The Misanthrope and Other Plays

by Molière, Lewis Seifert (Afterword), Donald M. Frame (Introduction)

The Misanthrope * The Doctor in Spite of Himself * The Miser * The Would-Be Gentleman * The Mischievous Machinations of Scapin * The Learned Women * The Imaginary Invalid

“The comedy,” Molière once quipped, “is excellent, and they who deride it deserve to be derided.”

Written during the triumphant final years of Molière’s career, these seven works represent the mature flowering of his artistry and the most profound development of his vision of humanity. They are essential to appreciating the full genius of this greatest and best-loved French comic author.

With an Introduction by Donald M. Frame and an Afterword by Lewis C. Seifert

Genres: Plays, Drama, Classics, Fiction, France, Theatre, 17th Century

528 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1666

About the author

Sophisticated comedies of French playwright Molière, pen name of Jean Baptiste Poquelin, include Tartuffe (1664), The Misanthrope (1666), and The Bourgeois Gentleman (1670).

French literary figures, including Molière and Jean de la Fontaine, gathered at Auteuil, a favorite place.

People know and consider Molière, stage of Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, also an actor of the greatest masters in western literature. People best know l'Ecole des femmes (The School for Wives), l'Avare ou l'École du mensonge (The Miser), and le Malade imaginaire (The Imaginary Invalid) among dramas of Molière.

From a prosperous family, Molière studied at the Jesuit Clermont college (now lycée Louis-le-Grand) and well suited to begin a life in the theater. While 13 years as an itinerant actor helped to polish his abilities, he also began to combine the more refined elements with ccommedia dell'arte.

Through the patronage of the brother of Louis XIV and a few aristocrats, Molière procured a command performance before the king at the Louvre. Molière performed a classic of [authore:Pierre Corneille] and le Docteur amoureux (The Doctor in Love), a farce of his own; people granted him the use of Salle du Petit-Bourbon, a spacious room, appointed for theater at the Louvre. Later, people granted the use of the Palais-Royal to Molière. In both locations, he found success among the Parisians with les Précieuses ridicules (The Affected Ladies), l'École des maris</i> (<i>The School for Husbands</i>), and <i>[book:l'École des femmes (The School for Wives). This royal favor brought a pension and the title "Troupe du Roi" (the troupe of the king). Molière continued as the official author of court entertainments.

Molière received the adulation of the court and Parisians, but from moralists and the Church, his satires attracted criticisms. From the Church, his attack on religious hypocrisy roundly received condemnations, while people banned performance of Don Juan . From the stage, hard work of Molière in so many theatrical capacities began to take its toll on his health and forced him to take a break before 1667.

From pulmonary tuberculosis, Molière suffered. In 1673 during his final production of le Malade imaginaire (The Imaginary Invalid), a coughing fit and a haemorrhage seized him as Argan, the hypochondriac. He finished the performance but collapsed again quickly and died a few hours later. In time in Paris, Molière completely reformed.

Reviews

[MihaElla · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ecce Homo! This time however it’s not about the words spoken by Pontius Pilate, nor about the paintings and works of art rendering the passion and life of Jesus Christ, or even about Nietzsche’s book 'Ecce Homo'. Well, this time is about Moliere, aka Jean-Baptiste Poquelin by his real name, probably-for some at least-the greatest and best-loved French author and comic actor, who ever lived present included, whose greatness or-the secret of it- is still today, as much as three centuries ago, living in the appeal of his plays- immediate and durable, accessible and inexhaustible, but mostly in the comic inventiveness, richness of fabric and insight (manners, human nature, society, etc).
My acquaintance with him is not new, but it is now on a refreshing and invigorating status-plunging head ahead where I see with my eyes, at least the mind eyes if the vision doesn’t help me much, sometimes, somehow, somewhere.
The Misanthrope, with the subtitle ‘Or, The Melancholy Lover’- is a verse comedy in 5 acts, first performed on 4th June 1666, at the Theatre du Palais-Royal in Paris by Moliere’s company, the Troupe du Roi. As usual, Moliere acted in the main male character role-this time as Alceste-a most comic hero eventually, even if one can’t help thinking that it looks, shows more like a tragic one.
Full of himself, an unconscious but tyrannical egoist, Alceste is constant in his excessiveness-from start up the closing of the final act. He gives us a full theory of utter frankness, still unable to apply it on a theoretical practice, as when he is asked to test it, he just fails to implement what he preaches; needless to say, he is fully dressed in a inconsistency of speech, even when it’s about his most enduring love-towards Celimene, however, sadly he is misled by his vanity.
The virtue ridiculed in Alceste is not basically the virtue itself but more about the unexamined virtue of the theorist-who talks plausibly but does not practice what he preaches-and of the nonconformist, who has eyes for all the vices of society except his own. It turns that all leads to an overall excess: of other vices that naturally accompany Alceste’s virtues – self-righteousness, inconsistency and a strong tint of hypocrisy, eager to criticize and correct human foibles.
As of these days-my present-I’ve been bombarded with a strong presence of such a farce of manners and human nature, as coming on-stage. I’m anxious to continue my journey.. (page under construction) ;-)

Act II
My maternal grandmother used to say that too much knowledge/ instruction/ education/ experiments/ experiences acquired through books only and lived through imagination chiefly and not lived also through physical reality- does make someone look and behave really foolishly in those instants when one ought to be the most able to make the proper decision(s). I even can picture her commenting on Moliere’s plays. She would be deeply disappointed as to why to read something that it’s so straightforward, simple, and mostly met in real life. IS there something more to learn as long as the life experiences are the best examples ever affected on yourself? Well, yes! You cannot ever know when you are actually the genuine actor of those plays. Like myself, nowadays. It’s just there is that someone else that is playing the best part, and not myself..

