Georges Feydeau by Leonard C. Pronko

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

362 Comparative Drama resources of language for auxiliary humorous effects (imagery, puns, and obscenities), and they seem to share an affection for erring humanity that makes them seek to prove it salvageable. Having established this much, however, we are not warranted in jumping to the conclusion that a didactic intent directed the strategy of composition for either author. Both Aristophanes and Jonson wrote at a time when dramatic art, par­ ticularly art in the suspect comic mode, frequently needed defending; and Jonson, at any rate, defended it by declaring it educational. More­ over, Jonson could and did draw upon authors other than Aristophanes for the defenses that he frequently addressed to his readers, both within the outside of the framework of his plays. He undoubtedly meant what he said in such defenses, but they were conventional things and give us no absolutely reliable clues about the precise sources of his expressions of moral earnestness. Neither do they tell us absolutely that it was moral earnestness that drove him. One final objection to this brief but useful and readable volume: it is insufficiently documented. A book of this kind will be read not only by Jonson specialists, who can be expected to know who has written what over the years, but by students, who need to know in any given chapter what is and is not new. A general statement of indebtness at the begin­ ning and a bibliography at the end do not quite meet this need. J. A. BRYANT, JR. University of Kentucky Leonard C. Pronko. Georges Feydeau. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1975. Pp. 218. $8.50. Leonard C. Pronko’s book on Georges Feydeau is one of a new series on world dramatists published by Frederick Ungar. According to the dustjacket, the format of the series comprehends “an introduction to the dramatist’s work, with biographical information, a survey of the works and their period, and an analysis of the plays.” Within the space restrictions of this handbook approach, Mr. Pronko fulfills the expecta­ tions of the advertisement. Feydeau enjoys a reputation among English-speaking audiences as a master of “French bedroom farce.” Mr. Pronko relates Feydeau to the Paris of the belle époque, a society of sumptuous tastes, fast living, and mannered unconventionality. Feydeau derived a formula from the well-made play: wildly complicated plots which involve mistaken iden­ tity, misdirected letters, slapstick encounters, and madcap chases. High society, the bourgeoise, and the demi-monde all collide in the pursuit of Vamour. Love, marriage, and infidelity are the basic themes, deception is the premise, and confrontation is the climax in Feydeau’s drama. The playwright renders the incredible acceptable by careful forecasting and a breakneck pace. Pronko illustrates both principle and practice liber­ ally from the plays. Much of this short volume is taken up with summaries of the works. Reviews 363 The author tries manfully to reduce the complexities of the plots to in­ telligibility: he is as successful as the material allows. The handbook nature of the volume is most evident here, though the author adds a brief critical comment to each summary. While it is something of an exaggeration to speak of “an analysis of the plays,” Mr. Pronko does propound a thesis about Feydeau and his work. He sees the farce as a “serious” genre, a forerunner of the Ab­ surd. The subject matter of the plays does not differ essentially from the melodrama of Dumas fils and Augier or even from the slice-of-life theatre of naturalists like Henri Becque. Feydeau’s farce presents man at the mercy of his own weaknesses—hypocrisy, lust, and greed—in a chase after satisfaction in a meaningless universe. In Pronko’s own words, “The world of Feydeau is the world of the Absurd in which man is invariably pitted against forces that resist his search for happiness and meaning, and rarely allow him to attain even the more realistic goals of peace and pleasure” (198). It may well be that Estragon and Vladimir descend lineally from Feydeau’s cuckolds and cocottes, but certainly not directly. In Feydeau the audience inevitably knows the secret that the characters are struggling to unknot; this superiority...