Dany JacobVS 579 : The Revolutionary SublimeDr. G. NickardFinal Paper

Revolutionary Theatre, Theatre of the Revolution

After the riots of the French revolution in 1789,

Europe’s society is moved by the extreme power and

humanization of the French intelligentsia. In this turmoil

of reason and enlightenment paired with extreme

austerity and rigour, one comes to wonder: what happened

to the aesthetic values of the Revolution? The pictorial

media has been mostly led by Jacques-Louis David,

accordingly to the measures and acceptance of

Robespierre and other people in charge. But very few

talk and or even mention the concept of theatre during

that period; an art that has been so often in the centre

of the French monarchy. Dance, ballet, tragic verses and

poetic charged moments filled the cultural lifestyle of

the cour de Versailles; it was the Golden age of tragedy and

any other lyrical art and it was indubitably emblematic

of the royal court. Propelled to ultimate splendour by

the Sun King, the entire theatrical machine that

Versailles and the court represented put a strong

1

emphasis on the great symbolic charge of the ritual and

the gesture.

Louis XIV’s plan was ingenious in the sense that

not only did it force a certain powerful and almost

godly omnipresence of the royal figure, the sun in the

midst, drawing to the centre of Versailles all the

representative profiles needed to keep the country under

his rule, but this marvellous plot also allowed to give

this stare back, from the centre to the outer world.

Nothing could really escape the King’s or his servants’

attention. In Corbiau’s movie Le roi danse (2000), a

specific scene illustrates the cunning resources the Sun

King uses through expressionist dance to show his

superiority to the lords of France.

Keeping this ideology in mind, we can only wonder

then what the Revolution imagines to be the perfect

performativity art. Muriel Usandivaras discusses in her

article the possible rupture or continuity of theatre in

its 18th century heritage. Authors from the period belong

to the “Secondes Lumières” generation but where most of

them are still greatly ignored or still badly known to

2

this current point build up the new artistic threads of

their century, meaning they are the messengers of

controversies and hesitations that surrounded them.

Understandable, the Revolution had a high censure and it

was naturally applied to the theatre. The critical

author notices that this censure was constantly

maintained during the revolutionary period and way

beyond it as well, in hand with a general mobilisation

caused by the “la patrie en danger” declaration in July 1792

and the ten years of war following that. This clearly

critical situation could not be ignored by the variety

of drama authors but also in general by writers and

artists. Thus, writers and artists participate in the

“productions de circonstances” that tend to aim at the

ideological mobilisation of the nation, but the

contrasting effect was also caused in which a lot of

critic minds had to modify or completely renounce to

create works of art.

Most of the relation made is with power, the power

of the uprising dichotomy residing within the Revolution

core but also the struggle to keep a nation together

3

while the fire of change is raging through the last

parts of old time sakes. The artists’ positions flash

between enthusiastic bond and austere dissidence all

along the succession of the multiple regimes or even at

the very heart of the same one. This peculiar feature

shows us the pragmatic difficulties felt to stay loyal

to the intellectual’s mission how it has been elaborated

first by the philosophers of the Lumières. Thus the drama

production during the Revolution is known as a theatre

of transition that recuperates dramatic forms that are

not yet autonomous (vaudeville, melodrama, etc.) and

that will be prosperous a century later by fixing them.

It develops a certain rejuvenating “sacred” genres like

tragedy and develops all the intermediate genres as

well, such as drama by over-valorising circumstantial

themes like historical facts, patriotic feelings, a

republican repertory that could be considered like the

forerunners of the most important features of the 20th

century theatre (560). Under the Empire and the

Restauration, aesthetic quarrels masked the ideological

differences opposed the drama authors to romantic

4

writers that judged them being classical which was kept

in posterity.

If it is possible to talk about certain continuity

in revolutionary theatre, considering the historical

heritage present in the 18th Century, we cannot miss the

fundamental rupture to which the Revolution contributed

as an emergency context. This rupture is not made by the

authors themselves but it was caused by a certain

numbers of factors like the modification of socio-

cultural composition of the theatre audience, the

transformation of the theatre into a free enterprise and

the multiplications of showrooms between 1791 and 1807.

