Maurice Maeterlinck and His "Muse Grvin"

Author(s): Robert Brachear

Source: The French Review, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Dec., 1966), pp. 347-351
Published by: American Association of Teachers of French
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/384467
Accessed: 03/03/2009 12:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=french.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of French is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The French Review.

http://www.jstor.org
Maurice Maeterlinck and his
"Musee Grevin"

by RobertBrachear

ITHEREVOLT OF THE IDEALIST THEATRE in the 1890's against

the dramatic conventions of the day found its most extreme expression in
the theory of a "pure theatre" wherein even the actor himself, that "sacred
monster" of the nineteenth-century stage, might be replaced by symbolic
forms.
Maurice Maeterlinck was in the vanguard of this revolt, both as play-
wright and as theoretician. He was the first playwright of consequence to
label his work as "plays for marionettes"; he speculated upon the possibility
of completely replacing the actor by life-size figures of wax; and he was,
finally, one of the first to outline a theory of acting which may be called
that of the actor as marionette, a concept which was later to become asso-
ciated almost exclusively with Gordon Craig.
Maeterlinck first advanced his early dramatic theory in an article pub-
lished in 1890 in La Jeune Belgique.l The true theatre, he said, was not an
imitation of life but the temple of dream wherein the spectator, freed from
the routine of everyday existence, might hope to experience a mystical
communion with a higher reality. The dramatic "poem" was the instrument
of this experience. But in the modern theatre the dramatic poem, far from
being realized on stage, was inevitably destroyed. "La scene est le lieu oit
meurent les chefs-d'ceuvre." The performance was too literal to convey the
symbolic content of the poem. ". . . la representation vient de le contredire"
(Menus Propos, 331). Life had intervened. "La densite mystique de l'oeuvre
d'art a disparu. Elle produit a peu pres, par rapport au poeme, ce qui se
produirait si vous 6tendiez une peinture dans la vie..." (Menus Propos,
331). The beauty of a Vermeer could not be recaptured by turning it into
a tableau vivant.
Theatre, then, said Maeterlinck, was best "read" not "seen," and the
significance of the dramatic poem was lost in performance. The conventions
Maurice Maeterlinck, "Menus Propos. Le Theatre," La Jeune Belgique, IX
(1890), 331-336. Hereafter Menus Propos.
347
348 FRENCH REVIEW

of the naturalistic theatre were partly responsible for this state of affairs,
but the problem was essentially a deeper one. The really guilty party was
the actor himself. His mere presence on stage was enough to destroy the
symbolic intensity of the dramatic experience. Great characters could never
be realized by human actors. The stature of the character was inevitably
diminished by their interpretation, if in fact they did not succeed in entirely
destroying it. To read a play was to envision the character as he ought to
have been. But having read Hamlet, Maeterlinck had discovered upon
seeing it that he could not accept the characterization. "Hamlet entra. Un
seul de ses regards me montra qu'il n'6tait pas Hamlet..." (Menus Propos,
332). The actor's appearance is always fatal. ".... le chef d'oeuvre est mort
durant le temps de cette presence et de ses traces" (Menus Propos, 334).
It was, consequently, dangerous to see performances of great plays. One
risked losing them forever. The actors, bringing to the stage their own per-
sonalities, their own physical presence, their limited powers of interpreta-
tion, inevitably diminished, deformed, and ultimately destroyed the great
figures they had hoped to portray.
The Greeks had been aware of this danger. "... leurs masques que nous
ne comprenons point ne servaient qu'/ att6nuer la presence de l'homme et A
soulager le symbole" (Menus Propos, 334). The Elizabethans, too, had to
some extent understood the intrinsic conflict between the symbol and its
human interpreters. In the Elizabethan theatre the acting had been highly
conventionalized, the declamation a melopie, and the decor symbolic. But
these, insinuates Maeterlinck, were only temporary and provisional reme-
dies. The problem remained-the actor was still present. Charles Lamb had
pointed out in his discussion of Lear that when reading the play one was
almost exclusively conscious of spiritual action. Upon seeing it, one's at-
tention was dislocated and refocused on the physical presence of the actor
himself and on physical rather than spiritual action.
The characters of a play are essentially emanations of the poet, aspects
of his total symbolic thought, which only the entire dramatic poem achieves
and fulfills. The individual characters are parts of a whole, subject to a
higher order than that which they can individually convey. It is the soul of
the poet, his symbolic thought, which the play must realize. The live actor
is a hostile and destructive presence. ".. . il n'est pas permis de delivrer de
sa captivite volontaire, une Ame precieuse entre toutes, pour y substituer
les manifestations d'une autre Ame, presque toujours insignifiantes, parce
qu'en ce moment, ces manifestations ne sont pas assimilables" (Menus
Propos, 335).
The flesh and blood actor who attempts to interpret symbolically con-
ceived characters destroys the necessary illusion and profanes the temple.
He is like a boorish hunter in a sacred wood. "I1 fait s'envoler les cygnes de
MAETERLINCK 349