≪ I find that to win men, there is no better way than to adorn oneself before their eyes with their inclinations, fall in with their maxims, praise their defects, and applaud whatever they do. One need have no fear of overdoing the complaisance; and even though the way you trick them is visible, even the shrewdest are great dupes when it comes to flattery; and there is nothing so absurd or so ridiculous that you can’t make them shallow it if you season it with praise. [...] but when you need men, you simply have to adjust to them; and since that’s the only way to win them over, it’s not the fault of those you flatter, but of those who want to be flattered. ≫

Act III --> under construction still ;)

[E. G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Introduction
Chronology
Bibliography
Note on Money
Translator's Note

--Such Foolish Affected Ladies
--Tartuffe
--The Misanthrope
--The Doctor Despite Himself
--The Would-Be Gentleman
--Those Learned Ladies

Explanatory Notes

[Roy Lotz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Student
Professor, please, I need some assistance;
I have a question, that, despite my persistence,
I can’t seem to solve, even after many hours.
It appears it is utterly beyond my powers.

Professor
No worries, lad, just tell me the question;
You have my full and complete attention.

Student
Thanks! Well, I want to know why
I think it’s funny when some beefy guy
Yells at a child, “It’s not a tumor!”
Essentially, what is the essence of humor?
Why do some things consistently make me laugh?
Fart jokes, word play, an embarrassing gaffe,
Buffoonery, silliness, the occasional pun,
One-liners, satire, and jokes about nuns—
Why, I ask you, do I find this amusing?
I’m telling you, I find it confusing.
What single quality do all these things have
That elicit giggles, chuckles, chortles, and laughs?
What is the difference between a story and a joke?
Why is “die” serious, but it’s silly to say “croak”?
Why are some people funnier than others?
Why are we so fond of jokes about mothers?
Why does some humor grow stale with time,
While some remains perpetually in its prime?
Why do some people bore me more than I can bear,
But I find it hilarious to read Molière?

Professor
You ask many interesting questions;
Perhaps too many for one lesson.
And, besides, many are still mysteries;
So I hope you will be appeased
If I offer only my own opinion;
Whether you agree or not, that’s your decision.

Student
I’ll be grateful for anything you say.

Professor
Alright, my lad, here is my best assay.
We tend to laugh at things out of the ordinary
Something strange, unusual, fantastic, or just very
Odd; something that we’re not used to seeing.
I think at this point you’ve got my meaning.

Student
Maybe that’s true; but that’s not enough;
In a given week, we see lots of odd stuff.
Not all of it makes us laugh or giggle.
Some makes us cringe, some makes us wriggle;
Some makes us scream, or smile, or cry;
Yet some makes us chuckle. Why?

Professor
Yes, yes, you interrupted me, my lad.
I wasn’t finished, there’s something I’ll add.
We laugh at things that simulate danger.
So when you are accosted by a strange-looking stranger,
And it appears at first like there might be peril;
Like the man had gone feral, or was pointing a barrel
Of a gun—A robbery, a murder, a rape!—
But it turns out the man only wanted some tape,
The situation goes from serious to comic;
Because the man you just thought was dangerously psychotic,
Only turns out to need a strip of adhesive;
To make two pieces of paper cohesive.
There’s no danger at all! How wrong could you be?
And this, I think, is the essence of comedy.

Student
Your answer is interesting, if not very original;
Yet that may just be the fundamental principle.
This leads be, however, to another doubt;
This one is much harder; can you help me out?

Professor
If the question is within my capacity,
I will tackle it with utmost tenacity.

Student
The question is this: What is the purpose
That comedy plays? What is the service
That comedians render? Why pay legal tender
For comedy? What does laughing engender?

Professor
This question is, indeed, very much harder
And I’m afraid that, despite all my ardor,
It’s a question that I cannot decide;
I haven’t been able to pick a side.
Some people say comedy pushes boundaries,
By pointing out absurdities in people’s surroundings
And bringing up social ills in an acceptable way;
This is what makes jokes daring or risqué.
This might explain why humor is often offensive,
And jokes tend to make people defensive;
Why many comedians are always getting into trouble,
And life for them is often a constant struggle
Against respectability. But some disagree
With this, and consider comedy to be
Essentially conservative, reinforcing the status quo
By mocking novelty and change, by aiming low,
Punching down, and legitimizing the way things are.
Now you might think that this judgment is harsh
But it would explain why, after millions of jokes
People are still struggling under the same yoke.
But I will say that even if this were true,
It wouldn’t lead me to write off or eschew
Comedy, for I’ve learned as I’ve gotten old
That progress is great, but laughter is gold.