This influence combined the possibility to theatre to

evolve from a “theatre for the ear (théâtre fait pour l’oreille)”

to “theatre for the eye (théâtre fait pour l’oeil)” (560) thus

leading to a shift in interest for the text during the

scene setting, producing an spectacle that we grew to

know nowadays.

On this note, it would be of the greatest interest

to focus our attention on the plays that made the hit

5

list of the Revolution’s stages. In “Représenter Rousseau au

théâtre pendant la Révolution”, Noémie Jouhaud elaborates the

figure of the Genevan philosopher as the centre point in

the majority of revolutionary theatre pieces. Indeed,

Jean-Jacques Rousseau appears almost everywhere, being

places in all kinds of repertories. There are

approximately a dozen pieces portraying him during the

years 1789 and 1799, before and after his ashes are

transported to the Panthéon. A certain number of very

successful pieces could strike our fancy, and in

particular Jean-Nicolas Bouilly’s play Jean-Jacques Rousseau

à ses derniers moments (Jean-Jacques Rousseau at his last

moments). This text is an historic prose portrait in one

act has been shown 24 times from 1970 to 1794, where as

from May 1791 on about fifteen representations were made

within three or four months which is, for R. Barny, a

very noteworthy detail. This “little phenomenon” (2)

makes the actors playing Jean-Jacques into a sensation;

Rousseau’s physical appearance can however not be seen

as an exceptional manifestation since its purpose is to

replace its value in both the dramatic genre as well as

6

the history of representation of the “grand homme” in

the realm of theatre and political usage. The Lumières’

philosophers, dead by a couple decades, such as

Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire and Diderot arise the

importance of the personality count at the national

Panthéon from 1780 on. Thus in theatre, antique models

are substituted by national heroes. During this ideal

era, the patriotic theatre “should be a sort of tribune

to rant where the playwright, such a Demosthenes,

debates the affairs of the city” (Mercier, in La Naissance

du Panthéon by J-C. Bonnet, 124). The interest in

different civic heroes rather than classical models

rises and is replaced by the wish to represent all

mankind that has a value for the history of France; the

“grands hommes” who, in one way or the other, have

participated to historical events like magistrates,

generals, prelates, writers, etc. Mostly, the stage

offers a painting of the private life of an intellectual

man. First Molière, then Monetsquieu, Fénelon, Voltaire

or even Rousseau appear thus one after the after; the

French scene enriches itself with “touching paintings

7

clearly inspired by proper vignettes in elegiac style”

(Bonnet, 126).

However, Rousseau seems to beneficiate a stronger

aura in the theatre business than other writers of the

century; he has the highest number of pieces dedicated

to his personae than the other philosophers. Jouhaud

explains this phenomenon through the fact of the

extensive cult that is dedicated to him since his death;

a cult that has multiple faces and forms and most of

them of sentimental nature. But it is mostly Rousseau’s

political ideas that bring him forth and are

reinterpreted during the Revolution. Thus, the

reincarnation of Rousseau on stage sounds like the same

model of adoration and elevation, as Marat’s death will

encounter. “Rousseau becomes a founding father of the

revolutionary movement and therefore needs to be

represented on stage” (3). While his texts were read

with a lot of diversity throughout the Revolution, the

plain representation of his personae during this

particular period reinforces the general feeling of a

contemporary consistent work while still guaranteeing a

8

success to the public. It seems impossible to not

associate Rousseau to Marat in this perspective,

especially if we consider that Marat has been made a

martyr of the French Revolution cause while he was, most

certainly, a blood thirsty tyrant drilling the folk to

bring him heads (“just a couple more…”).

With the same wonderment, we can agree with Jouhaud

that this sensation has not been seen in more depth than

that, or at least by Rousseau’s experts. The critical

author notices that the plays involving the philosopher

are simply mentioned, maybe summarized but mostly they

are kept apart and ignored. “No analytic lecture of

those texts, taken in their particularity seems to

exist. Without any doubt this void can be justified by

the absence of literary interest in these pieces written

by obscure playwrights, spilled by sentimentality and

they are thus not worth to be put to posterity”(4). Both

Bonnet and Barny underline the mediocrity and they

cannot note enough the “gloomy discourse” and “failed

piece”. Although these pieces do not seem to attract the

majority of the masses and their interest mostly lays in

9

the reading, they still give us a global view of the

ritual part of the cult raised around the “grand homme”