l'etang" (Menus Propos, 331). What then is to be done to restore the thea-
tre to its true function as the temple of dream into whose sacred environs
the actor so rudely intrudes? Maeterlinck's conclusion is tentative but
radical. "II faudrait peut-etre ecarter entierement l'etre vivant de la scene"
(Menus Propos, 335). Such an act might restore the theatre to its ancient
holy function. "II n'est pas dit qu'on ne retournerait pas ainsi vers un art
de siecles tres anciens, dont les masques des tragiques grecs portent peut-
etre les dernieres traces" (Menus Propos, 335).
But with what was one to replace the actor? With a moving shadow? A
reflected image? With sculpture? Or would it not be rather with a being ". ..
qui a l'apparence de la vie sans avoir la vie"? (Menus Propos, 336). It was
in the wax museum, however, and not in the marionette theatre, that
M\aeterlinck saw the possibility of an ideal actor. "Il est difficile de prevoir
par quel ensemble d'etres prives de vie il faudrait remplacer l'homme sur la
scene, mais il semble que les etranges impressions 6prouv6es dans les galeries
de figures de cire, par exemple, auraient pu nous mettre, depuis longtemps,
sur les traces d'un art mort ou nouveau" (Menus Propos, 335). These wax
figures evoked a presence very close to, perhaps even the same as, that
evoked by the dramatic poem-a sacred terror. Their effect upon the spec-
tator, however, was difficult to analyze. Perhaps, suggested AMaeterlinck,it
was the banality of these wax figures which was most terrifying. Was not
that mystery which surrounds all living creatures here so negated that
terror was induced by its very absence? For if these figures preserved the
appearances of life, they were nevertheless deprived of life's density. Their
presence was ultimately death-like. ". .. ce sont des morts qui semblent
nous parler, par consequent, d'augustes voix" (Menus Propos, 336).
Through these actors, moving and speaking automatically, the spectator
would see life enacted in the void where human word and gesture fall only
into oblivion and silence. Such an atmosphere, concluded Maeterlinck, was
the very atmosphere of the dramatic poem. This sinister theatre of the
speaking dead would be totally subservient to the will of the dramatic poet.
It was in the Musee Gr6vin that one might find the only actors capable of
becoming the suitable dramatic instruments for the realization of the
dramatic poem. The theatre would again fulfill its ancient function of cele-
brating the universal mystery; it would bridge the terrible gulf between will
and destiny, between life and death.
The esthetic explored in the article had been searching and speculative,
as Maeterlinck himself freely acknowledged. His ideal of a theatre freed
from human presence was of visionary proportions. He suggested no means
of realizing his vision, nor did he even claim it to be capable of practical
realization by others.
It is particularly significant that Maeterlinck made no mention of the
350 FRENCH REVIEW