[Dee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over the past year i have started to read playwrights and found this gem among a huge list. This is one that so far i would be absolutely delighted to see on stage! The complete carryon, crazyness and life lessons that are involved in his plays have been a delight to read. There is something different to take away with each one that leaves you smiling or nodding your head in agreement🙂

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always hear people downplay farce, but I just can't agree with that when I read farces like these. These are hysterical with marvelously developed story lines and characters. Beyond that, these farces laughingly deliver extremely sharp insights into what it is to be human. After all, we are laughable creatures. It is only with humorous absurdity that we can truly be understood. These plays are wonderfully written.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonder if The Misanthrope's Alceste and Philinte inspired Austen's characters Darcy and Bingley... Though Darcy evolves more than Alceste.

[Yuri Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was read to address a gap in my literary knowledge – the greats of 17th century French theatre. Racine and Corneille are also now on my reading list. Of the five works in this volume, Tartuffe impressed me the most.

[Nikoline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only read The Misanthrope by Molière and not his other plays for a class of mine, and happened to enjoy it a lot. Basically it is a sophisticated comic drama that satirizes the hypocrisies of French aristocratic society. What really surprised me, even though I read this in Danish, is the rhythm. The ping-pong between the characters is very well created and adds a magnificent flow to the play that carries on the reader to the very end. Even though this is my very first Molière, it really demonstrates his incredible skills as a playwright and I am very much looking forward to read more of his theatrical plays.

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm going to use this space primarily to survey the works contained herein and give readers a sense of what they might find here. That said, I can't fail to plug my review of Bermel's book on farce, which contains pretty much everything I have to say on the subject at this point. It's not nearly as learned as the Bermel book I'm ostensibly reviewed, but it is significantly shorter. Anyway, you should consider my other review as context, inasmuch as it contains the perspective through which I read and enjoy plays such as those contained in this volume.

Of all my recent reviews of farce anthologies, I'm saving my favorite author for last! I’ve now read eight Moliere works, of which I loved five, liked one (which I took turns reading aloud with my daughter), tolerated another, and hated the last. Six of these are included in the Penguin anthology I’m recommending here (as usual, readable translations, fine endnotes, excellent introductory material, but alas, minimal verse). Le malade imaginaire can be found in the Bermel anthology I’ve already cited and L’Avare you’ll want to find on your own, as I enjoyed it the most of all the plays I read.

Okay, so here’s the general formula for Moliere’s monomania plays: in each one, lovers who wish to wed are kept apart by a father bedeviled by an obsession with ______________. The lovers are aided by one or more familial allies who try to talk sense to the rigid jerk, but remain frustrated until a clever ploy succeeds in separating reason from delusion. (And all live happily ever after.) I’ll take these in rank order, filling in the above synopsis with the appropriate blank, and sharing a pair of excerpts for your delectation and edification (personal note: of the plays listed below that form the basis of this anthology, those not in boldface are ones I wouldn't bother revisiting):

The Miser (L’Avare) - money, of course. Lots of dodges here and wheels within wheels, right up until Harpagon’s final comeuppance. It’s hilarious (and credible) throughout.

The Would-Be Gentleman (Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme) - social prestige. A minor departure from the usual formula in that Monsieur Jourdain’s idee fixe renders him jolly rather than nasty, and that it is his own affaire d’amour he seeks to establish (he’s already married, y’see). This is a good humoured turn all round as Monsieur Jourdain is a Falstaffian character who appreciates any sort of joke, even those played on himself.

The Doctor Despite Himself - Not a monomania play. The comedic set-up here is that a brute of a lumberjack (Sganarelle) has been mistaken for a famous physician and -- an initial comeuppance -- beaten into service. However, since the patient he needs to cure is only feigning her illness, her not-so-miraculous recovery confirms his genius, and the “doctor” thereafter placebos his way to a higher standing and drives from town legitimate practitioners and hucksters alike. The biggest joke is that this turn of events proves best for all concerned, because unlike the interventions of other learned fools and frauds who ply their trade, Sganarelle’s prescriptions of small doses of cheese and exercise at least do no harm. Allow me some extensive quotation of this play’s rapid-fire patter and see if you don’t fall in love with Moliere yourself. (Excerpts taken from Scenes II and IV of Act Two, pp. 162-165 in the Penguin version)

The first bit opens with the concerned father of the “patient” Geronte greeting Sganarelle. Geronte’s the straight man, of course. Now imagine this reluctant “doctor” as played by Groucho Marx.

GERONTE: Sir, I’m delighted to see you in my house. We’re in great need of your help.

SGANARELLE (in doctor’s gown and steeple hat): Hippocrates says… that we should both keep our hats on.

GERONTE: Hippocrates says that?

SGANARELLE: Yes.

GERONTE: In what chapter please?

SGANARELLE: In his chapter… er… on hats.

