Diderot as Dramatist: Dramatic Prose? Prosaic Drama?

Author(s): Renée Waldinger

Source: Diderot Studies, Vol. 20 (1981), pp. 287-297
Published by: Librairie Droz
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40372539 .
Accessed: 13/05/2014 10:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Librairie Droz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Diderot Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIDEROT AS DRAMATIST:
DRAMATIC PROSE? PROSAIC DRAMA?

By Ren6e Waldinger

The importanceof Diderot's dramatictheoriesand their

impact on the theatreare generallyacknowledgedand have
been documentedat length. Yet his own plays have been
called unsuccessfuland were far frompopular even in his
own day. Dull, declamatory,sermonizing, conventional,and
their equivalents,are adjectives used by most critics. Re-
flectingan attitude that has long been prevalent,Herbert
Dieckmann stated that neitherLe Fils naturelnor Le P&re
de familleconstitutedgood theatre; what he added has now
becomecommonplace: "Diderot's declamatorystyle,his sen-
timentalityand pathos repel most readersand put even the
most devoted studentto a hard test/'1 Several of Diderot's
novels,on the otherhand, have been staged with great suc-
cess; they seem to lend themselvesadmirablyto theatrical
production.Reviewingthe productionofLe Neveude Rameau
at the Theatrede la Michodierein February1963,Ferdinand
Alqui6 commentedin UAvant-Scbnedu Thidtre(January'64,
p. 6) : "II y a done bien, dans Le Neveu de Rameau, quelque
chose qui, s'il n'est pas du th6&tre,appelle le theatre. Le
texte est pr6sent6sous formede dialogue,et les rares lignes

1 HerbertDieckmann,"Currentsand Crosscurrents in Le Fils

naturel,"in Linguisticand LiteraryStudiesinHonorofHelmutA. Hatz-
feldyed. AlessandroS. Crisafulli(Washington:CatholicUniversity
ofAmericaPress,1964),p. 107.

287

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RENfiE WALDINGER

qui n'appartiennent pas au dialoguepeuventpasserpourde

brevesindications sc6niques, annon^ant quelqueidealerepre-
sentation/'Jacquesle Fatalistewas put on the boardswith
considerable successin 1963,and CynthiaGrenier, theParis
theatrecriticof the International HeraldTribunestatedon
October9 : "The play is a finefluidadaptationofDiderot's
pungently wittyquasi-novel of18thcenturymores/'and all
in all "a veryexciting piece theater/'Thosewhoattended
of
the FourthInternational Congresson the Enlightenment at
Yale University in thesummer of1975remember vividlythe
theatrical production of Rameau's Nephew. The two protag-
onistsfilledthestageandtheirdialogueseemedto be written
forit. It was goodtheatre.We knowthatothernovelshave
beenadaptedto thestageand screen. In the springof1978,
New York saw a production of Le Voyagede Bougainville ;
thatit was onlypartiallysuccessful was due moreto inepti-
tude in stagingand actingthan in the materialpresented.
The latestadaptationof excerptsfromDiderot'sworksof-
feredby Jean-LouisBarraultat the Theatred'Orsayin
January1979was praisedby thetheatrecriticofIJExpress
(February3, 1979) who remarked : "Le destintheatralde
Diderotest curieux. II a ecritdes piecesqu'on ne joue
plus.. . Mais on joue ses romans,PierreFresnaya anime
"Le Neveude Rameau",on monteun peu partout"Jacques
le Fataliste",les com6diens ontadopts"Le Paradoxe","La
Religieuse" a faitl'objet d'un film(qui attirales foudresde
la censureen 1966)et d'unepiece."
It shouldbe notedherethatwhenspeakingof Diderot's
theatrethesecriticsreferto the two playswhichwerefor-
mally producedduringhis lifetime. Yet we know that
Diderotwroteanotherfull-fledged play, Est-ilbon? Est-il
michant? This work went throughseveraldifferent stages
and was revisedwith care; it was neverperformed in a
public theatreduring Diderot's lifetime,but has been pro-
ducedto considerable criticalacclaimtwocenturies laterand

