the law of the name. the imaginary recipient in corneille's le cid

Copyr igh t 0 Munksgaard 1997 Orbis Litterarum 52: 157-177. 1997 Printed in Denmark . All rights reserved ORBIS Zi t temm

ISSN 0105-7510

The Law of the Name. The Imaginary Recipient in Corneille’s Le Cid Peter Bornedal, American University of’ Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

The article introduces the notion of an ‘imaginary recipient’ as constitutive in creative writing when the poet calculates the reception of hidher work. However, it is not the intention by this notion to repeat the Hermeneutical idea of aesthetic response, but to in- troduce a notion that can account for the fact that authors attempt to anticipate various (authoritative) recipients’ interest in their work of art. As these interests may be conflicting, it becomes possible to explain inconsistencies in the work, and in the case of Corneille’s Le Cid? it becomes possible to account for the collision between two different sets of values in the play: a traditionel code of honour and a contemporary political situation in which the code of honour is disadvantageous to certain of the play’s inscribed recipients. This clash of interests also explains why the play was poorly received by the establishment.

1. Introduction In an earlier work I have tried to apply theoretical discussions of rationality and limitations of rationality to literary analysis, as I tried to reconstruct plot and meaning structures of the literary text in order to locate the limitations of textual meaningfulness. ’ This limitation of rationality was defined in two ways - not necessarily excluding each other; first, as system-inherent, as a deficiency and incompleteness constitutive for consistent systems; secondly, as produced through the cacophony of different voices with which the creative self addresses himself to a variety of imaginary recipients. These imaginary recipients, it was argued, could possibly represent a variety of different interests likely to be mutually incompatible.

The concept of an ‘imaginary recipient’ represents the idea of a recipient, which is therefore ‘located’ in the creative cogito (for example, the idea of a class, an institution, a single powerful individual, or an idea multiplying into

I58 Peter Bornedd

different conflicting recipients). In the introduction of this concept one em- phasizes how a literary work is concerned about observing an assumed reader-interest, for example in an attempt to comply with an ideological and political horizon shared by its assumed recipient(s). Simultaneously it becomes possible to explain inconsistencies in the work as the unsuccessful result of trying to satisfy multiple colliding interests. As such the imaginary recipient becomes a part of the structure of the text, which is now seen as a surface beneath which layers of different messages can be uncovered. Behind coherent plot-constructions, it is possible to uncover residues of conflicts, and in the analysis reconstruct these conflicts.

It is impossible to go into details with how this approach compares to other critical schools,2 but it can in passing be noted that the ‘imaginary recipient’ is an entirely different analytical concept than Wolfgang Iser’s ‘im- plied reader’ - for at least three different reasons. First, whereas her, and other critics from the Hermeneutical tradition, are interested in aesthetic response, and in how a text is actualized or appropriated by a reader, a concept of an ‘imaginary recipient’ addresses the creative process, which is now view- ed as a (possibly distorted) communicative process where the author con- stantly communicates with assumed ‘others’. Secondly, critics from the Her- meneutical tradition are typically interested in how meaning emerges in the dialectics between text and reader, whereas the notion of an ‘imaginary recipient’ has the reverse purpose to help explaining how and why meaning breaks down, how and why inconsistencies occur in literary texts. Thirdly, although from Gadamer to Iser there are earnest attempts to prevent ‘relativ- ization’ of textural analysis, it is hard to see how it is effectively avoided when the meaning of a text is ‘actualized’ in the reader, and consequently actualized differently in different readers. Focusing on the side of ‘production,’ i t is taken for granted that a text can be objectively read, and its plot and other structures can be reconstructed to a point where also inconsistencies show up and reveal problems in the creative process.

11. Code and t ey t

Corneille’s Lr Cid does not represent the relationship between ‘code’ and ‘text’ in the most fortunate manner; not, at least, if we by ‘code’ understand the contemporary standards for composition and decorum in dramatic po-

The Law of the Name 159

etry. Thus, Corneille’s text is not the most illustrious example of how the rules of the unities are implemented in a neoclassical text.

Neither the unity of time nor the unity of place are strictly observed in the work, as Corneille’s critics noticed and Corneille later admitted. Too much happens within a span of twenty-four hours and the characters move between too many different places. Later, in his Discours des Trois Unitis, Corneille defended his use of many different places by pointing out that although the scenes are enacted at different locations, his characters remain within the same city, Seville. But in his later Examen of the play, Corneille admits these and other errors; errors of which he had been criticized by the French Acad- emy. The question of the rules becomes a question of the probable, the ‘vraisemblable,’ and the proper, the ‘bienstance.’ Transgressing the rule of the unity of time has two consequences: it makes the play ‘invraisemblable,’ im- probable, and it violates the doctrine of ‘bienstance,’ a notion indicating that one should not simply depict truth on the stage but beautify it according to the conduct and proprieties of polite society. When Corneille does not observe the rule of the unity of time, he ultimately offends these principles - and not only the law of probability, also the doctrines of conduct and propriety. As we shall see, he ultimately offends the preeminent recipient of the play, the king.

The problem in Corneille’s play is that too much happens within twenty- four hours. For instance, Rodrigue’s fight with the Moors should realistically have worn him out so much, that he would have needed two or three days of rest. Instead, after the fight the king immediately arranges the duel with Don Sanchos. Corneille recognizes that this goes too fast.

