le sçay quelles fureurs suiuront un tel refus le sçay que toute Rome, et mesme Marius S'étonnera de voir une vertu si rare; Mais quel que sort affreux, que mon cœur se préfère, Le destin de Pompée est trop grand et trop beau, Pour refuser au monde un example nouueau. L'uniuers apprendra que pour l'honneur de Rome, Sous le règne de crime il est encore un home, Qui fait voir à Sylla malgré tout son courrous, Que ce bien de la gloire est le plus grand de tous.,