in the revolutionary settings. On focusing on Jean-Jacques

Rousseau à ses derniers moments by Bouilly, we can see how

this piece opens up a sequence of other plays portraying

Rousseau as a main and historical character. This play,

as it is mentioned in its title, offers an idealistic

observation (4). Richer than any other piece, according

to Barny, the portrait and the apotheosis of the Genevan

thinker is made from his private life thus reuniting the

two faces of Rousseau: the political and the sentimental

dimension. In Bouilly’s eyes, the political aspect

cannot be separated form the moral or sentimental

aspect, giving the Rousseauist cult an “incontestable”

aesthetic argument and guarantee the piece’s success

“since this corresponds to the conscience of the

majority of the patriotic spectators” (Barny, 140).

Hence Jean-Jacques Rousseau à ses derniers moments give a

new perspective upon the Swiss writer secluded in

Ermenonville, at the “supreme instants of his life” (5).

This spatial-temporal frame allows to set up the man of

10

nature, the humanist and philanthropy whose quest is to

seek human joy through his writings and his actions. His

simple goodness radiates with a series of moral

anecdotes concerning the help he is trying to give to

his neighbours in need: a widow with seven children, a

indebted carpenter and his son held up in his marriage

projects. Rousseau, constantly in the middle of the

play, is surrounded by a selected and egalitarian

society: Thérèse, his wife, is an affectionate and

attentive spouse, reads and speaks like a dame, the old

nanny Jacqueline has a popular phrasé. The women take

care of the philosopher, they wait for him, they fear to

leave him alone and they handle the household; everybody

eats fraternally, together. They contribute to a

peaceful world representation, full of humanity and

attention, a world “where one can live quietly amongst

nature, spending very few” (5). M. de Giardin, the

landlord, stands as a kindly protector and all the

secondary characters of the little folk nearby complete

the tableau de champagne with the widow Michelle, Etienne

and Charles the carpenters, etc. Through this “purely

11

virtuous” of a remote little society where everybody and

(no surprise) Rousseau himself the “most sensitive and

the best of men” (Bouilly, 22) try very hard to do good

until the end- the goals is to edify the public. Jouhaud

emphasise the permanent contrast that evokes the

suffering of the past and exile in this harmonious rural

and human picture between by the women, Giradin, or

sometimes Rousseau himself. The main character

progressively becomes a martyr then a secular saint. His

unfortunate destiny and the human injustice towards him

form the background of the play, it opens to a

retrospective speech, done by Thérèse to Jacqueline, on

the persecution of Jean-Jacques before finding refuge in

Ermenonville. The pathos is put out straight forward to

the spectator who is supposed to be touched and

compassionate towards the injustice done to him, as it

is expressed in this excerpt: “It was at the beginning

of winter, Jean-Jacques was dying and in a lot of pain;

despite his condition, his prayers and his innocence, we

had to leave the Moutiers village… (Bouilly, scene 1)”1.1 [Note : All translations are done by myself, unless specified otherwise]« C’était à l’entrée de l’hiver, Jean-Jacques étaitmourant et se soutenait à peine ; malgré son état, ses

12

There is a contrast between the kindness, the well-

tempered natural and Rousseau’s moral sense the

pursuits, the fleet of hate that he tried to justify in

the past, the ingratitude of the public throughout

Europe and it has to revolt and excite pity to the

spectator. Rousseau has multiple faces, given from his

most intimate house (overly described in the stage

directions by the playwright) he is perceived as humble

impotent old man, neighbour of the people and as man of

the century, placed above human condition.