[Regarding] the duel with Don Sanchos, which the king arranges, he could have chosen another time for the duel than two hours after the fight with the Moors. Their defeat did exhaust Rodrigue long enough to earn him two or three days of rest.3

The same rule of time is violated with regard to Chimkne when she twice, within twenty-four hours, seeks the king, pleading him to revenge her slain father. This is importune, pressing the king for the same request within such a short span of time. As Corneille notices, it works in the novel about Cid, where there is no time-limit and seven days pass between Chimene’s requests, but on the stage it appears as if Chimene seeks the king both the evening and the following morning.

160 Peter Bornrdul

The same rule pushes Chimene to ask the king for justice a second time. She had already done that the evening before and had n o reason to come back the next day to bother the king. She had no reasons for complains, since she could not claim that he did not keep his promises. Thc novel would have given her scvcn or eight days before bothering the king again, but twenty-four hours did not allow that. This is the inconvcnicnce of the rule.4

If we assume that the unity of time is strictly observed, if the action of the play elapses within twenty-four hours, then the play is an insult to the king. In the first case, the king appears inhumane by not letting Rodrigue rest a while after his triumphant battle, because he instead arranges the duel with Chimene’s defender, Don Sanchos. In the second case, the king is offended because Chimene importunately presses the king for justice both night and day, without respect for his sovereignty. In both cases the conduct towards the king is impudent. Either Corneille depicts the king as insensitive, or he lets his heroine treat him disrespectfully. If the rule of the unity of time applies, Corneille indirectly offends the king. If it does not apply, the conduct of the characters might have been justifiable.

The unity of time apparently is not observed, but it should have been so, and if it were observed as it ought to, the play is without ‘judgment of conduct,’ as Georges de Scudery complains. When the fictive univcrse of Le Cid is condensed into one day, time becomes scarce and precious. How- ever, it is first and foremost in relation to the king that this implausibility becomes offensive. It is the king one ought to give time, and give him con- siderably more time than twenty-four hours. This is the essence of Corneil- Ic’s apology: he has not given the king more than twenty-four hours; he admits his disrespect, and apologizes.

The problems of time and place were, however, only one of the criticisms Corneille was exposed to by contemporaries. Corneille was criticized for neither respecting the unities nor the decorum of the stage, and furthermore for plagiarizing and ‘stealing’ the most beautiful verses. The problem of the ‘unities’ is only one point in the charges brought against Corneille. According to Scudery, just about everything is wrong with the play. His complaints are:

That the topic is worth nothing. That it opposes all the main rules of a dramatic poem. That it lacks judgment of conduct. That it is full of bad verses. That almost all its beautiful parts are ~ t o l c n . ~

The Law of’ the Name 161

But one issue is particularly devastating, the role of Chimene. It is unfor- givable that she accepts Rodrigue’s presence in her bedroom so soon after he has killed her father, and it is ‘invraisemblable et immoral’ that she by the end marries her father’s murderer - particularly if we assume it happens within twenty-four hours.

The French Academy was finally called upon to mediate in the polemic between ScudCry and Corneille. They maintained the criticism ~ although not as severely as Scudery - and the basic charge that Chimkne acts immor- ally and improbably by marrying the man who slew her father. In his later ‘Examen’ of Le Cid, Corneille defends these accusations by pointing out how Rodrigue’s and Chimene’s sensitive conversation makes the spectator either forget or forgive the error.

The two visits Rodrigue pays to his mistress offend the propriety of the part when she is in grief. Strict duty would have required that she refused to talk to him, and that she locked herself up in her chamber instead of listening to him, but allow me to say with one of the best minds of this century, that their conversation is so full of noble feelings, that mostly people have not noticed this flaw, and those who have noticed it, have forgiven it.6

It is a question of whether one ought to follow the ‘vraisemblable’ or the ‘bienseance,’ whether one should remain truthful to history or beautify the facts in order to make them suitable to current opinions and conventions. In the case where Corneille is accused of the implausibility of the visit to Chimkne’s bedroom, he defends himself by pointing out the embellished dialogue. In the case where he is accused of imprudence by letting Chimene marry her father’s murderer, he argues that he is just describing what is historically correct.

It is true that in this matter it should have been enough to save Rodrigue from danger, without pressing him to marry Chimene. This is the historical fact and it pleased in its own time although it would not in ours; and I fail to see why Chimene accepts this in the Spanish author although he gave more than three years to the comedy. In order not to contradict history, I felt I could not dispense with the idea, notwithstanding the uncertainty of its effect, and is was only so I could reconcile the theatrical rules of propriety and the reality of the events.’

However, in these discussions about whether or not Corneille observes the rules of decorum and unity, something more general is at stake, something defining the neoclassical paradigm in a more profound way. First, the play and the code defining the composition of the play can be discussed between

162 Peter Bornedul

author and critic. This changes with the Romantic definition of poetry, but at this point poetry is still defined as something that implicates society, and as an action - a linguistic action ~ within the bounds of society. Poetry is still an object of (rational, pseudo-rational, or even irrational) discussion. Thus, poetry has to observe the rules defined by the society it addresses. It must, in other words, inscribe its potential recipients and internalize its own context of reception. These two aspects of the poem, conventionality and receptivity, organize and form signification on a deep-structural level of Le Cid.

