The Problem of the Bienseances in Voltaire’s Oreste

The Problem of the Bienséances in Voltaire’s Oreste Marcus Allen In a previous article entitled “Voltaire and the Theater of Involvement,” I have attempted to point out that one of Vol­ taire’s great weaknesses as a dramatist was his inability to divorce himself from his material and to refrain from using the theater as a springboard for his social and philosophical propaganda.! It would be dangerous, however, to assume that Voltaire’s eclipse as a dramatist was due solely to his philosophical pos­ turing upon the stage. Indeed, a close reading of his best-known tragedies will reveal other weaknesses, principally his inability to reconcile the demands of historical and mythological authen­ ticity with the prevailing rules of bienséance.2 Confronted with the task of presenting well known themes from classical mytho­ logy that might prove offensive to the French public, French dramatists could either follow the advice that Boileau had offered in Chant III of his Art poétique: Il n’est point de serpent ni de monstre odieux Qui, par l’art imitée, ne puisse plaire aux yeux: D ’un pinceau délicat l’artifice agréable Du plus affreux objet fait un objet aimable3 or he could alter the material and thereby make it conform to French tastes. This is what Corneille had done in his Oedipe, justifying his alterations by stating that the spectacle of Oedipus’ blood running down his face “ferait soulever la délicatesse de nos dames, qui composent la plus belle partie de notre auditoire.”4 Voltaire agreed with Corneille, accusing the Greeks of unforgiveable grossierté and adding that “ils ont erré en prenant souvent l’horreur pour la terreur, et le dégoûtant et l’incroyable 117 118 Comparative Drama pour le tragique et le merveilleux.”5 Voltaire also accused Shakespeare of serious lapses in taste: his mixture of the grotesque and the sublime, his love of violence, and his predi­ lection for presenting the rabble upon the stage. “Les Français ne souffriraient pas,” he wrote, “qu’on fît paraître sur leurs théâtres un choeur composé d’artisans et de plébiens romains; que le corps sanglant de César y fût exposé aux yeux du peuple, et qu’on excitât ce peuple à la vengeance.”6 Yet, Voltaire was somewhat uncomfortable with the restrictions imposed by the bienséances. Despite his criticisms of the excesses of Sophocles and Shakespeare, Voltaire secretly envied them, for he felt they possessed a certain majesty, vigor and élan that were lacking upon the French stage. Echoing Boileau, Voltaire wrote that even the horrors of Sophocles might be adapted and made palatable to the French public: “j’ose croire qu’il y a des situations qui ne paraissent encore que dégoûtantes et horribles aux Français et qui, bien ménagées, représentées avec art, et surtout adoucies par le charme des beaux vers, pourraient nous faire une sorte de plaisir dont nous ne nous doutons pas.”7 In an effort to put his theories into practice, Voltaire adapted many plays from Greek, French, and Italian sources. Few of these plays are read today. Oreste, however, is of great interest to us, for it serves as an excellent example of Voltaire’s theories at work and the unfortunate results of his excessive concern for the bienséances. Moreover, Oreste offers an excellent op­ portunity for a close examination of Voltaire’s treatment of one of the great themes of western literature. In his “Epître à la duchesse du Maine,” Voltaire claimed that, in composing his Oreste, “Je n’ai point copié l’Electre de Sophocle, il s’en faut de beaucoup; j’en ai pris, autant que j’ai pu, tout l’esprit et toute la substance.”8 While it is true that Voltaire did not “copy” Sophocles’ Electra, it is not true that he captured “all the spirit and all the substance.” Indeed, Voltaire made certain fundamental changes in the plot. He refused to imitate Sophocles’ catastrophe wherein Oreste slays Clytemnestra en toute con­ naissance de cause. He turned, instead, to Crébillon who, along with Longepierre, had dévised...