288

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIDEROT AS DRAMATIST

seems to hold particularattractionfor modern audiences.*

In spite of the successof this play, as a rule,criticscontinue
to view his theatrein termsof Le Fils natureland Le Pire
de famille. This is no doubt due to the fact that Diderot's
theoreticalwritingson the theatre were at least to some
extent implementedin the two plays that were produced,
and that the impact of his theorieson the historyof the
theatre was so important. In addition EsUil bon? Est-il
mediant? has only lately been accepted as a bona fideplay.
Gustave Lanson, for instance, who consideredit "un des
chefs-d'oeuvrede Diderot" called it a "dialogue"8 and ex-
claimed: "Quel malheur que de tant d'idees originateset
parfoisremarquablementjustes, Diderot n'ait su faire que
deux pitoyables pieces."4 It is generallyagreed that the
novels "play" well, but the two plays of our philosopher
who wanted to be a playwrightmore than anythingelse,
who held the dramatic author to be "le poete par excel-
lence,"6are consideredmore or less failures,whilehis novels
containedthe verydramaticqualitiesthat eluded his theatre.
Even Diderot seemedto accept this negativejudgmentof
his dramatic talent. In a dialogue in the Paradoxe sur le
comedienone ofthe speakersis asked whyhe did not continue
to writeplays in the same vein as Le Pere de famille. Lack
of talent, discouragement, are given as reasons. When sur-
is
prise expressed that a play whichfillsthe theatrenow was
so poorly received when it was produced,the second speaker
repliesthat the play was too novel, both forthe actors and

2 See OtisFellows,"Diderot'sEst-ilbon? Revisited,"in Enlighten-

mentStudiesin HonorofLesterG. Crocker, ed. AlfredJ. Binghamand
VirgilTopazio (Oxford: VoltaireFoundation,1979).
8 Gustave Lanson, Histoire de la littiraturefrangaise(Paris :
LibrairieHachette,1912),p. 745.
4Lanson,p. 663.
6 Denis Diderot,(Euvrescomputes,ed. Asse*zat-Tourneux (Paris :
Gamier,1875), VII, 328. Referencesto this editionwill henceforth
appearin the text.

289

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RENfiE WALDINGER

the audience, and that the public was unable to appreciate

the simplicityof this new genre (A.-T., VIII, 401). The
author'sdisappointmentstill stingsand reflectsthe highex-
pectationshe had forhis work. As a matterof fact,Le Pire
de famillehad a respectablerunat the Thtetre-Frangais when
it was firstproducedin 1761 and was well receivedin Tou-
louse, Bordeaux, Lyon, and Marseille/ Le Fils naturelwas
to have onlyone performance in Paris in 1771,but as Jacques
Proust has shown in his article on "Le Paradoxe du Fils
naturel/9it was played in the private theatre of the duke
d'Ayenin St. Germainin 1757,7and was applauded in Baden
and Hamburg.8 Diderot had hoped forso much more,and
appeared delightedby the 1769 revivalat the Th6&tre-Fran-
$ais, boastingto SophieVollandofthe applause whichgreeted
the play. He wrote: "£'a 6t6,c'est & toutes les representa-
tions, un monde et un tumulte6pouvantables. On n'a pas
m6moired'un succes pareil,surtout& la premiererepresenta-
tion, ou la piece 6tait, pour ainsi dire, presque nouvelle.
II n'y a qu'une voix & laquelle je ne saurais m'empficher de
joindrela mienne; c'est, je vous assure,un tresbel ouvrage."
But he did not feel triumphant; in spite of his seemingde-
light,he added that he would not writeforthe stage again ;
his careeras a dramatistwas over. 'Qu'on ne me redemande
plus une pareillecorv6e. Je n'y sufliraispas. Je ne me sens
plus la tfiteavec laquelle on ordonneune pareillemachine/'*
The words are strong: "corv6e.. . machine/' They are ut-
tered by a man who had come to the theatre with such

• Carrington Lancaster,"The Cast and the ReceptionofDiderot's

Pkrede familiesModernLanguageNotesLXIX, (1954),416-418.
7Jacques Proust,"Le Paradoxe du Fils naturel9"DiderotStudies
IV, (1963), 216.
•Roland Mortier, Diderot en Allemagne,1750-1850 (Paris:
P.U.F., 1954),p. 60.
•Denis Diderot, Correspondence, ed. G. Roth and J. Varloot
(Paris : 1963), IX, 119. Referencesto this editionwill henceforth
appearin the text.