As such, the recipient is part of the structure of Lr Cid. A ‘general’ or ‘imaginary’ recipient in the text reveals itself as Corneille’s awareness of code and decorum. This ‘general’ receiver is not only made up by the speci- fic audience to which the work is composed, but by the social-political- ideological horizon in which the work is supposed to function. The ‘general’ recipient is as inherent in the work as the different messages it con- veys. The purpose of the present interpretation is to reconstruct these inter- dependent layers in the text, to expose their internal logic -- or lack of logic. The text therefore is like a surface beneath which layers of different messages can be uncovered. Inconsistent and conflicting, these messages echo ideological conflicts existent in the social groups which first and foremost constitute Corneille’s addressees. Behind a quite coherent plot-con- struction, it is possible to discover these sediments of conflicts, conflicts which the author tries to resolve for the simple reason that he, at this par- ticular historical point of time, is concerned about the audience and tries his best not to offend them. In the interpretive work we shall reconstruct these conflicting messages ~ hereby actually ‘deconstructing’ the apparent and superficial organization of the text.

Lo Cidis a play about how to follow a code, namely the code of honour. The pursuit of honour is understood as ‘correct conduct’ in the play. Beneath this, however, it is also a play about how this code becomes increasingly problematic. If this does not seem obvious in a first reading of the play, this is what is at stake in the subsequent reception of Le Cid, and in the fervent polemic it launches. In these debates, partly introduced above, it is indisputable that Corneille (who on behalf of the characters in the play meticulously observes the code of honour) among notable critics, The French Academy, and even Richelieu, was not successful in matters of ‘conduct.’ But whether or not Corneille succeeds in Le Cid, whether or not his Chimene is an opportune sketch of a heroine, whether


or not his unities are stretched beyond the probable, he writes acknowledging a conventional code and potential recipients. It is this state of affairs we shall ad- dress in the following interpretation.

111. The code of honour In order to understand the logic of the conflicts in the play, it is necessary to understand the prevailing and underlying value-system, what we shall term the ‘code.’ This is the system against which everything is measured: man, woman, love, existence, death.

The value-system is fundamental, and therefore no other systems found it. It is in itself (consequently and by all good logic) inexplicable and random. It is The Law of the play, a horizon taken for granted, a ‘categorical impera- tive’ of honour one might say. Kant is easily paraphrased: ‘act in such a way that the maxim of your action always corresponds to the universal law of honour.’ This Law is exposed in the behaviour and speech of the characters as something they have to observe, interpret, and react to in the most correct manner.

Ignoring or overlooking this Law would be worse than anything else, worse, for example, than death. Such disregard would annihilate the characters as subjects. The annihilation of their individual, corporeal, and empirical being would be insignificant, but the annihilation of their imaginary being - as the esteem they hold in the eyes of the other and as their self-esteem - would be disastrous not just to the person, but to the person’s name and family.

The underlying value-system we imply here is the code of honour. A man’s or woman’s value is measured in honour as a value beyond life and death. The economy of honour constitutes a ‘general economy’ of the play. It is recognized among the characters as constituting a value-system according to which they can and should adjust their actions. It is the ‘general equivalent’ of human action. The play is about how one can increase one’s value within this value-system, increase one’s esteem (and thus self-esteem), and consequently increase one’s worth and ‘price’; and, conversely, about how one avoids a decrease in one’s worth.

Because individual action is ultimately measured in esteem, it is far beyond the individually comfortable and agreeable. Characters in the play are at any point ready to die if dying gives them higher esteem than living. Death is

164 Peter Bornedal

chosen over life, if death makes the subject more worthy and a higher priced subject in the eyes of the other. This is represented in numerous places in the text. Because death in the play tends to increase rather than to decrease subjective worth, the text has an implicit problem in putting a restraint on thc eagerness with which the charactcrs are ready to sacrifice themselves. It has to transform this suicidal tendency - this drive toward death and self- destruction which it suggests as an appropriate solution to a dishonourable life - into something more constructive. It has to make life an honourable alternative to death.

In this quest for the highest honour and esteem, the text is discussing, expounding, and interpreting the code. It attempts to determine ‘the most honourable’ action, given diverse circumstances. This is the teaching of the text. It is a lesson in how to behave honourably. The text sets forth different examples and situations. For instance, it often places a character in a dilemma, giving him or her the choice between two equally, or almost equally, honourable alternatives. The problem of the character here becomes whether he or she is able to interpret and icknfifji which alternative would be the more honourable giving him or her the most esteem and worth. The represen- tation of this problem is the ‘teaching’ of the text, the solution is its ‘pleasure.’

After Rodrigue has avenged his insulted father by killing Don Gomez, the father praises his son; he has given him satisfaction; the family honour is restored. The fact that Rodrigue has killed the father of his beloved Chimene and broken his bond to her does not occur to the old man as a major problem.

From the beginning, Rodrigue stood in a dilemma: should he carry out his duty as a son, or should he follow his feelings of love for Chimene. I n this dilemma Rodrigue makes the right and only possible choice. He recognizes, after discussing and interpreting the problem by himself for the sake of the audience, that his first obligation is to his father. He must restore the honour of the family. Speaking to Don Diego: “The honour was your due. I could no less, / Since I’m your flesh and blood, and bred by you.”’ But he perceives another obligation, his obligation toward Chimkne.

Don Diego recognizes his son’s sacrifice, a sacrifice that brings him, as a father, in debt to his son, because although Don Diego gave his son lifr, Rodrigue has givcn his father back his nume, and as the name carries all the worth of a person Rodrigue has given his father something more valuable than life. Now Don Diego is indebted to Rodrigue.


