Molière: Reasoning with Fools (review)

In this intelligent and well-ordered book, Michael Hawcroft takes on what might be called la querelle de Molière's raisonneurs. A vexed issue since the nineteenth century, the raisonneurs—those characters who "reason" in opposition to the actions and values of the principal targets of Molière's satire—have been considered to be the author's spokesmen, or to be models of social behavior and paragons of rationality and honnêtété, or to be comic creations and targets of satire in their own right. In an introductory chapter, Hawcroft gives a clear précis of the querelle, identifying the major players and their arguments, and marveling at the "lack of dialogue" among them (21). His own intention, however, is not to "negotiate some perilous route between them," but to take "a sustained dramaturgical approach" (22) that will consider the texts in their historical and theatrical contexts and note how the necessities of the dramatic action determine what a character says or does. The idea is to define these so-called raisonneurs not as spokesmen for Molière or for any particular set of social, moral, or philosophical values but by their interventions in the action. Hawcroft writes, for instance, that Ariste's interventions in L'École des maris do not make him "a comic figure, nor a spokesman for wisdom," because they are "so specifically anchored in the dramatic fiction" (47).

In chapters 2 through 6, Hawcroft develops a close reading of five of the so-called raisonneurs: Ariste in L'École des maris, Chrysalde in L'École des femmes, Cléante in Tartuffe, Philinte in Le Misanthrope, and Béralde in Le Malade imaginaire. Each chapter begins with a summary of previous critical opinion about the character, followed by an analysis of the action in which the character participates. A good example of Hawcroft's critical technique is his perception that in the opening scene of L'École des femmes the actions of the raisonneur Chrysalde are "determined by the dramatist's need to create a situation in which Arnolphe [the principal satiric target] will reveal, for the audience's benefit, his own unusual approach to marriage in general and to his own marriage in particular" (57). "Not all critics," Hawcroft adds, "pay sufficient attention to the fictional situations that Molière creates" (57). He also points out that Chrysalde's dialogue is "dramatically fertile," (58) an interesting term when applied to a secondary character. It is Chrysalde's speeches that allow Arnolphe to respond with a variety of revealing observations.

Hawcroft's guiding idea seems to be that characters like Chrysalde do not necessarily stand for or represent anything other than themselves. They are necessary and instrumental in active opposition to the central comic figure, and their ideological statements can usually be seen to be rhetorical within the verbal action of each scene. Only Cléante in Tartuffe may have extratheatrical functions, since his action and dialogue form part of Molière's strategic defense of the play against its many enemies and critics.

The character who has given rise to the most critical assessments is the accommodating Philinte of Le Misanthrope, the raisonneur who has the most difficult task since he argues for living contentedly in an imperfect society. He is not a paragon of honnêtété, but a compromiser who believes in social lies and a certain degree of insincerity. Unlike the other pairs, Alceste and Philinte are not, as Hawcroft puts it, "polar opposites," one right, the other wrong. In Tartuffe Cléante's views on religion are as clearly normative as Orgon's are idiosyncratic, but Philinte's conformity is in some ways as questionable as Alceste's rectitude.

What the five roles tend to have in common is their relationship to the central character. Some are friends, some are relatives, but all are "peers who can speak frankly" (207). All clearly perceive the central character's folly and try to intervene. All are instrumental in the play's denouement...