marionette theatre in his article of 1890, and it is clear from this voluntary
omission that he did not destine his own work to the marionette stage. Nor
did he, as Gertrude Jaspers has observed, seem to have given any serious
thought to securing actual marionette performances for his plays.2 Never-
theless, he had, for want of a better word to convey the implications of his
theatre, already employed the term "fantoche" in his introduction to La
Princesse Maleine and this use of the word was to launch a series of misun-
derstandings concerning his work which Maeterlinck did little to clarify.
The scale and scope of the marionette theatre, however, did not appear to
interest him. He continued to ignore it as a possible compromise, and his
own attitude towards marionette performances remained passive.
On the other hand, despite the youthful bravado of his revolutionary
dramatic theories, it was soon apparent that he was bewitched by the possi-
bility of the presentation of his work by human actors. It was only after
the production of L'Intruse and Les Aveugles by Paul Fort in 1891 that
Maeterlinck's first marionette performance was to take place in the little
theatre of Paul Ranson with the enthusiastic collaboration of the artists
who called themselves the Nabis. The play chosen for production was Les
Sept Princesses. It had already been rejected by Paul Fort as unplayable.
The results, from Maeterlinck's point of view, could not have been en-
tirely satisfactory. His association with Lugne-Poe was soon to follow, and
Pellgas et Melisande was presented by the Th6atre de 1'CEuvrein 1893. Both
Paul Fort and Lugn&-Poe were creating a new acting style which un-
doubtedly came closer to Maeterlinck's ideal than he had previously deemed
possible and which was deeply related to his own dramatic theory. The
carefully rehearsed, deliberate gestures, the almost chanted dialogue, and
the hollow voice of Lugn6-Poe himself, in Pelleas et iMelisande, came
surprisingly close to suggesting the great wax figures of which Maeterlinck
had dreamed. Nevertheless, he seemed to reaffirm his malaise with human
actors the following year (1894) with his three new plays entitled Trois
Petits Drames pour marionnettes.
It was not until 1896 that M\aeterlinckwas to clarify his ambiguous atti-
tude. "On m'a demand6 plus d'une fois si mes drames, de La Princesse Ma-
leine A La Mort de Tintagiles avaient 6et reellement 6crits pour un th6&tre
de marionnettes...; en v6rit6, ils ne furent pas 6crits pour des acteurs
ordinaires." 3 Was his early work then destined for interpretation by human
actors? Not in the usual sense. "Je croyais sincerement et je crois encore
2 Gertrude Jaspers, Adventure in the Theatre (New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press, 1947), p. 94 footnote b.
3 Maurice
Maeterlinck, "Preface," Plays, 2nd Series, Vol. II, trans. Richard Hovey
(Chicago, 1896), p. ix. Hereafter Preface.
MAETERLINCK 351

aujourd'hui que les po6mes meurent lorsque des etres vivants s'y intro-
duisent" (Preface, ix). Maeterlinck then proceeds to restate the greater
part of his article of 1890. There are, however, two major alterations. First,
he entirely omits the discussion of life-size wax figures as potential dramatic
instruments. Secondly, and most important, his reorganized essay now
concludes with a statement suggesting that a human actor can approach
and even possibly realize a style which will convey the symbolic content of
the dramatic poem. But his submission must be total. "Si l'acteur entre en
scene avec toutes ses puissances et libre comme s'il entrait dans une foret,
si sa voix, ses gestes, et son attitude ne sont pas voiles par un grand nombre
de conventions synth6tiques, si l'on apercoit un seul instant l'etre vivant
qu'il est et l'ame qu'il possede, il n'y a pas de poeme au monde qui ne recule
devant lui" (Preface, xv). This essay marks the end of Maeterlinck's early
dramatic development, and the conclusion of his visionary dreams of a
non-human actor. It also represents the fruition of a theory of acting which
clearly anticipates the "Ubermarionette" of Gordon Craig.
Craig added very little to the theory of Maeterlinck. Like him, he was to
see in the theatre a mystical encounter with death, and in the dramatic
performance a "rite de passage." "The Ubermarionette will not compete
with life-rather will it go beyond it. Its ideal will not be the flesh and blood
but rather the body in transe-it will aim to clothe itself with a death-like
beauty while exhaling a living spirit." 4 The ideal remains the same. There
is only one major difference. Craig characteristically switched the emphasis
from fidelity to the poet to total obedience to the will of the metteur-en-
scene.
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
NEW ORLEANS
4
Gordon Craig, On the Art of the Theatre (London, 1911), pp. 84-85.