Carry Your victory still further. Think Igave you life; you gave me back my name. And, since I cherish glory more than life, My debt to you is all the heavier. But from your heart remove such weaknesses. There’s but one honour, mistresses abound! Love’s but a pleasure; duty’s a command.’

Don Diego perceives only one obligation, the duty toward the family, or rather the name. Women are not included in the economy of his system because they are abundant and can be replaced. A name cannot. Rodrigue, however, has another, stricter, interpretation of honour. Compared to Don Diego’s patriarchal attitude, it is youthful and romantic. One also has certain obligations with regard to the woman one loves, and he starts at his father’s insensitivity in the matter.

What you say, father?

you dare urge me to inconstancy! Like infamy weighs equally upon The craven warrior and the faithless heart. Do not this wrong to my fidelity. Let me be chivalrous but not for sworn. My ties are strong and are not broken thus; My troth still holds, even if I hope no more. And still I cannot win or leave my love, The death I seek will be the sweetest pain.”

. . . . . . . . . . .

A ‘faithless heart’ with regard to his beloved he is not; he has an obligation towards her. Remaining faithful to Chimene is, however, less a recognition of her personal well-being than it is an acknowledgment and recognition of the integrity of her name. His fidelity consists in supervising that her name re- mains intact, even if that will cost him his life. In this intent he does not care about her, his, or their happiness. His final obligation would be to defend her name as he has already defended his father’s. As this noble act would imply giving her the satisfaction family honour demands, it implies offering her his life, as his life is what she now must pursue as retribution for her slain father. To save her name and worth, his last display of duty is to sacrifice himself, that is his life, but certainly not his name. On the contrary, the price of his name goes up with this recognition of duty, with this readiness to self- sacrifice.

This, at least, is how Rodrigue interprets the code of honour. This is what

166 Peter Bornedul

would give him the highcst worth. His father, however, perceives him as having another obligation, the obligation towards the king. Thus Rodrigue is confronted with another dilemma. He is not just torn between his duties toward his fathcr and his beloved. Having made the choice to fight Don Gomez, he is torn between his duty toward Chimkne and his duties toward the king as his soldier. Therefore, the text places him in two different dilemmas, twice he confronts situations where he has to choose between two unpleasant alternatives. At first his obligations towards the king don’t seem quite as important as his obligations towards his beloved because choosing to serve the king and forgetting Chimene might raise the suspicion that Rod- riguc is trying to rescue his own life, and consequently values life above honour - a major ignominy within the horizon of the play. In this general ccon- omy, life is, compared to honour, always the lesser value.

Whereas the text dissolves Rodrigue’s first dilemma with a logical argument, making it evident that he has no other choice than to fight Don Go- mez, the text, strictly and logically speaking, never solves the second dilemma. To reach a solution, however, it uses another strategy: it increases Rodrigue’s value to the king. It makes him invaluable for the survival of the kingdom. Into his qualms and pcrplexities i t intersects his successful and triumphant combat with the Moors, making him a priceless subject to the king, a subject who cannot be wastcd in privat matters of love and honour. As such it never ‘teaches’ the audience a logical solution to what one ought to select in a given choice between honour and king as it makes this choice dependent on current power-relations. It acknowledges the political circumstances of the state as more significant than a ‘logical’ solution of the dilemma.

IV. The lack qf‘choice mdfrerdow

Whcn the characters are placed in dilemmas, thcy apparently have a choice: should Rodriguc choose to revenge his father, or should he choose Chimene? But the outcome of these choices is always predetermined. Insofar as the characters observe and understand the conventional code, the choices are pseudochoices because the characters know what is in advance required from them. The choice is always a choice in favour of the name, and against oneself. The honourable choice invariably has this structure, against oneself but for the namc.


Therefore, dilemmas are typically only seeming, merely displayed in the text in order to demonstrate, to ‘teach’ how one chooses what one has to choose. A dilemma is a pretext for exposing the argument guiding the action of the noble individual. In Rodrigue’s first ‘choice’ between avenging his father or cherishing his love for Chimene, he has in reality no choice. His contemplation of this situation is a display of the value-system that ‘thinks’ him. First Rodrigue displays a superficial and naive interpretation of his dilemma - this sounds like a choice, like a genuine either-or.

If I avenge him, then I must lose her. One fires me on. The other holds me back. The shameful choice is to betray my love, Or live in infamy.l’

Those are seemingly the possibilities: honour or love. But soon Rodrigue realizes that he has in fact no choice - what makes his decision easy, although with no less devastating consequences. If he chooses ‘love,’ if he abstains from duelling, he only earns the contempt of his beloved. His choice of love would deprive him of her love. This path is cut off and it leaves him with only one possibility. Rodrigue discusses this more intelligent interpretation of his dilemma with himself, an interpretation with which he realizes his lack of freedom.

Taking revenge, I earn her hate or wrath, And, taking no revenge, I earn contempt. One makes me faithless to my dearest hope, One unworthy of her. My ill increases if I seek a cure. Everythings swells my grief. Come then my soul, and, since we have to die, Let’s die at least without offending her.”

Here he presents his insight into the logic and code of honour, The choice is not a choice he can make in freedom. His first naive assessment of this dilemma, where he actually discussed his alternatives as if they were open op- tions, is now seen as shameful - as he notices: “let’s hasten to revenge; / Deeply ashamed at having wavered so, J Let’s hesitate no more.”13 Whatever he does he loses her, but in one case he will not lose her respect.