GERONTE: If Hippocrates says so, we must do it.

SGANARELLE: My dear doctor, having heard of the remarkable things --

GERONTE: May I ask whom you are talking to?

SGANARELLE: You.

GERONTE: But I’m not a doctor.

SGANARELLE: You aren’t a doctor?

GERONTE: No.

SGANARELLE (picks up a cudgel and beats him as he was beaten): Honestly?

GERONTE: Honestly. Ow! Ow! Ow!

SGANARELLE: You are now. That’s all the qualifications I ever had.

This is followed by some further foolishness -- Sganarelle chases the skirts chest of a wet nurse -- until Geronte is given opportunity to introduce his “sick” child.

SGANARELLE: Is this the patient?

GERONTE: Yes, she’s my only daughter. It would break my heart if she were to die.

SGANARELLE: She mustn’t do anything of the kind. She can’t die without a doctor’s prescription.

All of which really goes to show that the Marx Brothers’ vaudevillian schtick has a long and distinguished ancestry.

The Imaginary Invalid (Le malade imaginaire) - hypochondria. For more, see my discussion in my review of the Bermel anthology.

The Misanthrope - hypocrisy (really, a big hissy fit about others’ affected manners). As in Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, the formula is slightly altered such that the exasperated Celimene is the thwarted lover, the subject of whose affection is, ironically, a shameless frivol and flirt. He can’t help himself, except that he can, and exiles himself to the country to prove it. Celimene’s such a sourpuss that his attractiveness to the ladies fails to leap from the page. Suffice it to say that the play struggles to work if the audience has trouble swallowing the premise. This is also one of those works that reads tragically if Celimene is portrayed too sympathetically; the audience will join the hero in despairing for humanity. (For an expansion of my thoughts on this, read my opinions on the Janus-like relationship between farce and tragedy.)

Tartuffe (The Hypocrite) - a con artist’s fake piety. This wicked play wastes two full acts hyping the eponymous villain before introducing him, but when he arrives, watch out! Tartuffe will leave you squirming. The play ends with an outrageous regis ex machina (which makes sense once you know that royal patronage proved to be the only way Moliere could get this particular work staged). Put finger quotes around the tacked on finale, and Tartuffe reads as straight-on tragedy about the cruel implications of confusing faith with credulity.

Such Foolish Affected Ladies - the tropes of soap opera romances. Only it’s not the father who is twisted, but his silly daughters. This is basically a one act with only enough material to sustain a skit, and is an early Moliere play in which the characters are close to cardboard cutouts.

Those Learned Ladies - women’s right to education, although the impediment here is the mother, not the go-along-to-get-along father. I think Moliere really intended to mock faux-intellectual pretension (and the emperor’s new clothiers who peddle it) and would have succeeded better had he hewed more closely to Patience than to Princess Ida or considered the way that Shakespeare spoofed academia; I enjoyed a production of Love’s Labour’s Lost in which matching trios of young men and women pretended to foreswear love to devote themselves to study... in closer proximity to one another, naturally. However, Moliere’s is just an ugly work of chauvinism that actually uses its female protagonist to advocate the cliche that women best be left barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

Considering French farce as a whole, I confess to being a big Moliere fan. From the 19th century, my favorites remain any libretti that Jacques Offenbach has set to music. From the 20th century -- well, the recent past has (fortunately!) not winnowed down all the various farcical offerings from stage, screen, and broadcast to allow any kind of thoroughgoing sample, but --

Oh, alright, I'll confess that in addition to the other works cited above, after Jean-Paul Sartre and Irish ex-pat Samuel Beckett my taste in turns primarily (entirely?) to farces by native English speakers (I also have a preference for satire, which is not to say that I see firewalls between genres). George Abbott. Woody Allen. Charlie Chaplin. Nora Ephron. William Goldsmith. Harold Ramis. Not a complete list by any means.

Still, if you’re looking to sample a variety of French farces by different authors, I think Albert Bermel's and Eric Bentley’s respective collections the best places to begin. I enjoyed half of Bermel’s and two-thirds of Bentley’s samples. In entering this review, and my respective reviews of Bentley, Bermel, three Feydeau anthologies, and probably Plautus and Terence (anthologies of whose works I am reading at the time of posting this), you can look for me to include brief synopses of (most of) the plots found within and at least one excerpt of representative dialogue.

[Genni · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is downright hilarious at times. He often depends on caricatures to accomplish his humor. In the case of "The Impostor" (Hypocrite) though, he begins with funny clichés, but the impostor's righteous justification contains subtlety. There is a lot here to appreciate.

Is it fair to hold people of the past to modern standards? I'm not sure. Does depiction equal endorsement? I don't think so. It has to be noted though, that there is a scene where slaves are presented before a master for consideration. I think it is a little harder to read in this instance because it was part of a comedy rather than a dramatic depiction. Women are occasionally treated questionably as well.