290

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIDEROT AS DRAMATIST

enthusiasm,who had haunted it when he was young and

knewmost of the classics by heart (A.-T., I, 359), who had,
as he tellsus, waveredbetweenthe Sorbonneand the Com6die
and recited parts fromthe plays of Moliere and Corneille
while wanderingthroughthe Luxembourggardens even in
the worst weather (A.-T.9 VIII, 398), who, according to
Grimm,having decided to writea play "s'y livra avec tant
de facilit6que son travail6taitpourlui plutdtun amusement
qu'une fatigue/'10BeforeLe Fils naturelwas printed,Diderot
had embarked on his second play (A.-T., VII, 167) and
althoughLe P&rede famillewas delayed,presumablydue to
the attacks that greetedthe publicationof his firstplay, it
was publishedone year later. As Diderot mentionedin De
la poisie dramatique,had he not been disturbedby this ex-
ternal agitation, "cette preoccupationn'eut 6t6 pour moi
qu'un amusementde quelques semaines" (A.-T., VII, 336).
The publicationin two years of two plays accompaniedby
two importanttheoreticaltreatisesis added proofof the en-
thusiasmwith which Diderot threw himselfinto his work
and the speed with whichhe completedit. Why referto it
as forcedlabor, drudgery,then,and why did he feelunequal
to the task ofcontinuingin thisdirectionat the verymoment
when he seemed to be finallyvindicated? "Ma filley a 6t6
et elle en est revenue stupide d'etonnementet d'yvresse."
he reportedto Sophie; but he himselfwas not elated; on the
contrary: "Au milieu de tout cela, vous me croyezfortheu-
reux,et je ne le suis pas. Je ne s$ais ce qui se passe au fond
de mon ame qui me chagrine.J'ai de l'ennui(Roth, IX, 120).
The mostrudimentary psychologicalinsightmakes us under-
stand this feelingof despondency,of void in the midst of
apparent triumphand recognition. Le Pire de famillerep-
resents only a small aspect of the contributionDiderot
expected to make to the theatre. As he had writtento
10Melchior Grimm,
Correspondance littiraire, philosophique et
critique,ed. M. Tourneux(Paris : Gamier,1878), IV, 57.

291

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RENfiE WALDINGER

Mme Riccoboni eleven years earlier(Nov. 27, 1758), he con-

sidered himselfto be the inventorof a systemthat was to
alter the theatre radically: "Ma premiereet ma seconde
piece formentun systemed'action th6atraledont il ne s'agit
pas de chicanerun endroit,mais qu'il fautadopterou rejeter
en entier" (A.-T., VII, 405). The referenceto "machine"
now becomes clear; Le P£re de familleis but one part of
dramaticmachinerythat is the theatricalcontribution of the
author,and the fact that this part seemed to run smoothly
did not blind him to the realizationthat the entireprogram
forthe machinemightmake no lastingimpact. It is a mis-
take to separate the plays fromthe theoreticalessays that
surroundthem, or even to think of one withoutthe other.
Togetherthey forma whole that was painstakinglyelab-
orated and soughta total reformin the theatre.11
It is unlikelythat Diderot'sdespondencyand senseofloss
were caused by a feelingof failuresince he did continueto
write plays; these plays, however,were not attached to a
theoreticalapparatus and were not intendedforthe public
theatre. His discouragement may well have been due to his
to
unwillingness recognize and accept that he was not only
unable to put together once more the theatricalmachinery
he had devised, but that the machineryitself,or all the
theorysurroundinghis plays, shackledthem. Surelyhe had
been prescient,as he had in so manyotherfieldsthat aroused
his interest,whenhe put into Dorval's mouththe wordsthat
were to have such an influenceon subsequent theatre: "Je

11We knownowthatthiswas an approachthat Diderotpracticed

often. For instance,no scholarwould considerLa Religieusea com-
plete novel withoutthe Priface- Annexe,nor Le Rive de d'Alembert
withoutthetwoEntretiens, northe Supplimentau Voyagede Bougain-
villewithoutthe two contes,Madamede la Carliere,and Cecin'estpas
un conte.Cf. Otis Fellows "Diderot's Supplimentas PendantforLa
and Historyin theAge of Ideas: Essays on
Religieuse,"in Literature
theFrenchEnlightenment Presentedto GeorgeR. Havens,ed. Charles
G. S. Williams (Columbus: Ohio State UniversityPress, 1975),
pp. 229-244.

292

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIDEROT AS DRAMATIST

ne me lasserai point de crier k nos Fran?ais : La V6rit6!