Chimkne also knows the code of honour. She knows that Rodrigue has in fact no choice, and Rodrigue knows that Chimene knows just that. He obviously counts on that knowledge when he chooses to defend his father instead

I68 Peter Bornedul

of retreating from his duties and cherishing his amorous passions. Rodrigue knows that he would never merit his beloved by not fighting her father. As soon as he disregards his immediate inclinations for Chimene, when he ‘sets against her charms’ this thought, he realizes this situation.

You would certainly have tippcd the scales [in the choice bctween her and duty] Had I not set against your charms the thought That I, dishonoured, did not merit you, That, though I shared in your affection, yet Who loved me brave would hate me infamous; What to obey, and listen to your love, Would make me quite unworthy of your choice.I4

This dialectical insight into one another’s decisions is only possible because the characters share a common code. If a common code determines humans and their logic, they are always able to infer the thinking of the other.

Chimene knows that she could ask Rodrigue not to fight her father. But she also knows that if he obeyed her, it would only make her ashamed of a man who defied the fundamental laws of honour. She knows furthermore that Rodrigue would never allow himself to be represented as a craven in the eyes of the other, and especially not in hers. She consequently knows that her choice is not free. In thc choice between imploring or not imploring Rod- rigue to abstain from fighting, the first possibility is not really there. The dilemmas never reflect real individual freedom.

I f he obeys me not , what grief is mine? If he obeys, what will they say of him? A man like him, to suffer such a slight! Whether or not he yields to love for me, I can be only shamefaced or distraught At his respectful Yes or rightful No.’5

And when later Rodrigue explains to her his reasons to fight, Chimene accepts his explanation: “Rodrigue. Ah! It’s true. Although your foe, I cannot blame your ‘No’ to infamy.”’6

I t is the characters’ fate to be caught up and trapped in their own code.

V. The ileiithdrivr of’ the text With the exception of the king, all the characters seek death in their pursuit of honour. Everyone in the play is ready to die if his or her name is at stake. The infanta would rather die than succumb to her love for Rodrigue and


suffer a loss of social rank: “So mindful am I [of her social status] that I’ll shed my blood / Before I stoop to sullying my rank.”I7 Don Gomez is prepared to die rather than to compromise his pride by apologizing to Don Diego. Don Diego prefers death to living his life in disgrace by not revenging Don Gomez’s insult. Rodrigue, in the first case, risks death rather than seeing his father’s name sullied; and in the second, he prefers death to disloyalty towards his beloved. Chimkne would rather take her own life (were Rodrigue to die) than giving up her demand for his death as retribution for her father’s death. Her defendant, Don Sanchos, risks death rather than refusing to defend a woman of esteem and virtue.

A fundamental ‘death-drive’ structures the text. But it is death understood as a ‘trade in’ for worth, not as ultimate relief from an intolerable life, as in a romantic understanding. It is not death understood as darkness, nothingness, nirvana, or as an eternal oblivion promised a subject who wishes to abandon his or her intolerable bonds to the world. On the contrary, the ‘world’ is never more present than in speculations on death. Death is not the annihilation of the subject, but its consecration and magnification.

Although death would in fact solve conflicts and frustrations in the play, it is never first and foremost contemplated as such. It is considered because it would be the most honourable choice. If the infanta contemplates death, it is not because she is desperately in love with Rodrigue and cannot have him - which is the case. She does not contemplate death as a release from this unbearable conflict. On the contrary, she contemplates death as a possibility she would have to choose if she could no longer control herself, if she yielded and married him. If she actually got whom she loved, if she lowered her rank and worth to such an extent, then she would have to choose death. Death is the option in a hypothetical situation in which she marries her beloved. Death is not contemplated because of Rodrigue’s actual absence, but because of his hypothetical presence as a desired subject.

Death never annihilates the characters as subjects. They continue to live in the other; that is to say, they continue to have worth in the eyes of the other in death, and after death. This interminable existence as a valuable subject, even after death, is internalized in the character’s self-reflection upon death. According to this self-reflection, death is not the end, but the continuation and survival of the name. Nowhere else in the play is trust in the code and distrust in the individual given stronger expression. The subsistence of the individual is not essential, but hidher ‘price,’ honour, worth, and name is.

170 Peter Bornedul

The ‘death-drive’ of the text is not a longing for nirvana, but a belief in ‘name’ before and above life, of subject before and above the individual, of code before and above emotions. The text, however, puts a restraint on this ‘death-drive’ ~ only Don Gomez actually dies during the play. The restraint is the king. He intervenes for example in the conflict between Rodrigue and Chimene (who as individuals love each other, but as subjects pursue an honourable death) by actually decreeing them to get married to end their conflict. Against the law of honour, the king dictates his own law: the law of power, the law of the politically opportune. It is not politically opportune to have subjects pursuing death. Politicians can neither rule dead people nor those fearless of death. Against the permeating ‘death-drive’ of his subjects, the king introduces a ‘drive’ towards life, insofar as he introduces a YeaSon to live; this reason is explicitly his power.