[Lisa (Harmonybites) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Moliere has long been on my to-read list because his comedies were on a list of "100 Significant Books" I was determined to read through. The introduction in one of the books of his plays says that of his "thirty-two comedies... a good third are among the comic masterpieces of world literature." The plays are surprisingly accessible and amusing, even if by and large they strike me as frothy and light compared to comedies by Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Wilde, Shaw and Rostand. But I may be at a disadvantage. I'm a native New Yorker, and looking back it's amazing how many classic plays I've seen on stage, plenty I've seen in filmed adaptation and many I've studied in school. Yet I've never encountered Moliere before this. Several productions of Shakespeare live and filmed are definitely responsible for me love of his plays. Reading a play is really no substitute for seeing it--the text is only scaffolding. So that might be why I don't rate these plays higher. I admit I also found Wilbur's much recommended translation off-putting at first. The format of rhyming couplets seemed sing-song and trite, as if I was reading the lyrics to a musical rather than a play. As I read more I did get used to that form, but I do suspect these are the kinds of works that play much better on stage than on the page.

Misanthrope - this was the first Moliere play I ever read, and arguably the most famous of all his plays. The introduction in what might seem an oxymoron calls it a comic King Lear, and I can see that side of it. As comic as this might read, it is basically a tragedy about the young man Alceste, the "misanthrope" of the play, who makes such a fetish of always being honest he alienates everyone around him. The character I enjoyed the most was definitely the malicious Arsinoe who plays the prude. The catty scenes between her and Alceste's love Celimene is particularly hilarious.

The Doctor in Spite of Himself - involves a trick played by a wife on her husband Sgaranelle that causes him to be mistaken for a doctor who then undertakes to continue the impersonation. As with almost all the other plays by Moliere I read this then involves tricking tyrannical parents into letting young love take its course. This strikes me even on the page as pretty slapstick and I think would do better in performance than it reads. Even on the pages it's often amusing and I can understand why this is Moliere's second most staged play after Tartuffe.

The Miser - by now after reading almost a dozen plays by Moliere, I can see the formula. A foolish tyrannical parent develops a mania that causes him to endanger his family's welfare, bring himself to the brink of ruin and involves him in trying to arrange marriages for his offspring they very much oppose. In this case Harpagon's mania is for money--which he values far above his own family. His monologue about his money-box is memorable and funny, and the play has some wonderful comic characters--Frosine was a particular favorite. I wasn't fond of the denouement with its piled up coincidences, but it might be one of those things that plays better than it reads.

The Would-be Gentleman - in this play the mania displayed by Monseiur Jourdain is to become the social equal of the nobility. He's determined to marry off his daughter to one, to make one his mistress, and "dying to be learned" he's hired teachers in music, dancing, fencing and a philosopher. From whom he famously learns that he's been "talking prose for over forty years without knowing it." It's a very witty and amusing play.

The Mischievous Machinations of Scapin - Scapin is described in the listing of characters as a "trickster." He's a servant but a master manipulator and schemer in the tradition of Figaro. Otherwise the play is very much along the usual lines with Moliere, with tyrannical parents determined to make their children marry against their wishes. And, well, as one of the characters, Hyacinthe, notes: O Heavens! What a lot of extraordinary coincidences.

The Learned Ladies - On the surface this play that pokes fun at women with scholarly aspirations and pretensions to authority may seem misogynistic. But given my reading of other plays by Moliere, I think it just plays against the very idea of pretensions and deceptions--both of self and those of swindlers who target the gullible--and in defense of common sense over pedantry. In that sense it plays as the distaff version of Tartuffe, where its the male parent who is bamboozled and almost forces a daughter to wed a charlatan. And the daughter in Learned Ladies, Henriette, is among the more witty Moliere heroines.

The Imaginary Invalid - this was Moliere's last play--he died of the all-too real malady of tuberculosis within hours of performing the title character of the hypochondriac. That reminds me a bit of Jane Austen--whose last unfinished novel written while she was dying centered on hypochondriacs and quack cures. And I think that says a lot about the sense of humor of both writers. Argan is a great comic character--such a hopeless hypochondriac he tries to force his daughter to marry a doctor just to have one on call.

[Adabelle Xie · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is something deeply charming about Molière's plays. He was an astute critic of social mores with a deep understanding of human nature. And as an actor himself he was keenly aware of the importance of the audience and their reception to the ultimate quality and success of a production.

[Adam Spargo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of the oldest established pieces of literature I have read in a long time, but I thoroughly enjoyed this chaotic and humorous grouping of plays. Moliere himself seems to not have taken life so seriously, and he was a master of his comedic craft, while also being an actor and producer in a lot of the plays he wrote. He is fantastic at making a ridiculous character out of everyday situations and people, and often times uses their own family members to pull the wool over their eyes. In other situations, such as The Learned Women and The Imaginary Invalid, he would a character finally reach an epiphany towards the end of the play that was obvious to all around them, but truthfully it wouldn't change the overall opinions of this character on the matter. I'm not sure I can pinpoint a play I didn't enjoy, though The Misanthrope was challenging to keep up with at times, but I did enjoy The Doctor in Spite of Himself and The Miser the most in terms of comedic timing and themes that resonate even in modern readers. I also really enjoyed his varied style, as The Misanthrope and The Learned Women were entirely in verse, while the rest were in prose. I was amazed that the translation could maintain the rhyming structure of the original play (although I'm sure some liberties are taken), and that it could maintain a solid plotline and resolution.

