A recent review of a production of Moliere’s Tartuffe. In passing, the inevitable comparisons to Shakespeare were mentioned (though this author believes Moliere aligns better with Shakespeare’s contemporary, Ben Jonson). In a decidedly Anglo-centric tradition, Moliere is often referred to as “The French Shakespeare,” a moniker I’m sure the French must be thrilled to hear. While both are appreciated for their wit and brilliance, I’m not sure the parallel is entirely fair.

Since Shakespeare came first, the comparison inevitably positions Moliere as a follower, imitator or acolyte, which is neither fair nor accurate. On a generic level, each is often esteemed the greatest theatrical voice of his respective country. Understood, but again, the comparison inevitably makes Shakespeare the Genesis of the theatrical bible. “In the beginning, there was Will, and everyone else followed thereafter…” (How’s that for an overextended metaphor?).

Beyond this, the two aren’t really appropriate points of comparison for each other. English theatre, particularly in terms of space and production values, was much more closely tied to Spain (ironic, given their military opposition during this period). In addition, French drama and Moliere specifically bore a stronger relationship to Italian traditions.

Most importantly, French comedy was heavily influenced by the neoclassical movement, which used Ancient Greek and Roman ideas to create rules for dramatic storytelling. Shakespeare, with his convoluted plots, supernatural elements and mixed genres, was anything but structured. Both Moliere and Shakespeare made important contributions to theatre that need to be evaluated on their own terms. The direct competition into which they are frequently placed is a kind of theatrical Super Bowl where no one really wins.

Posted Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:51 and filed under Moliere, History. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.