La Nature!. . . Des habits vrais, des discours vrais, une
intriguesimple et naturelle" (A.-T., VII, 120). The stage
shouldturnto the concernsof daily lifeand portraya reality
with which the spectator could identify(A.-T., VII, 146).
Thus Dorval says: "laissez Ik les tr6tauz,entrez dans le
salon. . ." (A.-T., VII, 92). Not only the salon of the great
as in the precedingcenturies,but in the salon of those who
representbest the spirit of the age. These worthyrep-
resentatives are explicitly enumerated by the author:
'Thomme de lettres,le philosophe,le commer?ant,le juge,
le politique, le citoyen,le magistrat,le financier,le grand
seigneur,l'intendant"(A.-T., VII, 150-151).
Had Diderotfollowedhis ownpreceptsin his playswritten
for the theatre at large, he would perhaps have renewed
French drama as he intended,given the talent fordialogue
that he was to displayin his novels. But he was side-tracked
by anotherconsideration,basic to his outlook on life: his
convictionthat art must be used in the cause of virtueand
morality.His call forthe depictionon the stage of truthand
reality as embodied in the societyfamiliarto both author
and spectator was overshadowedby his desire to use the
theatreforsermonizing.Like Voltaire,he realized early the
enormousproselytizing possibilitiesofferedby the theatreand
repeatedlypointed to it as a vehicle for enlightenedpropa-
ganda. He had observedthe suspensionof disbelief,the kind
of "d6doublement''and personalinvolvementthat occurred
when the spectatorwas caught in the magic of a theatrical
experience. ''C'est un lieu bien respectableque celui ou le
m6chantva oublierpendanttroisheuresde suite ce qu'il est.
Je ne sais si le magistraten connaittoute Futility"(A.-T., II,
392). The greatdramatistdoes indeedcreatethis heightened
awareness,and successfulplays are thosethat make the spec-
tator come to a better understandingof the fundamental
elementsin humannature.

293

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RENfiE WALDINGER

Diderot, however,soughtnot deeper understanding, but

reformofhumannature. "Toute action dramatique6tantun
objet moral" (A.-T., VII, 134), the theatre,ratherthan the
pulpit,will inspiremen to be moral. In the thirdEntretien
sur le filsnaturel,Dorval asks : "Quel est Tobjet d'une com-
positiondramatique?" Moi replies: "C'est. . . d'inspireraux
hommesl'amour de la vertu, Thorreurdu vice. . ." (A.-T.,
VII, 149). The goal is no longerTruth,Nature,.. . but love
ofvirtue,hatredofvice. It is interesting to notethat Diderot
was not aware that the argumenthad shiftedand that his
second goal only rarelypermittedthe depictionof the first.
In Act IV, Scene 3 ofLe Fils naturel,Constancesays : "II n'y
a point d'exemplequi captive plus fortement que celui de la
vertu, pas mfimeTexemple du vice" and these words are
quoted and justifiedby Dorval (A.-T., VII, 127). This atti-
tude underlinesthe optimismabout human nature in the
youngerDiderot. It also shows a lack of insight,whichwas
the fatal flaw in his theatre. For it forcedhim to subvert
truthto moralizingand to createforthe stage a societythat
is unreal,in whichthe charactersare modelsof behavior,not
true human beings. Both Le Fils natureland Le P&re de
familledepictwhat people pretendto be, not what they are,
and it is not surprisingthat theyleave the readeror spectator
unaffected, since theircharactershave no autonomousexist-
ence. Their dialogue is necessarilyfalse,for not one of the
personnageson the stage has the spark of individualitythat
arrestsour attention. What Diderot's theatre could have
been, had he not superimposedhis moralizinggoals, is
glimpsedin the famous confessionscene in Act I, Scene 4,
ofLe Fils naturelwhereConstancerevealsherlove forDorval.
SuddenlyConstanceceases to be an abstractionand becomes
a passionate woman who lives and suffersbeforeour eyes;
she is caughtin a dilemmawe recognizeand she acts not as
she oughtto, but as any passionate woman would. Briefly
she has the strengthto take herdestinyin herhands and thus