Overall, I think this is another French author I have fallen for, but his style is much unlike many of the other literary figures I have enjoyed from the region, especially considering he was a predecessor to all of them. I will be adding a few more of his plays that were not covered in this version, such as Tartuffe, for some later reading.

[Kadin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd give 4 stars to all plays except for the final one in this collection, "The Imaginary Invalid"

[Joe Sweeney]

These were fine

[Gold Dust · Rating 3 out of 5]

Six French comedy plays by Moliere, written in the 1600s. I only found one or two of them funny.

Moliere “never broke faith with the time-honored purpose of comedy, which is to correct manners” (xx). That’s the purpose of comedy? I thought it was to entertain. That’s how it’s been presented to me all my life. It seems modern comedies only make the viewers imitate foolish behavior in order to get attention and laughs in the real world.

“Such Foolish affected ladies” was simple and amusing.
Favorite quote:
“That’s the way of the world—the first hint of disgrace and you’re shunned by those who were your dearest friends. . . . What people value is appearance without substance. They have no regard whatsoever for virtue unadorned” (27)

“Tartuffe”, the priest one, i think woulda been better if his hypocrisy was on display earlier instead of chars just talking trash about him. Also, so many chars have such long monologues that i feel sorry for the actors who had to memorize all those lines! I couldnt have done it!
Favorite quotes:
“You must be very susceptible to temptation if a glimpse of flesh has that much effect on you! I can’t possibly think why you should get so excited but, speaking for myself, I don’t get worked up so easily. I dare say you could stand before me without a stitch on and your whole carcass wouldn’t tempt me” (58).
“Why do you take it on yourself to defend the interests of Heaven? Does God need our help to punish sinners? Just leave it to Him to take care of divine vengeance. Keep your mind on the forgiveness which He would have us show to those who trespass against us, and forget human justice when you try to follow God’s supreme commandment” (68).

“The misanthrope” was the reason I read this book. It did have a misanthrope in it, but the focus of the play was more on his love interest who was everything he loathed but he still loved her anyway.
Favorite quotes:
“Flatterers are always to blame for the vices which prevail among mankind” (113). True for at least some vices.
“A man in love always justifies his own choice. His passion makes him blind to all faults and in his eyes everything in the woman he loves is lovable. He counts her defects as perfections or finds flattering names for them. If she’s pale, it’s the pale beauty of the jasmine flower. She may be swarthy enough to frighten the horses, but for him she’s an adorable brunette. If she’s thin, she’s slender and graceful; if fat, she has a queenly dignity; if she neglects her appearance, slight though her attractions may be, she is said to have a ‘careless beauty’; if she’s tall, she’ll have the majesty of a goddess; if she’s short, she’s an abridged version of all the virtues under heaven! If she’s proud, her nature is regal. If she’s sly, she’s clever. If she’s stupid, she’s all heart. If she talks all the time, she’s cheerful. If she never talks at all, she’s proper and modest. And so it is that the true and passionate lover worships the very faults of the woman he loves” (114). Good description of how any negative can be twisted into a positive, or vice versa.

“The doctor despite himself” was the funniest.
Favorite quote:
“If things keep on as they are, I reckon I’ll stick to medicine for good. I find it’s the best of all trades because whether you do good or harm you still get your money” (171).

“The would-be gentleman” was the second funniest. It taught me that a gentleman was actually a man of nobility as opposed to a merchant. So when women of old said they wanted a gentleman, what they really meant was someone of high status. I always assumed a gentleman was just a civilized, courteous man.

“Those Learned Ladies” showed that even in the 1600s there were feminists.

The man in the play seems to think that women should not have any knowledge of anything besides stuff that concerns being a wife and mother, because that is what serves him best. But then men will turn around and make claims that women are stupid, weak, frivolous, and incapable of holding a man’s job, when the very reason they are “stupid” or “incapable” is because men have prevented them from obtaining the knowledge/training to be more. Yes, tis inconvenient to have an educated slave, because the education interferes with her work and makes her aspire to be more than a slave.

“Being under the thumb of a woman is degrading” (279). This is a sexist sentiment. The reason why males find it degrading to be a woman, look like a woman, or be under a woman is because he thinks woman is inferior to man. The truth is men and women are more equal than not, and whatever one can do that the other can’t is a small amount of things that don’t amount to enough to warrant one being labeled inferior to the other. I liken men and women to being like the hands of a body. They help & support each other. one does the writing while the other holds the paper. One pours the drink while the other holds the glass steady. One stirs the pot while the other holds the pot handle. One holds the pan while the other washes it. One wields the sword while the other holds the shield. One takes on the dominant role, but that’s not to say that the other hand is incapable of being dominant and strong. Both are capable. And just because one is dominant is not reason to say that the other is inferior/degrading, or that it’s bad to be left handed or right handed, or that one hand deserves nourishment/payment while the other does not.

