The Uncertainty of Naming in Cyrano de Bergerac's L'Autre Monde: A Question of Anonymity?

Lecteur, je te donne l'ouvrage d'un mort, qui m'a chargé de ce soin . . .²

Le Bret

Such were Le Bret's opening lines to the "Préface" of the posthumously published novel Les États et Empires de la Lune in 1657. A dramatic introduction, given that it confesses to the momentous role of Le Bret as a kind of custodian of this deceased author's work. He claims he is publishing La Lune under the author's instructions. The consent of the supposed author in this act is therefore made explicit. And who is the author? The title page of the 1657 edition tells us that La Lune was written "par Monsieur de Cyrano Bergerac."

Le Bret's opening lines, however, reveal to us that things are far from straightforward. Le Bret claims to be publishing La Lune under Cyrano's instruction. Yet, immediately succeeding this follows a second justification for publishing: "pour te faire connaître qu'il n'est pas un mort du commun."³ This double justification, on the one hand claiming to publish La Lune at the author's request and, on the other, because it will prove to the public the author's talent, raises alarm bells as to the integrity of Le Bret's actions. The first hint has been made that, besides the "claimed" author, there is an additional player, one who has a distinct voice and intentions of his own.

Before we can go any further, the obvious question needs to be asked: why should the identity of the author of La Lune interest us so much? Should this be relevant to our understanding of the novel? The 1657 edition informs us that La Lune is above all an Histoire Comique, this title dominating the frontispiece. If this is a work of fiction, why should the author's identity be important to the reader at all?

Perhaps the interest lies in Le Bret's decision to name Cyrano as the author of La Lune. For if Le Bret had kept to the original manuscript copies, the text would have been published anonymously. In the case of Le Bret's edition the supposed author has been named, but not by the author himself. It seems, therefore, that a possible attempt at anonymity has been overruled.

Ambiguity arises between the existence of anonymous manuscripts and the named posthumous first edition. In the case of Cyrano, therefore, it seems that, from the beginning, the question of anonymity is inextricably tied to that of naming. In this paper, I propose to uncover further instances in L'Autre Monde where a tension clearly exists between, on the one hand, an apparent desire to maintain anonymity and, on the other, a desire to be named (whether an act of Le Bret's or Cyrano's).⁴ In what ways is this tension apparent? What are its consequences?

Un mort hors du commun

First, greater attention should be paid to the "Préface" to the reader by Le Bret. It seems that it is here that the author's identity is first shaped. We might say that Le Bret creates a myth of the author, that he revels in constructing a kind of legend. For example, Cyrano is first named as "un mort" and one that is unique and unlike any other. This is the reader's introduction to the author, and in this way it provides the foundations for the author's identity. The author seems to be a third party, introduced to the reader by an intermediary. That he is "un mort" is drummed home to the reader on four occasions, while the rest of the time he is referred to as "il" (a notable nine times in twenty-eight lines).⁵

We are told that the author belongs to the world of the dead, with "les autres morts." Suspense is sustained for as long as possible given that the name "M. de Bergerac" only finally appears sixty-four lines later. Yet the author still feels very much...