This old man, so attentive and tender for his kin

is overly emphasised in trivial and insignificant scenes

(dinner, building up of the library, reading, etc.), the

spectator sees him as an average man, “accessible” (6),

sharing his feelings and moods (the monologues are

“clearly addressed to the spectators”). It does not mean

that Rousseau is less human despite the overdrawn

features (a hurt man, physically and emotionally, he is

growing weaker through the play, surrounded with love)

conveying the spectator in this setting.

prières et son innocence, il nous fallut sortir duvillage de Moutiers… »

13

From martyr top saint, Rousseau bathes in a serene

happiness in Ermenonville and he chooses to lead with

“purity and moral integrity without fault” (7). Indeed,

he offers an extensive amount of money he got from his

librarian Rey to Charles whose father is indebted and

Rousseau makes the boy believe it actually comes from

Girardin. By this act, the main character illustrates

absolute disinterest although himself does not owe much

and the maxim of this scene is simple: a good action is

worthier the more secrete it is and Jean-Jacques

deprives himself from the necessary or even the

superficial (this happiness is so sweet to just be

useful to your own kin […] make people happy under the

name of their benefactor is filling out both the

humanity’s duties and of recognition; it is giving

yourself two pleasures for one” (Bouilly, scene XII)2.

But this status of saint will increase and be fully

developed by his edifying and peaceful death; the whole

scene setting is designed to make him appear as a being2 « […] qu’il est doux ce bonheur d’être utile à sessemblables […] Faire des heureux sous le nom de sonbienfaiteur, c’est remplir à la fois les devoirs del’humanité, ceux de la reconnaissance ; c’est seprocurer deux jouissances pour une. »

14

possessing the absolute divine perfection. “Rousseau’s

death is clearly presented like a reunion between

Rousseau and God and the attributed postures to the

writer are all religious”(8) like for example: “Jean-

Jacques, with the quiet and blissful smile: it has been

done my friend… yes, I feel… I feel that I am leaving

[…] who falls asleep in the Father’s arms is not worried

about waking up.”3 (Bouilly, scene XV) or the ending

scene when all the characters surround Jean-Jacques:

“(they all surround J. Jacques; Charles and Louise fall

to this knees, one to the right, the other on the left;

Thérèse, Jacqueline and Etienne kiss his hands) […] M.

de Girardin: “What a delicious and heart-breaking sight!

My God! Such a being on Earth is Your most perfect

image; why do you want to take it away from us? Why do

you not allow him the same numbers of days as the

virtues?”4 (Bouilly, scene XVI). This “sight, explains3 Jean-Jacques avec le sourire du calme et de labéatitude : C’en est fait mon ami.. oui, je sens… jesens que je l’en vais […] Qui s’endort dans les brasd’un Père, n’est pas en souci du réveil. »4 «  (Ils entourent tous J. Jacques ; Charles et Louisese jettent à ses genoux, l’un à droite, l’autre àgauche ; Thérèse, Jacqueline et Etienne lui baisent lesmains). […] M. de Girardin : « Quel tableau délicieux etdéchirant ! O mon Dieu ! un pareil être sur la terre est

15

Jouhaud, makes a direct reference to the last century’s

style of the “good death”(8, 9). The act of laying out

the body on the stage, with the wife and friend

Girardin, on this sides, the children at his feet,

creates a new space around the dying body and

contributes to the elevation, both moral and physical,

of the character. Finally, the last reply of the play

“crowns” this religious apotheosis, a deistic apotheosis

notices the critical author since it cannot appear as

Christian considering Rousseau’s final detachment with

all pious and social institution; the last speech

exercises the last shifting to the eternal life: ”May

this day be pure and serene! …oh! Nature is grand! … do

you.. do you see this great light… there is God… yes God

himself opens this breast to me and invites me to go

taste to this eternal and inalterable peace that I

desired so much…”5 (Bouilly, scene XVI). Rousseau’s

ta plus parfaite image ; pourquoi veux-tu nousl’enlever ? Pourquoi ne permets-tu pas que le nombres deses jours égale celui de ses vertus ? »5 « Que ce jour est pur et serein ! …oh ! que la natureest grande ! …voyez-vous… voyez-vous cette lumièreimmense… Voilà Dieu… oui Dieu lui-même qui m’ouvre sonsein, et qui m’invite à aller goûter cette paixéternelle et inaltérable que j’avais tant désirée… »

16

assumption to the Sky builds a medium between the

followers (of Jean-Jacques’ cult, of course) and God.

We can ask ourselves: why is such a staged death

necessary? Is there an essential interpretation between

Rousseau and God that we need to comprehend? Or is it

the means to present a sublime Assumption in the “air du

temps”, anticipating the religious principles of the

Assemblée nationale, with the “Supreme Being”? We cannot

detach the religious parts from the political aspect of

this play. Since the subject here is Jean-Jacques

Rousseau and this moral behaviour, this particular form

of representation is doubled by a second one- Rousseau

as a political genius, writing works of art that inspire

directives for a better government in human society.