VI. The role of’the king The kingdom is at stake. The king cannot do without his most brilliant subjects. He cannot allow them to kill each other in duels. As mentioned in the introductions to the French edition of Corneille’s works, this was an urgent problem at the time of Corneille, a problem Corneille cannot permit himself to ignore because the grcatcr part of his audience came from the ruling aris- tocracy. Furthermore, Cardinal Richelieu had tried to put a stop to the wide- spread practice of duelling among knights, nobility, and musketeers in France as this custom decimated his best men. In this light, the code of honour, pervading Corneille’s play and defended so stubbornly by his heroes and heroines, is not in the best interest of some of the recipients of the play. Cardinal Richelieu is undoubtedly such a potential reviewer, a projected re- cipicnt i n Corneille’s creative self, because the play is dedicated to the niece of the cardinal, Madame de Combalet. Corneille is therefore fully aware of Richelieu as a reviewer of the play, and he is hardly ignorant of Richelieu’s opinion about duelling and the code of honour that impels it. In the text, thereforc, Corneille has to represent an acceptable solution to the ongoing conflicts. If these conflicts were all carried out according to the code, this would imply the demise of most of the play’s important characters.

In The Cid, Corneille fails to please the authorities (the play got a harsh and condemning reception by Richelieu). One problem is the romantic interpretation of the code of honour, but still worse is the disobedience that char-


acterizes the relationship between the king and his subjects. The play is poor politics. Throughout the play, the code of honour dominates the interaction between men and women. The king is the single subject who opposes this code. Because his interests and the code of honour conflict, he tries to impede his subjects’ pursuit of honour.

Obedience towards the king should be a self-evident obligation. Compared with the importance of the king’s interests, the subjects should readily de- nounce their private pursuits; but the characters do not realize this order of things. They only reluctantly submit themselves to the will of the king when honour is at stake. Don Gomez denies to abide by the king’s decree when Don Diego is favoured as tutor of the king’s son. Despite the king’s command, Don Gomez does not retract his insult of Don Diego. The king has to explain what should have been obvious, that his law is higher than the law of honour.

There is no dishonour in obeying me. Besides, the affront is mine. He has disgraced The man I made the tutor of my son. To slight my choice is to attack myself And seek to weaken my authority.18

Placing the law of honour above the king obviously weakens the king’s authority. The play says so, but it nevertheless does the opposite by accepting, at every turn, honour as prior to royal authority. The hero of the play, Rod- rigue, never considers giving up his obligations to Chimene, which honour dictates. He persistently offers her his life instead of realizing that his services to the king are indefinitely more important. Neither does the heroine of the play, Chimene, renounce her demand for Rodrigue’s death which honour dictates as retribution for her slain father. Even when she realizes that Rod- rigue, after his triumphant battle with the Moors, is becoming invaluable to king and kingdom, she upholds her demand. The infanta’s explanation of the political order of things does not move Chimene.

Willing his death, you will the state’s collapse. What! to avenge a father, is it right To hand Spain over to the enemy? Can your demand be justified for us? Must we share punishment without the crime?

Deprive him of your love, but not his life.I9 . . . . . . . . . . .

172 Peter Bornedal

The prospect of the state’s collapse, ‘to hand Spain over to the enemy’ in the case of Rodrigue’s death, does not persuade Chimene, and it does not compel her to forgive him and give up her request of revenge. Her duty ‘knows no bounds,’ and neither does king and kingdom constitute an obligation.

Ah! Such forgivingness is not for mc. The duty which impels me knows no bounds. Whate’er my love may say on his behalf - Adored by d l and cherished by the king, surrounded by his bravest warriors - My cypresses make his laurels fadc2”

The ‘cypresses’ as a symbol of death in Chimene’s family overshadows the ‘laurels’ as a symbol of Rodrigue’s victory.

The king is surrounded by disobedient subjects pursuing their honour rather than his rule. The name weighs heavier than the interest of state and kingdom.

But as the characters have dilemmas, the text now has a dilemma because it professes ‘honour’ as the major value among the characters, but still recognizes that this value-system conflicts with the political interests of the king. Consequently, the problem of the text is to mediate between two conflicting value-systems: honour and political power.

Don Gomez’s insult indicates the first incidence of disobedience, the first conflict between honour and power. This conflict resolves itself, when the count is slain in the duel with Rodrigue and is as such punished for his pride. But in the second incident, when Rodrigue seeks death at the hand of Chimene, because he nobly offers her satisfaction, this conflict is not easily resolved. The text has here to explain why these two characters do not follow the imperatives of their value-system and choose death as they ought to do. In diverging from this course, the text has to justify its ‘political’ choice, its sudden favouritism of the law of power.

In this endeavour, it appeals both to our feelings and our reason. Under any circumstance, it would be a pity if Rodrigue and Chimene carry out their intentions and destroy themselves. From the beginning, the text strives to soften the conflict by showing not just their duties, but also the injustice in how these ironclad duties pull the two apart. The text appeals to the emotions of the recipient, but it appeals to our reason as well because it would be too much of a waste if Rodrigue were to sacrifice himself on the altar of honour, when the existence of the state depends upon him. The text increases his


value; he becomes an asset who cannot die for love. Although the individual in general is less valuable than his or her name, Rodrigue, after his success against the Moors, becomes more valuable than himself. His noble self-de- structive project becomes futile.