The disrespect women have gotten over the centuries is why they wanted to have education, jobs, sports, and money. They proved that they could do almost anything men could do and are worthy of just as much respect. And they should have gotten respect when they were just housewives too, because even tho it pays no money, it is not an easy job. Women’s work is difficult in its own way, and it’s not right that they shouldn’t be paid or treated with respect. “Girl/woman” should not be an insult. The fact that it still is shows how sexist our society still is. Without woman, there would be no human race. It takes both men and women to raise a healthy family and to have a successful society. Both deserve equal respect. Men have kept women under their thumb because they probably knew that women were just as capable as men, but men didn’t want to compete against woman. They wanted their free cook, maid, and prostitute, and to hold all the money and power.

[Ryan Binz · Rating 5 out of 5]

These plays were an absolute pleasure to read. They are all satirical and genuinely funny. Tartuffe and The Misanthrope in particular are now numbers I think everyone needs to read. Tartuffe satirizes religious hypocrites, while The Misanthrope satirizes satire itself and the morally righteous. I also really enjoyed Such Foolish Affected Ladies which mocks the ‘preciosity’ of manner and discourse of the noble class.

The banter between Celimene and Arsinoe in The Misanthrope is some of the most entertaining and witty dialogue I've ever read. Generally, I didn’t have much in the way of expectations going in but I was blown away with the joviality and wit. I laughed out loud.

As Moliere was one generation after Shakespeare I have to compare him to the bard. While his plays are not nearly as heady or broad in their exposition of humanity, each one does have a sharp single point which is very well done. I also found these much more digestible and genuinely funny than the majority(with some exceptions) of Shakespeare, which is surprising because of course this is a translation of the French. Reading Shakespeare the right way(if I may say so without condescension) is hard work for us in modern times, and of course the payoff is immense, but Moliere reads without any hardship and still gives you a decent payoff. If you're in the mood for something fun and easy to read which is simultaneously clever I couldn’t recommend Moliere enough.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I prefer the verse translations, but a good introduction of Moliere's work

[Simon Mcleish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally published on my blog here (with other Molière reviews) in between October 1998 and January 1999.

The Would-Be Gentleman

Molière's delightful exposé of the world of the rich bourgeois aspiring to take a place in upper class society never fails to delight. M. Jourdain is so anxious to fit into that society where he never can; he will always be an outsider there because he is only aping a way of life which the others above him have led from the cradle. He would be better off to imitate the Boffins in Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, who continue to talk of their disreputable trade in fashionable drawing rooms because it is inconceivable to them that the dust heaps could fail to be an object of passionate interest.

The Would-be Gentleman is certainly not perfect; it is really a series of sketches, almost as though Molière was writing a series of treatments for a sit-com season. This is because of a distinct lack of overall plot, the main plot seeming almost tacked on. This is the courtship between Cléonte and Jourdain's daughter Lucille. Jourdain refuses to allow Cléonte to marry her because he comes from Jourdain's old background; he wants Lucille to marry a noble. Cléonte takes advantage of Jourdain's extreme snobbishness by disguising himself as a Turkish prince who has heard of Lucille's famous beauty.

The best parts of the play are the episodes at the beginning, completely independent from the Cléonte/Lucille plot, concerning Jourdain's attempts to better himself at the hands of his dancing master, music master, fencing master and a philosopher. Molière makes much comedy from his lack of aptitude for these arts, which is only equalled by his incomprehension of them. (They include the famous scene in which Jourdain is amazed to discover that he has been speaking prose all his life, when he thought he was just talking.)

In a later age, Molière would surely have integrated these scenes more closely with what comes later, and into the overall plot of the drama. Since The Would-Be Gentleman is actually quite a short play, this could have been acheived without losing anything; but the tightly plotted farce was not Molière's genre, and we must be grateful for what his genius did leave us.

The Misanthrope

The Misanthrope has two juvenile leads, who represent different aspects of human nature - indeed, as surmised by John Wood in his introduction, different aspects of the personality of Molière himself.

On the one hand, we have Alceste, disgusted with the hypocrisy of the world, who has declared that there is no good in man, and who has vowed never to lie about the virtues of others. He is, of course, the misanthrope of the title. This attitude gets him into a considerable amount of trouble, including a law suit which he loses because he refuses to flatter the judge and the enmity of Oronte, whose poetry he cannot bring himself to praise. His big problem is that he is in love with the flirtatious and shallow Célimène (as is his rival Oronte), and continues to be so despite his knowledge of all her faults, ones which he despises in others.

On the other hand, we have his friend Philinte, who has the instincts of a courtier, always ready to find a word in praise of others. Molière manages to make him sufficiently sympathetic that the audience will not blame or despise him for this in the way that it will some of the other characters. Nevertheless, the main interest for both Molière and for us is the character of Alceste, which is only natural given that there are more possibilities for comedy in a character who is different from everyone else around him (and from the audience too - a major part of the point of the play), and who refuses to moderate his principles in any way whatsoever.

