Théâtre complet, iv: Le Roland furieux, L’Athénaïs, La Sidonie by Jean Mairet (review)

This is the fourth and final volume of the complete theatre of Jean Mairet, containing his last three plays, all tragicomedies, each (as in earlier volumes) with a different editor (all editors have worked under the general direction of Georges Forestier). Le Roland furieux, probably first performed at the Hôtel de Bourgogne in 1638, was published in 1640. Much of Anne Surgers’s Introduction is devoted to the way Mairet reduced Ariosto’s vast epic poem into a five-act play. This analysis is accompanied by a magisterial demonstration of the play’s use of multiple decor. Le Roland furieux seems to fly in the face of Mairet’s earlier commitment to the new illusionism of regular theatre, but Surgers encourages us to resist facile compartmentalization to rejoice in a ‘pièce un peu folle qui renvoie tout le monde dos à dos’ (p. 112). L’Athénaïs, probably first performed at the Hôtel de Bourgogne in 1638–39, was published in 1642. Mariane Béthery’s Introduction makes clear that it is a very different kind of tragicomedy from Le Roland furieux. Its key source is Nicolas Caussin’s La Cour sainte (1623) and it is set in the Eastern Roman Empire of Theodosius II, ending with the marriage of the Christian emperor to the pagan poet and philosopher Athénaïs. It observes the unity of place, but not the unity of time, and is exceptional in being a tragicomedy with a devotional theme, though Béthery finds ambiguities: it is a ‘tragi-comédie amoureuse, sans amour vraiment partagé’, a ‘tragi-comédie chrétienne sans élan religieux’ (p. 338). Mairet’s last play, La Sidonie, published in 1643, may have been performed at the Hôtel de Bourgogne in 1642, but there is no clear evidence to this effect. It is different from both its immediate predecessors, telling a story purely of Mairet’s imagination and set in Armenia with characters whose names sound Greek. Despite some ambiguity about the decor, Hélène Baby argues convincingly that the play is perfectly regular. She makes an interesting argument aiming to justify Mairet’s unique generic designation of the play as a ‘tragi-comédie héroïque’, claiming that the characters’ heroism lies in their unusual degree of moral perfection and their avoidance of confrontation (there is a high number of liaisons de fuite). In this respect, the play foreshadows Corneille’s Don Sanche d’Aragon and Nicomède. Baby’s key claim, however, is that La Sidonie’s lasting mark is on Racine’s Andromaque, since they both depict a female protagonist planning a heroic suicide immediately after marriage: ‘il est temps de rendre hommage à Mairet pour son invention’ (p. 490). All three editors address the negative assessments or downright neglect that have been the fate of these plays. Le Roland furieux ‘mérite d’être redécouvert et rejoué’ (p. 12). L’Athénaïs ‘mérite qu’on s’y intéresse’ (p. 339). As to La Sidonie, ‘à défaut d’infléchir le jugement du lecteur sur la médiocre qualité de cette pièce’, its editor wants to help us to ‘mieux en comprendre les enjeux’ (p. 456). The plays could not have found more sympathetic, eloquent, or erudite editors.