This play is thus a show f Rousseau’s works, “especially

the Contrat Social, as a text permitting to find all the

answers the Revolution asks and to justify the

accomplished actions of the revolutionary government.

Right at the beginning, Rousseau praises the merits of

Liberty when he saves the nestlings and then again, at

this death, he give the Contrat Social manuscript to

17

Girardin, stressing to the audience that this book, one

day, will have a great role in their life:

“Here is thus this immortal work, that

maintains man un all his rights, by making him

free and equal to his brothers!... It seems

that God, yes God himself, dictated this

writing, to re-establish the natural order and

to fund society’s happiness […] I want that

before the end of the century, this Writing is

engraved in all the hearts; I want that it

makes you weave social crowns, elevates

statues; finally I want that it becomes the

code to the French Liberty.”6 (Bouilly, scene

XV)

This closure acts evidently as a prophecy of some

sort. The revolutionary government and its principles

6 « Le voilà donc cet ouvrage immortel, qui maintientl’homme dans tous ses droits, en le faisant libre etl’égal de ses frères ! …On dirait que c’est Dieu, ouiDieu lui-même, qui a dicté cet écrit, pour rétablirl’ordre de la nature et fonder le bonheur de la société[…] Je veux qu’avant la fin de siècle, cet Écrit soitgravé dans tous les cœurs ; je veux qu’il vous fassetresser des couronnes civiques, élever des statues ; jeveux enfin qu’il devienne le code de la LibertéFrançaise. »

18

are at the end triumphant accomplishments by its proud

French nation just like Rousseau has written around

thirsty years before, all based on the procedures

described in Contrat Social to guarantee mankind’s

happiness, as a human rights Charta. All religious

connotations going along with Rousseau’s death can be

seen as a divine benediction hat comes down on the

French political regime: “Rousseau is the next Christ,

bringing God’s words to Earth and the French revolution,

by prolonging and acting into those words can only

incarnate God’s project” (9) comments the critical

author by analysing this scene (“I want that it makes

you weave social crowns” is seen as a fundamental speech

and it is insisted on the French election with “French

Liberty” or even better with “I want the French to

follow my principles”).

The “grand homme”’s genius is revealed to us despite

his death, “systematically” (9) whenever his work is

mentioned. Jouhaud takes here the example in scene V:

“(getting up with strength and nobility) But I hope that

19

one day one will bless my works and my memory”7. But a

more representative scene would be scene XV after M. de

Girardin’s intervention:

“J. Jacques, getting up with all the fire if

genius. You believe it… well! I always thought

it… ah! This idea gives back all my strength… yes

make that the French follow my principles, that

they second my works; and soon they will break

all the chains that degrade them and soon they

will become the first folk of the world. They

will, I foresee it, a lot of habits to break

down, a lot of prejudices to vanquish, a lot of

obstacles to surmount; but what does it matter?

All what mankind does, mankind can destroy…”8

(Bouilly, scene XV)

7 « (se levant avec force et noblesse) Mais j’espèrequ’un jour on bénira mes travaux et ma mémoire »8 « J. Jacques, se soulevant avec tout le feu du génie :Vous le croyez…eh bien ! Je l’ai toujours pensé…ah !cette idée me rend toutes mes forces…oui que lesFrançais suivent mes principes, qu’ils secondent mestravaux ; et bientôt ils briseront toutes les chaînesqui les avilissent et bientôt ils deviendront le premierpeuple du monde. Ils auront, je le prévois, bien desusages à abolir, bien de préjugés à vaincre, bien desobstacles à surmonter ; mais qu’importe ? Tout ce qu’onfait les hommes, les hommes peuvent le détruire… »

20

Jouhaud declares the fire of this particular speech

becomes the credo of the triumph of the Revolution: in

1778 Rousseau thus foresaw that the French nation would

become “the first folk of the world” and as History

tells us, this is the case in more than just one way.

This is probably why the play is defined as historical:

“With Rousseau death, it is the Revolution’s dawn that

enters through the window” (10).

A political reading of this play is hard to avoid,

especially if we consider all the historic factors put

into Bouilly’s work. Clearly, it is portrayed that

France steps out of the dark ages where “grands hommes”

were neglected to enter a revolutionary Age for the

benefit of all humanity, with a regime that is

appreciative of the founding fathers that laid out the

groundwork. IN general, Jouhaud approaches the play in a

second time in a more structural way; she questions the

importance of time and historicity in the play material

and to what effect this particular aspect brings to the

concept of Jean-Jacques Rousseau à ses derniers moments. Thus,

the historical frame of the play, meaning the History of

21

France, is a discreet background and it seems to want to

draw a story on its own. Bouilly states his play has

“historical features” hence signalling that this play

plays back an exact past event, established

chronologically. Why is that status so important? The

critical authors argues that due to the irrefutability

of History, Rousseau’s death become part of a noble

register of those great historic scenes, “worthy to be

immortalized by the arts” (10). But some even of those

“historic events” are wrong and we cannot really

classify this play into historical plays. Not only

Bouilly’s play, but all the ones that can be regrouped

in this sub-category, are usually short pieces not

longer than an act) representing particular anecdotes or

instants that involve personal history of the “grands

hommes”; the historical facts draft the before or after

of Rousseau’s life, Marat’s death, Voltaire’s travels or

his celebrated remains. The noteworthy characters and

philosophers are made approachable through a “prism of

moral anecdotes” (11). But the point is that not all

anecdotes are historically correct, the playwrights look

22

for all exemplar event that will make a point to the

spectator; they grasp the general sense of generosity or

moral greatness in regular or/and legendary events

without scruple to embellish as much as needed.

Pierre Frantz notices “the philosopher, a

substituted paternal figure, accomplishes the symbolic

act of charity, consisting in principle to be for the

marriage of two lovers, separated by a weak obstacle”

(in “Le philosophe dans le theatre de la revolution: la place du mort”,

2003, 310). Indeed, the logic in those plays is usually

an exaggeration of the thinkers’ virtues solely in

protected universes, far away from any urban human

corruption; philosophy is humanized. Far away from the

course of History, the play shifts to an utopia, an

ideology or even a mythology. In this “romancing”

process, it is hard to decipher what the real historical

moments are and where fiction starts to kick in. All

philosophers are treated the same way and it does not

matter who the main character is anymore; the message

stays the same. The stereotyped moral figure (usually a

consensual paternal type) joins with the rather

23

superficial thoughts generated. But this does not mean

that there is no importance given tot the timeline of

History. In Bouilly’s play, legend and imagination go

hand in hand and give a global picture of a pastorale

(little moral facts by Charles and Louise, or the widow

Michelle) without discarding the impact of Rousseau’s

agonizing speech on France’s future. The emphasis is put

on the construction of the Rousseauist figure such as it

has been established after his death with no “apparent

realism” (12), giving it a increasing pathetic affect.

Both components, pathetic legend and historic events,

are present, integrated and build up a myth that can be,

generically, be called “historic”. The specific

attention given to Rousseau’s environment, both location

and second characters, show an extensive research in the

thinker’s past and works. All the stage directions are

extremely precise on the setting up of the scene and the

geographic location, all the details are meant to give a

facsimile of Rousseau’s real situation. Hence, Thérèse, M;

de Girardin, Marc-Michel Rey and the old nurse

Jacqueline are all taken out of the Confessions and they

24

are also real people, rendered both by Rousseau in his

books and then later on by the playwright as lively and

real as possible. The playwright will go and imagine the

possible dialogues between those second characters: “the

recent wedding with Thérèse, the sick childhood under

Jacqueline’s guard, the pension given by Rey, the chess

games played with Girardin” (13). Since Rousseau’s death

is unclear (there are rumours he committed suicide), the

author opts for a soft blow and to orient it in a more

political sense.

These factors show us that Bouilly was not just

well documented on Rousseau’s life but also that he

shared a certain affection to the texts. Jouhaud

presents us with a excerpt from the “Avertissement”:

“To put J.-J. Rousseau on stage, to represent

him as we was, I had to make him [he character

in the play] speak absolutely in his language

and use his own words. You can find a lot of

them in this little work to which they are the

base and the ornament. I did not think it was

necessary to retrace them into the original

25

distinctive characters: the Reader, without any

doubt, will recognize them easily.”9 (Bouilly,

3)

This copy–paste procedure has to been seen as a

complicity act with the “Reader” as well as an authentic

and true discourse in order to “really” portray

Rousseau. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s essence is fixed in

History: it is in his writings, and we need to go there

to bring the man alive throughout the centuries” (13).

The playwright brings a certain unity between all the

different texts available as well as the starting

Confessions. Bouilly, as well as others, have the

difficult task to wipe away the shocking and scandalous

reading of the Confessions and create a positive image of

the “crazy and misanthrope” thinker and create a an

ideological figure. It seems like the importance to stay

true to the sources is surpassed, only the cause is

9 « Pour mettre j.-J. Rousseau sur la scène, pour lereprésenter te qu’il était, il m’a fallu lui faireparler absolument son langage, et me servir de sespropres paroles. On en trouvera beaucoup dans ce petitouvrage dont elles sont et l’ornement et la base. Jen’ai pas cru nécessaire qu’elles u fussent retracées encaractères distinctifs : Le Lecteur, sans doute, lesreconnaîtra facilement. »

26

important, History is selected to give perfect vision on

events, giving a pedagogical setting where moral, civic

and patriotic lessons are held up high and distributed

more easily. “History, as deformed and reconstructed as

she is, serves as a pedestal to politics” (14).

In a Sartrian approach, we can discuss the notion

of “engagement” to the aspects of the Ancien Régime where a

relationship between literature and politics were

evident and thus a n even stronger during the

revolutionary period. Certainly, it would be an

anachronism since is was elaborated in a modern context

of a more autonomous literary field, but the concept

here is the same, and we can discuss those aspects

throughout all kinds of literature: theatre, poetry,

novel but also journalistic and personal writings. The

literary engagement is considered both as an authorial

position and as reception effect. There are some more

explicit forms like “l’école des moeurs” that is the theatre

in year II and less direct like “l’écriture de la souffrance” in

Chénier’s poetry.

27

Hence, in fiction, we are presented with a very

specific form of engagement: the literary promotion or

contesting of the new legislation. Anne-Rozen Morel

analyses the narratives and their utopic practice in

dramatic, fictive and journalistic works of Beffroy de

Reigny, an author who selects the moon as a fun “lieu de

dédoublement” (Charles, 1) to talk about the

revolutionary reality as well the establishment of a new

constitution (in La Constitution de la lune, rêve utopique et moral).

On the other hand, science and literature seem to work

in opposition, the “désengagement” mutates to opportunism

as Joël Castonguay-Bélanger describes it. The ideology

of the scientific process in the 18th shifts to a new

realization; scientific discoveries are seen as too

abstract and thus futile towards the needs of the

Revolution; the exploration of the moral depths will be

greater acclaimed than those of the physical world

(Mercier vs. abbé Geoffroy). A new sort of ambitious

reflexion on morality and politics will decrease

progress in science thinking. Naturally, the position of

the women in this era of change is particular

28

interesting and again, we have a dual position: marginal

acceptance or total denial of women wanting to join the

political combat that we can base from different

analyses on Olympe de Gouge, Constance Piplet, and

Germaine de Staël. On the other side, the poets are seen

as a “participation en retrait” or “intervention engagée”. André

Chénier seems to be undecided on the issues of

engagement where he shifts the political questions

towards an aesthetic interrogation leading to an image

of “Chénier engaged in his era through his affects”

(Charles, 2) and influencing his comrades in

reconfiguring the sensitivity.

Finally, theatre is the genre par excellence of

immediate expression, an art that joins an event and

that by itself is an event as well. Serge Bianchi

discusses the relations between legislators, the scene

and society in the management of the new political

culture. In the uprising of the ephemeral “communion

théâtrale”, authors, actors and spectators are all

reunited but this utopic setting is disrupted by the

conflict around “theatre for the people” and “theatre of

29

the people”. Philippe Corno looks closely to the rupture

within the revolutionary theatre and its representation

on stage. This embodies a direct emergence of the

September 1792 law mostly exploited as a metaphor for

the political conflict.

