Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 March 2021
The critical history of Molière's Dom Juan is full of uncertainties and controversy on literary and many other grounds. Among its competent critics there seems to be no clear-cut decision for or against the play. Its enemies willingly ascribe to it a high degree of excellence, even to calling it a masterpiece. Its friends, not all of whom agree that it is such, are equally willing to find fault with much of it. Friend or foe, those who call it a masterpiece do not say with any precision what they mean: There is a marked tendency on the part of most writers to pass it over with a minimum of comment of any kind.
page 509 note 1 Jacques Copeau, in the brief otice to Dom Juan in his Œuvres deMolière (Paris, 1930), IV, 5, states the possibility but does not pursue it.
page 510 note 2 We are using the text of Dom Juan in theDespois and Mesnard edition of Molière's works (Paris, 1880), Vol. v, including the major variants (to III.ii and v.vi) there given from the Amsterdam edition of 1663, and including the spelling Dom instead of Don.
page 512 note 3 “Après tant d'années de service, [je] n'ai point d'autre récompense que de voir à mes yeux l'impiété de mon maître punie par le plus épouvantable châtiment du monde.”
page 513 note 4 Sganarelle, like Dom Louis, Dom Carlos, Done Elvire, and the statue, is made to preach hit little sermon in a style appropriate to his personality and the nature of his beliefs. Far from being nonsense, the coq-d l'dne sequence seems to be a aeries of sentences and emblems which make up a pertinent argument We suggest the following paraphrase: Heaven's patience is not inexhaustible; man is in world like bird on branch (branch standing for cult); cult is attached to Heaven; he who is attached to Heaven follows good precepts; good precepts are worth more than fine words; fine words are found at court; courtiers are found at court; courtiers submit to fashion; fashion is a product of imagination; imagination is a faculty of the soul (hence divine and misused to produce fad rather than salutary activity); the soul gives us life; life ends in death; idea of death leads to idea of Heaven; Heaven is above (batter, firmer than) earth; earth is not sea (sea standing for man's life on earth; earth is simply matter, therefore more certain, less subject to vicissitudes, than man's life); life is subject to storms; storms torture ships (men); ships need good pilot; good pilot is prudent (follows good precepts, honors the cult); young people are not prudent; they therefore owe obedience to the old (Dom Louis, perhaps Sganarelle); the old love wealth (wisdom); wisdom confers wisdom; the wealthy (wise) are not poor (foolish); the foolish stand in need (of guidance); need refuses to recognize law (guidance); the lawless are beasts (lacking reason); they are therefore damned (beasts have no soul).
page 515 note 5 We have barred précieux, préciosité from our text as terms likely to be too vaguely or too broadly interpreted to suit our present needs.
page 516 note 6 Weremark in passing that since this wooing must have taken place while Elvire was in convent, ago-between would have been needed Who else would this be than the sanctimonious Gusman, who knows so much about the affair?
page 518 note 7 Italics added. Only Jules Lemaître, as far as we know, bas remarked that Elvire in this scene is still in love with Dom Juan: “ cette femme en deuil, amoureuse encore dans sa pénitence” “Don Juan ou leFestin de Pierre” (13sept. 1886) in Impression, de théâtre, première série (Paris, n.d.), p. 67.
page 521 note 8 Jacques Arnavon, Don Juan de Molière, (Copenhague, 1947), p. 325. See also pp. 159, 182, note.
page 521 note 9 Rank at its origin appears to have been based on virtue and strength as well as birth. See, e.g., A. Furetière, Dictionnaire universel, art. “Gentilhomme.”
page 523 note 10 Dom Louis, like all the other characters except the Poor Man and Dom Juan, is very seriously concerned with the preservation of appearances. This preoccupation is a constant and obvious trait in Corneille's plays and generally in précieux writings. In addition to being virtuous, one must at all times appear scrupulously correct Cf. on this point, Scudéry's Mandane with Chimène, Rodrigue, Sévère, Pauline, the Précieuse, of Molière, Philaminte, and innumerable others.
page 525 note 11 He swears enthusiastically and consistently (in 17 of the 38 speeches of his role). Ko other character in the play is consistently profane, or uses any but the most innocuous oaths.
page 529 note 12 He has been called en atheist for 300 years, but then is no evidence to support the epithet. He scoffs at doctrine and superstition, but he insists that his relationship with divinity concerns only divinity and himself (I.Ii and III.ii), wherefore he will not discuss it (III.i). His belief in arithmetic is scarcely peculiar to atheism, and Sganarelle's evidence Is neither discerning nor trustworthy.
page 530 note 13 Cf. Misanthrop, I.i. Philinte's “La parfaite raison fuit toute extrémité” is the capstone of an excellent résumé of the theory of honnête conduct. This conduct demands the sacrifice of individual notions of right behavior to those prescribed by general authorities, especially “la parfaite raison” and “la nature humaine” (i.e., the society asa whole). Alceste takes the opposite view, emphasizing precisely his personal will: “[Je] ne veux nulle place en des coeurs corrompus”; “Je veux qu'on soit sincère”; “Je veux qu'on me distingue”; and finally
Je veux que l'on soit homme, et qu'en toute rencontre
Le fond de notre cœur dans nos discours se montre,
Que ce soit lui qui parla, et que nos sentiments
Ne se masquent jamais sous de vains compliments. (Italics added)
Cf. also Cliéante (Tartuffe I.V):
Les dévots de oœur sont aisés à connoître
On ne voit point en eux ce faste insupportable,
Et leur dévotion est humaine, est traitable
On les voit, pour tous soins, se mêler de bien vivre
Ils ne veulent point prendra
Les interètsdu Ciel plus qu'll ne vent lui-même. (Italics added)
page 530 note 14 Cf. Diderot, Le Neveu de Rameau, ed. J. Fabre (Geneva and Lille, 1950), p. 5: (speaking of the Nephew) “Je n'estime pas ces originaux la..Ils m'arrêtent une fois l'an parce que leur caractere tranche avec celui des entres, et qu'ils rompent cette fastidieuse uniformité que notre education, nos convention de société, nos bienseances d'usage out introduite. S'il en paroit un dans une compagnie, c'est un grain de levain qui fermente et qui restitue s chacun une portion de son individualité naturelle. Il secoue, il agiteil fait sortir la verité; il fait connoitre les gens de bien; il demasque les coquins; c'est alors que l'homme de bon sens ecoute, et demele son monde.”
page 533 note 15 We suggest that Pierrot is a diminutive of the statue. In connection with the latter, compare Albert Camus' treatment of the statue in Tirso's Burlador; he speaks of “ce commandeur de pierre, cette froide statue mise en branle pour punir le sang et le courage qui ont osé penser[.] Tous les pouvoirs de la Raison étemelle, de l'ordre, de la morale universelle, toute la grandeur étrangère d'un Dieu accessible à la colère, se résument en lui Cette pierre gigantesque et sans âme symbolise seulement les puissances que pour toujours Don Juan a niées. Mais la mission du commandeur s'arrête là. La foudre et le tonnerre peuvent regagner le del factice d'où on les appela. La vraie tragédie se joue en dehors d'eux.” Le Mythe de Sisyphe, 21 édition (Paris, 1942), pp. 104-105.
page 534 note 16 Quoted by Charles Du Bos, “De la définition de l'homme selon Bérulle et de son application à la littérature” in Approximations, 6 série (Paris, 1934), pp. 198-199 and 202-203.