At a certain point the text now has to give in to its own persuasion. But it is prepared and constructed to give in and bend at a certain point, a point where the text legitimately can choose the pragmatic solution above the idealistic: the law of the king above the law of honour. This is also the point where the ‘politics’ of the text is inscribed. The play may be poor politics, but nevertheless politics is inscribed in its thematic and plot structure. It is inscribed for the simple reason that Corneille believes in the political reviewer (and in the receiver in general); for example, he believes in Richelieu. Thus, Corneille is not writing for himself, as the romantic poet; he is observing the social and political conventions of the time, not neglecting them as belonging to an inferior world, unsuitable for an artist to take part in.

At the point where Rodrigue becomes too valuable to be wasted, the text instates the law of king and state as superior. One has now to yield, not to the rules of honour, but to the rules of power. This power relation is dis- guised, however. Never does it become a question of the king simply issuing decrees. The king is not represented as a despotic sovereign, he is represented as just and wise. Among all his idealistic subjects, he is the only one who is capable of seeing when they remain blind to all other purposes than their own honour. The king naturalizes his commands. The ‘politics’ of the text does not simply manifest itself by a sudden emphasis on ‘power’ instead of ‘honour.’ If such a shift were represented as a royal decree forced upon his subjects, it would establish the king as a tyrant, and Corneille as either a fool or a revolutionary. The text understands in full the ideological importance of naturalizing and humanizing this new emphasis on power. In this undertak- ing it constitutes the king as the only humanist in the text - and flatters the potential aristocratic spectator of the play. It manages to ‘translate’ the king’s political concerns into general human concerns. What is advantageous to the kingdom is beneficial to the subjects.

The text represents the king’s superior wisdom by making him realize that beneath the surface, Chimene in fact loves Rodrigue and wishes to marry him. The king understands this as soon as he sees Chimike’s anguish when she mistakenly believes that Rodrigue has been killed in the duel with Don Sanchos. Chimene is convinced that Don Sanschos’s return from the duel

174 Peter Bornedal

with Rodrigue means that Rodrigue is defeated and dead. In her misconcep- tion of the situation she reproaches Don Sanchos for Rodrigue’s death. This reaction is interpreted and explained to the king by Don Sanchos as an indi- cation of Chimene’s true love for Rodrigue.

Sire, she was deceived by her excess of lovc. 1 came to tell thc outcome of the fight. This gallant knight of whom she is entranced, As he disarmed me, said to me: “fear naught. I’d rather have uncertain victory Than shed the blood Chimene hazardcd. But, since my duty calls me to thc king, Report the combat in my name. On my behalf, bear her the victor’s sword.” I went to her. This sword deceived her, Sire. She thought me victor, seeing me return. Hcr anger suddenly betrayed her lovc With such a n outburst of impatience that I could not win a moment’s audience.2’

This is the dcnoucwzent of the play. Here we notice a certain dixovrry and rrversul at stake, insofar as the king and his servants discover Chimene’s real love for Rodrigue beneath her request of revenge. As this discovery directly causes the king to demand that Chiminc abandons her plans of revenge and marries Rodrigue, it also reverses the fortune of hero and heroine. It turns their bad fortune into good fortune. When Don Sanchos convinces the king of Chimtne’s love for Rodrigue, thc king, as the only person raised above the rule of honour, releases Chimene from observing her obligations.

You must not be ashamed of what you feel Or seck to disavow it, as in vain Your modcsty still urges you to do. Honour’s redecmed and duty is discharged. Your father’s satisfied. He is avenged By hazarding Rodrigue’s life so oft. You see how heaven disposes diffcrently. You did all for the Count. Do something for Yourself. Do not oppose my order which Gives you a husband you so dearly love.’?

Thus, the king issues a decree in the end, as he orders Chimene to marry Rodrigue. But everybody understands that this was her dearest hope, and that this decree just signifies the wisdom and humanity of the king. The text spells i t out. When the king commands Chimene to marry the man she ‘dear-


ly loves,’ he only ‘commands’ her to follow her deepest desire. This is how the text finally makes the law of the king superior to the law of honour. It is how it is ideologically defensible and justifiable to change the emphasis from honour to power. The king’s power becomes the more humane and natural choice. In his interest of maintaining a strong state, the king pursues the most secret desires of his subjects.

NOTES 1. Peter Bornedal: Speech and System (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press,

1996). 2. I can only refer to a work in progress about the method and consequences of the

analytical strategy here intimated: The Imaginary Recipient (forthcoming). 3. Corneille, my translation r‘ ... du combat de don Sanche, dont le roi Ctait le maitre,

et pouvait lui choisir un autre temps que deux heures apres la fuite des Maures. Leur defaite avait assez fatigue Rodrigue toute la nuit pour meriter deux ou troix jours de repos.” Corneille: Examen, in: Corneille: ThCdtre Complet, vol. I, Alain Niderst (Ed): (Rouen: Publications de I’UniversitP de Rouen, 1984), p. 6471.

4. Corneille, my translation. [“Cette meme regle presse aussi trop Chimbne de de- mander justice au roi la seconde fois. Elle I’avait fait le soir d’auparavant, et n’avait aucun sujet d’y retourner le lendemain matin pour en importuner le roi, dont elle n’avait encore aucun lieu de se plaindre, puisqu’elle ne pouvait encore dire qu’il h i eiit manguk de promesse. Le roman lui autait donne sept ou huit jours de patience avant que de l’en presser de nouveau, mais les vingt et quatre heures ne l’ont pas permis; c’est I’incommodite de la regle.” Corneille: Examen, ibid., p. 6471.