We all know both the impulse to be the courtier and that to reject all hypocrisy, and this is one reason why The Misanthrope succeeds so well. John Wood describes it as Molière's masterpiece, and that is certainly a judgment that his translation bears out.

Tartuffe

Like The Misanthrope, Tartuffe is about hypocrisy; unlike the later play, Tartuffe aroused great indignation, and it was only after several re-writes (comemmorated in several prefaces) that the play was allowed to be performed in public. The Misanthrope was, in fact, written during the period that Tartuffe was banned.

The reason for the differing reactions to the two plays is based on the way that Tartuffe shows his hypocrisy: through feigned religious piety. Not having the earlier versions which originally aroused the anger of powerful group (apparently mainly strongly pious lay people rather than the church), one can only guess at what exactly in Molière's play was so outrageous. He specifically denies in one of the prefaces that he intended any attack on true religion; his target was those who pretend true religion. You do have to admit that the more pious members of Orgon's family, he himself and his mother, seem to be portrayed as particularly stupid.

The plot of Tartuffe is fairly simple. Tartuffe has wormed his way into the family of the wealthy Orgon, who believes his assumed piety and looks on him as a saint. Orgon will not believe the warnings of his family, all of whom see through Tartuffe with the exception of his mother. Orgon now tries to force his daughter Marianne to marry Tartuffe, breaking a contract he has already made to marry her to the man she really loves. Tartuffe attempts to seduce Marianne's stepmother Elmire; it is only when she arranges for him to repeat his propositions with Orgon hidden under a table that he realises Tartuffe's true nature. When Orgon tries to throw Tartuffe out of the house, the latter goes to the king with some documents to support an accusation of treason against Orgon (they are documents entrusted to Orgon by a friend who had fled the country). Just when it looks as though Orgon will lose everything, the king intervenes; he has recognised Tartuffe as a scoundrel and throws him into prison instead.

The flattery of the king by Molière and the way he is used as a deus ex machine is the only real weakness of this otherwise great play. The whole thing comes so close to a very unhappy ending that there was very little else that Molière could do to arrange the outcome required in a comedy of the day, intended to be a piece of light entertainment.

A Doctor in Spite of Himself

A Doctor in Spite of Himself is a short, farcical attack on the medical profession, on the ignorant doctors of Molière's time who tricked the unwary with long words and bogus science (they are one of Molière's favourite targets). He uses his standard plot of the man (Géronte) who will not allow his daughter to marry, but the centre of this play is not Géronte's family but the false doctor Sganarelle. Géronte's daughter Lucinde appears to be ill, refusing to speak to anyone, and so Géronte sends out two of his servants to find a doctor. They encounter Sganarelle's wife, who tells them that her good-for-nothing husband is in fact a great doctor; she recounts some (imaginary) amazing cures he has accomplished. She tells them that he is also incredibly modest, and won't allow anyone to call him a doctor; at the moment, because of his love of humble occupations, he is in the forest collecting firewood (this is, of course, so they won't be surprised when he shows no knowledge of being a doctor). The two servants go off and find him, and end up beating him up until he agrees that he is a doctor and that he will treat Lucinde.

As in L'amour Médecin, her cure is to be united with her lover, but not before much fun is had making the medical profession ridiculous, and not before Sganarelle realises that medicine is the career for him: you make your money regardless of the quality of your work, whether the patient lives or dies.

A Doctor in Spite of Himself is one of the funniest of Molière's shorter plays, much more polished and finished than the others I've read.

[Tirzah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had read Tartuffe in high school and found it funny, so I decided to revisit it. I still find it a humorous play and recommend to those who enjoy satire.

The Misanthrope was new to me and while that was also funny, I didn't like it as well as Tartuffe due to some annoying characters. Although, is it awful for me to admit I feel like Alceste some days (to a smaller, less dramatic degree)? The other plays I did not read - too many books, too little time as the saying goes, so I skipped those. Maybe down the road I will try them.

[Courtney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cool Collection

I have never read these plays before. But I enjoyed them. I got this book with the intention of reading just one for a reading challenge. But I read them all and I was surprised.

[Nikhil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of these, "The Misanthrope" and "The Would-Be Gentleman" stand out. They have maintained a great deal of their humor over the ages. In its own time, however, I believe "Tartuffe" would have been the most important from a wider social and cultural perspective.

[Susan Trezins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only read Tartuffe.

[Annie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love it. Find it better than shakespeare

[Tom Calvard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very funny and sharp satirical set of plays with a timeless quality in how they make fun of society, professions and class and gender relations.

[Dan Brown]

Let's be clear..... I read the misanthrope but that was about all I could stomach. Not bad though. Just a bit wooden.

[bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

No matter how many centuries have passed, human nature hasn't changed a bit. So Moliere's comedy is never out of date.

[Katrina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved all of them except the imaginary invalid. I don't really understand why but all the others in the book were so witty and I kept giggling but that one was just hard to get through

[Colin Turner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I ❤️ Molière

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall an interesting series of plays with great context provided by the translator. I was underwhelmed by The Misanthrope itself, but enjoyed both Tartuffe and A Doctor In Spite Of Himself.