294

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIDEROT AS DRAMATIST

arousesour interest.Her momentof self-assertion is fleeting,

however, and she reenters the model society Diderot has
fabricatedforour edification.
Constance'sshortlived exit fromthat model societyfore-
shadows the type of situationand characterDiderot was to
develop in his fiction. There, no moralizingconstraintslim-
ited him. He was freeto push an individualor a crisisto its
extremeconsequences,to explore all dramatic possibilities.
In his theatre he had been dealing with behavior as seen
fromthe outside,withthe externalmanifestations of person-
ality,and presented a world in which people reacted as they
oughtto, according to the conventions ofpolitesociety. In his
novels,however,he was to focuson the innermechanismof
behavior and create a world in which people acted as they
might,indeed,would in the worldat largewheretheirweak-
nesseswerestressedas muchas, and even at timesmorethan
theirvirtuesand strengths. In his fiction,the unusual, the
exceptional,more often than not, attracted his attention.
We know that Diderot was always personallyintriguedby
people who were "different."" Numerousreferencesin his
lettersunderlinehis attractionto individualswho dared to
be themselves. He admiredhis sisterDenise particularlybe-
cause : "C'est la creaturela plus originateet la plus tranchte
que je connaisse" (Roth, II, 191). The Baron d'Holbach
interestedhim because: "II a de r originalitydans le ton
et dans les id6es" (Roth, II, 136). Althoughat the beginning
of Le Neueu de Rameau he claimedthat "je n'estimepas ces
originaux-l&"(A.-T.9 V, 389), the successfulrecreationon
paper ofthishighlyoriginalpersonageatteststo the contrary.
As a matterof fact,the charactersin Diderot's fictionwho
have a lifeoftheirown,who are successfully drawnand have
an identitythat stands out, are "originaux." Interestingly,

"See Roland Mortier,"L'Original selon Diderot," Saggi e

Francese4 (1963), 141-157.
Ricerchedi Letteratura

295

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RENfiE WALDINGER

they have one trait in common: they tend to reject the

moralsand code of behaviorof the societyDiderot presented
in his public theatre.
It is clearlythis determinationto be true to themselves,
the refusalto accept the ordinary,that fascinatedDiderotin
his fictionalmen and women. The novel offereda fertile
field to explore the range of possibilitiesindividuals could
enjoy iftheyhad the strengthto be different.These fictional
charactersallowed Diderot's imaginationto soar. A remark
in a letterto Sophie is revealing. "J'ai de Tespritk propor-
tion de celui qu'on a" (Roth, II, 277). In these creatures
partlyof his invention,partlydrawnfromreal life,he found
worthychallengers.
The worldof Diderot's fictionis perhapsas unrealas that
of his plays, but the author's probinginto the vagaries of
human behavior and his explorationof the reality hidden
behind the masks worn in most social relationships,reveal
truthsthat spark recognitionand greaterunderstandingon
the part of the reader. Readers/spectators become involved
in the dilemma of the individual caught between his ca-
pacities or yearningsand the demandsof society. This con-
flicthas a decided dramaticeffect.
It was only afterthe apprenticeshipofferedby the novels
that Diderot was able to transferto the stage the dramatic
potential of the concernsexplored in his fiction. In Est-il
bon? Est-ilmechant ? the sparklingdialoguethat characterized
his novels finallyfound the vehicle for which it was best
suited, and Diderot the dramatistwas vindicated. Aban-
doningall theoreticalapparatus,withoutthe "machine"that
had provento be so onerous,Diderot focuseson the dilemna
ofan individualwhotriesto respondpositivelyto thedemands
of society,who succeeds in carryingout the many requests
made of him,but who destroysthe gratitudehis help arouses
by his need to reveal the machinationsbehind the results
achieved. The hero, Hardouin, captivates our attentionas

296

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIDEROT AS DRAMATIST

he plays cat and mouse with the othercharacters. We are

fascinatednot onlyby the vitalityof this complexman, this
"original,"but by his thinkingprocesseswhichwe can follow.
We become involved in his intellectualgames. Hardouin's
various confrontations allow Diderot to make strikingly per-
tinentcommentson the societyof his time. Both the hero
and the milieuhave relevancefortoday. The veryambiguity
of the concernsand theirmoral implicationsas well as the
refusalto take a positionindicatedby the titleof the play in
the formof a question,implicatethe spectatorsand force
themto become participants. They are caughtin the magic
of the theatricalexperience.
CityCollegeand GraduateSchool
CityUniversityofNew York

297

This content downloaded from 77.49.197.95 on Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions