Research & Aesthetics: Part 3

Why we laugh at something is a debatable science, though most experts would agree that we laugh because we relate to what we see before us. Whether that something we are viewing reveals something corrupt inside of us or confirms our suspicions of other’s hidden attributes, we still acknowledge it as humanity and release cathartic laughter; laughter that acts as a sort of grace as we come to terms with what we see in ourselves and as we realize that we are not alone in our transgressions. This is a narrow view of the conclusions made by George A. Scranton in his essay titled Love and Lovers: Mutuality, Sin Grace and the Future in Molière’s Vision of Comedy.

We can affirm Scranton's conclusion that Molière depicts sin as human action that disrupts human relationship because we relate to the humanity of the characters involved. We can relate to the characters of Molière's School for Wives through their Commedia dell’Arte likeness, which is also visible in most comedic television and film of today. To support Scranton’s conclusions I will look at these connections in reverse; today’s film and television commedia connections allow audiences to relate to the characters of Molière because they themselves are commedia types, and because we can relate to these characters we see our own sinful natures in them, thus supporting Scranton’s arguments that Molière’s dramatic comedy depicts sin.

Today’s comedic entertainment is ripe with examples of commedia dell’arte structure and stock characters. Commedia was probably the most important development in acting during the Italian Renaissance. It lasted as a popular performance genre for two-hundred years, from 1550 to 1750. The stock characters were performed in an improvisational nature, taking on scenarios and telling short unscripted stories. These short comedic presentations consisted of the original slapstick comedy (with an actual two sticks on stage making the sound effects for physical altercations) and lazzis, or short repeated bits of comedic business, very similar to that of the Marx Brothers or the Three Stooges (Wilson and Goldfarb 159-161).

Most commedia companies consisted of ten actors—seven men and three women—though that varied at times (Wilson and Goldfarb 159). Some of the more popular stock characters were Pantalone, the Young Lovers, the zanni (servants) Arlecchino and Columbina, and Dottore. Pantalone was a miserly old high status man who was always concerned with his money.  Often his money and greed would constantly get him in trouble and affect his social status in the end. Pantalone is seen today in characters such as Mr. Potter in It’s Wonderful Life (1946), Barney from the television series How I Met Your Mother (2004), and Jack on 30Rock (2005). The Young Lovers are also high status and are usually the children of the older men characters like Pantalone or Dottore. The Young Lovers cannot do bad things so they usually get the servants or others to do it for them. The idea of the young lovers is often seen in every boy-meets-girl comedy situations: Steve and D.J. in Full House (1987), Cory and Topanga in Boy Meets World (1993), and Zack and Kelly in Saved by the Bell (1989). The zanni characters like Arlecchino and Columbina are the crafty servant types. Arlecchino is usually very acrobatic and limber in commedia.  Shawn, friend of Cory and Topanga, is a very good example of an Arlecchino character, given his craftiness and mischief. Columbina is the saucy maid type seen in characters like the Nurse in Romeo and Juliet and Meg Brockie from the musical Brigadoon. Il Dottore is a doctor who is the same age and status as Pantalone who talks a lot but doesn’t really make any sense. The best example of this in contemporary entertainment is the character of Dr. Frasier Crane in the television series Frasier (1993).

 The shows mentioned are all popular shows. Most people without studying the characters of commedia dell’arte would never realize that that is what they were watching. Even the writers of said shows probably didn’t realize that the characters they were writing had direct connections to commedia.  This deeply ingrained relationship between today’s popular entertainment and commedia is what makes the characters of the classics more accessible, including that of Molière’s School for Wives.

The character of Arnolphe resembles Pantalone in that he is mature, high in stature, rich and is the antagonistic force keeping the young lovers of Agnes and Horace apart.  He explains his wealth and stature on line 125 when he says, “I am rich enough, I think, to have felt free/To have my wife owe everything to me.” His speech to Horace on line 291 and again on line 591 when he first tries to deceive Agnes into believing Horace’s intentions are anything but innocent, shows him as quite the sex-craved miser—a dirty old man—which is another common attribute of Pantalone.

Agnes and Horace fall in the commedia category of young lovers. As mentioned before, the young lovers are usually children of the older characters.  Agnes is the ward of Arnolphe, raised in ignorance, to his content. On line 256 Arnolphe describes how he knew Horace his whole life, almost like a son. Horace describes his love for Agnes initially on line 317, “A young girl who, it so befalls/Lives over in that house with the red walls;/…While she, brought up to be an ignorant slave/Shows charms designed to make an angel rave…” The use of others to do “bad” things is another common trait of the young lovers. Horace uses an old woman to deliver a message to Agnes (503) and he later pays the servants Alain and Georgette to let him in to see Agnes (556).

The servants of Arnolphe, Alain and Georgette, are the zanni representations of commedia in Molière’s play.  Alain could be considered an Arlecchino simply because he is the servant to the Pantalone character.  He is also involved in a lot of the slapstick and lazzi humor. This is seen right away on line 217 when he tries to hit Georgette, who ducks, and hits Arnolphe instead. Georgette is the Columbina commedia character and is even called a “saucy knave” on line 224.

The commedia stock characters are what make The School for Wives accessible to today’s audiences. We see these character types in the popular television shows, films and plays produced every year. These are the characters that contemporary audiences enjoy seeing, and they enjoy them because they make them laugh. The reason we laugh at the character’s antics is because we see ourselves in those characters. We see the finite humanity of the characters for what they are, rather than what they claim to be (Scranton 183-84).

This finite humanity being revealed in Molière’s characters is what Scranton concludes is Molière’s depiction of sin.  Scranton says that in dramatic comedy, sin comes about when the normalcy of society is disrupted (183). For Molière the young lovers are considered the norm or the “good element in the world of his plays (165).” Anything that conflicts with or is against the natural progression of the young lover’s relationship is thus considered evil.  Therefore Arnolphe, or Pantalone, is considered the sinful creature in The School for Wives (165).

How Molière’s depiction of sin affects the contemporary audience is all in how we laugh. As Scranton says, “Laughter is often the mirror, whip, and gift that reveals, castigates and allows for transformation of the characters, and us as we see ourselves revealed in the characters of his dramatic comedy (184).”  Because the Characters of commedia are so universal, we are able to see connections between popular entertainment, The School for Wives, and ourselves.  As long as Molière’s characters are depicted as truthful in Molière’s original intentions, the laughter its contemporary audiences will endure will be full of grace. Because Molière wrote the happy ending, contemporary audiences can view his work as redemptive and, according to Scranton, experience “the miraculous intervention of God on humanity’s behalf (185).” As Madeleine L’Engle says:

“We need to be careful about the difference between laughter which is healthy and creative and laughter which, like Satan’s, is destructive—at someone else’s expense. The laughter in the Bible is never nasty…and true laughter is freeing (163).”

In conclusion, I affirm Scranton’s conclusions that Molière indeed depicts sin in The School for Wives and many of his other works. This revelation of the human condition is seen only by the relatable commedia dell’arte attributes seen in the major characters of Arnolphe, Horace, Agnes, Alain and Georgette.  Because the contemporary audience can relate to such characters, this depiction of sin by Molière is received with gracious laughter; a laughter that is caused by the holding up of a mirror as we see ourselves and our own sins. Praise God for happy endings!

Works Cited

L’Engle, Madelein. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art. Commemorative Edition. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw, 1972.

Moliere. Tartuffe and Other Plays_. Frame, Donald M. New York: New American Library, 1967. (p. 95-168)

Scranton, George A. "Love and Lovers: Mutuality, Sin, Grace, and the Future in Moliere’s Vision of Comedy" Journal of Religion and Theatre 3 (2004): 161-185. Web. 28 Oct 2009. .

Wilson, Edwin, and Alvin Godlfarb. Living Theatre: A History. 4^th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004.