Explications littéraires, V: Molière — Bossuet — Montesquieu by René Pommier (review)

This is the fifth volume in René Pommier’s series of what he terms ‘explication[s] de texte’ (p. 8), a resolutely anti-theoretical exercise in close reading shaped by the author’s years as a tutor at the Sorbonne and by his ongoing battle with structuralist and psychoanalytical methods of criticism. Best known for his vehement critique of Barthes and Freud, Pommier opens by confronting those detractors who consider his interpretative technique ‘tout à fait ringarde et rétrograde’ (p. 7). He defends his voluntarily naive approach, which consists simply in reading the text attentively to uncover what the author wished to convey. Pommier here selects for analysis two scenes from Molière’s L’Avare and Tartuffe, which he examines alongside Bossuet’s Oraison funèbre de Louis de Bourbon, Prince de Condé, and a chapter from Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des lois denouncing the practices of the Inquisition. In each case, the relevant extract is reproduced in full before Pommier engages in his detailed study. Examining act III, scene 6 of Tartuffe, he situates the scene within the action of the play as a whole, then examines the discourse and development of each character in turn, quoting extensively and interpreting lines, expressions, and even single words to reveal the protagonists’ motivation. Fellow critics of an anti-theoretical persuasion are cited with a view to determining what Molière wishes the audience to glean from the scene. Pommier concludes by stating the author’s intentions, confidently repeating the formula ‘Molière veut …’ (p. 69) and highlighting the playwright’s ‘génie’. It soon becomes clear that in this volume Pommier has selected extracts that allow him to address his favourite theme, that of religion, about which he is famously sceptical. He is quick to focus on ‘l’éloquence profane’ (p. 91) of Bossuet’s sermon, which he sees as revealing the prelate’s irreligious desire for oratorical prowess. Pommier also notes that his admiration for Bossuet’s rhetoric in no way extends to the orator’s providentialist world view, emphasizing that it is the former and not the latter that has ensured his oration’s survival through the centuries. His treatment of Montesquieu’s ‘Très humble remontrance aux inquisiteurs d’Espagne et de Portugal’ (L’Esprit des lois, XV. 13) is markedly more sympathetic. Pommier connects Montesquieu’s denunciation of religious persecution with the philosophe’s condemnation of slavery in a previous chapter of L’Esprit des lois (analysed in detail in the second volume of the present series). He focuses on the author’s religious scepticism and expression of righteous anger, extracting from Montesquieu’s text the universal truth that ‘[c]omme aucune religion n’a jamais réussi à conquérir tous les esprits et à gagner tous les coeurs on peut en conclure qu’aucune ne possède […] la vérité’ (pp. 119–20). Pommier here exposes the flaw in his critical approach, which is highly polemical and which influences both his choice of texts and his analytical method. His introduction declares that his work is aimed not only at students and their tutors but also at ‘les honnêtes gens’ (p. 13) with an interest in literature. His close readings are admirably detailed, but the author’s ideological stance belies his pretension to naivety.