However, we should not forget an important element

that comes up, in the background of this research:

censure. While Choderlos de Laclos is mostly known for

his Liaisons Dangereuses, he was also the director of the

weekly Jacobin Journal des Amis de la Constitution for eight

months (from November 1790 to July 1791) in which he

states in the third edition:

“As for the censure, it can only be exercised,

by the Constitution’s principles, in two

manners: through liberty of print and through

the reunion of a certain number of men who, by

talking about the chose publique and

communicating what they think as well as what

they know, can work to spread the Enlightenment

30

and survey the administration.”10 (n°3,

November 14th 1790, 132)

The censure according to the Constitution is then,

for Laclos and for many other revolutionaries, part of

the role of public opinion and a control mechanism

against the impingements of authority. Mannucci explains

that this happens when authorities attributes itself the

right and its role to blow what they consider as “l’abus

de la liberté”, mentioned in those terms in the Declaration

of rights and that institute, in reality, the offense of

opinion (194):

“[…] to pretend that because the press and the

associations give sometimes birth to offences,

it can be permitted to magistrates to stop the

print of a work, to stop a peaceful reunion of

citizens, is to say that because there are

prevaricator judges, one should suspend the

course of justice, it advances the most10 « Quant à le censure, elle ne peut, dans les principesde la constitution, s’exercer que de deux manières : parla liberté d’imprimer, et par la réunion d’un certainnombre d’hommes, qui, conservant sur la chose publique,et se communiquant ce qu’ils pensent, ainsi que cequ’ils savent, peuvent travailler à répandre leslumières et à surveiller l’administration. »

31

complete absurdity, it is making a criminal

assertion. The day when this idea will be

realised, no more public censure, no more

constitution, no more freedom.”11

Hence, in that same article, Laclos demands in his

speech at the Club des jacobins on April 26th 1791 a code to

protect the liberty of press; he defines all order that

go against that policy as “a crime against the nation”.

Although the vote on this kind of regulations took place

later on, we can already sense the strong desires to

regulate this “liberty” to direct the revolutionary

movement. The question is henceforward: can a law

defining liberty of expression really be considered as

still being “freedom of expression”, this being for

printed works or for performances; art in general?

11 « […] prétendre que parce que le presse et lesassociations donnent quelquefois naissance à des délits,il peut être permis aux magistrats d’arrêterl’impression d’un ouvrage, d’empêcher une réunionpaisible de citoyens, c’est dire que parce qu’il setrouve des juges prévaricateurs, il faut suspendre lecours de la justice, c’est avancer l’absurdité la pluscomplète, c’est faire une assertion criminelle. Le jour oùcette idée sera réalisée, plus de censure publique, plusde constitution, plus de liberté. »

32

We can accordingly conclude that even the smallest,

most trifling play, like Jean-Nicolas Bouilly’s, gives

us a solid understanding on the Revolution’s modality

and perception of political views on History that was to

be brought on stage during the fragile period of the

Revolution. Literature, in general, can be made as any

kind of propaganda, especially during the setting up of

the government and the new regime. Bouilly’s play was

shown for the first time on December 31st 1790, 18 months

before the Republic’s proclamation. In many ways,

Jouhaud underlines the prophetic features of the new

political regime, its values and its proclamations. Jean-

Jacques Rousseau à ses derniers moments situates a key-moment of

the possible figures of the Genevan thinker, in theatre,

since it opens a period where Rousseau is celebrated for

his strong personality and his virtues.

33

Bibliography:

Bocquet, Guy. “Marvin Carlson, the theatre of the

French Revolution”, Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations, volume 24

n° 5, 1969, pp. 1236 – 1241.

Charles, Shelly. “Littérature et engagement pendant

la Révolution française: Essai polyphonique et

iconographique”, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2007.

Jouhaud, Noémie. “Représenter Rousseau au théâtre

pendant la Révolution”, Lurens, 2011.

Mannucci, Erica J.. “Liberté d’expression et

censure sous la Révolution française: le cas du théâtre”

Usandivaras, Muriel. “Le théâtre de la Révolution

française. Etude analytique, histoirique, et sono-

critique 1789 - 1799, Annales historiques de la Révolution française,

n°305, 1996, pp. 559-560.

34