5. Corneille, my translation. [“Que le sujet n’en vaut rien du tout, / Qu’il choque les principales regles du poime dramatique, / Qu’il manque de jugement en sa condui- te, / Qu’il a beaucoup de mechants vers, / Que presque tout ce qu’il a de beautts sont derobees.” Georges de ScudCry quoted from the editor’s preface to Le Cid Niderst: (Ed.), ibid., p. 6291.

6. Corneille, my translation. [“Les deux visites que Rodrigue fait a sa maitresse, ont quelque chose qui choque cette bienseance de la part de celle qui les souffre; la rigueur de devoir voulait qu’elle refusgt de h i parler, et s’enfermgt dans son cabi- net au lieu de I’ecouter; mais permettez-moi de dire avec un des premiers esprits de notre siecle, ‘que leur conversation est remplie de si beaux sentiments, que plusieurs n’ont pas connu ce defaut, et que ceux qui l’ont connu l’ont tolere.” Corneille: Examen, ibid., p. 6461.

7. Corneille, my translation. “‘11 est vrai que, dans ce sujet, il faut se contenter de tirer Rodrigue de pCril, sans le pousser jusqu’i son mariage avec Chimene. I1 est historique et a plu en son temps, mais bien sQrement il deplairait au netre; et j’ai peine a voir que Chimene y consente chez l’auteur espagnol, bien qu’il donne plus de trois ans de duree a la comedie qu’il en a faite. Pour ne pas contredire l’histoire, j’ai crue ne me pouvoir dispenser d’en jeter quelque idCe, mais avec incertitude de

176 Peter Bornedal

I’effet, ct cc n’etait quc par la quc je pouvais accorder la bicnseancc dc theitrc avec la vCritC de I’evenement.” Corneille: Examen, ihid., p. 6461.

8. Corneillc: The Cid (New York: Penguin Classics, 1985) p. 79. [“L’honneur vous en est dO; les cieux me sont temoins / Qu’etant sorti de vous je ne pouvais pas moins;” Corneille: Lr Cid, Niderst (Ed.), ibid., p. 6831.

9. Corneille: The Cid, ibid., p. 80 [“Porte encore plus haut le fruit de ta victoire. / Je t’ai donne la vie et tu me rends ma gloire, / Et, d’autant que l’honneur m’est plus cher que Ic jour, / D’autant plus maintenant je te dois de retour. / Mais d’un si brave ceur eloigne ces faiblesse: / Nous n’avons qu’un honneur: i I est tant de maitresses; / L‘arnour n’est qu’un plaisir, et I’honneur un devoir.” Corneille: LCJ Cid, ihid., p. 6831.

10. Corncillc: The Cid, ihid., p. 80 [“Ah! Que me dites-vous / ... / Et vous m’osez pousser a la honte du change! / L‘infamic cst parcillc ct suit cgalcmcnt / Lc gucrricr sans courage ct le pcrfide amant. / A ma fidtlitC ne faites point d’injure; / Souffrez- moi genereux sans me rendre parjure; / Mes liens sont trop forts pour Ctre ainsi rompus; / Ma foi m’engage encor si je n’espere plus, / Et ne pouvant quitter ni posseder Chimene, I Le trepas que je cherche est ma plus douce peine.” Corneille: Le Cid, ihid., p. 6831.

1 I . Corncillc: The Cid, ibid.. p. 45 [“I1 faut vcnger un pkrc et perdre une maitresse: / L‘un kchauffle rnon coeur, I’autre retient mon bras. / Reduit au triste choix de trahir ma flarnme, / Ou de vivre en infime” Corneille: Le Cid p. 6601.

12. Corneille: The Cid, ibid., p. 46 [“Qui venge cet affront irrite sa colere, / Et qui pcut Ic souffrir nc la merite pas. / Prevenons la douleur d’avoir failli contre elle, Qui nous serait mortcllc. / Tout m’cst fatal; rien ne me peut guerir / Ni soulager ma peinc. / Allons, mon &me, et puisqu’il faut mourir, / Mourons, du moins, sans offenser Chimene.” Corneille: Le Cid, ibid.. p. 6601.

13. Corneille: The Cid, ihid., p. 46 [“Courons ri la vengeance / El, lout hontcux d’avoir tant balance I Ne souons plus en peine.” Corneille: Le Cid, ihid., p. 6601.

14. Corneille: The Cid, ihid., p. 73 [“Et ta beaute sans doute emportait la balance, / Si je n’eusse opposi. contrc tous tes appas / Qu’un homme sans honneur ne te meritait pas, / Qu’aprks m’avoir cheri quand je vivais sans blime. / Qui m’aima genereux me hai’rait infime, / Qu’ecouter ton amour, obkir h sa voix, / C’etait m’cn rcndrc indignc et diffamer ton choix.” Corneille: Le Czd, ibid., p. 678-791.

15. Corneille: The Cid, ihiti., [“S’il ne m’obcit point, qucl comblc a mon ennui! / Et s’il peut m’obkir, que dira-t-on de hi? / Souffrir un tel affront etant nC gcntil- homme! / Soit qu’il cede ou resiste au feu qui le consomme, / Mon csprit ne pcut qu’ktre ou honteux ou confus, / De son trop de respect ou d’un juste refus.” Corneille: Le Cid, ihid.. p. 6661.

16. Corneille: The Cid, ihid., p. 73 [“Ah Rodrigue! 11 est vrai, quoique ton ennemic, / Je ne te puis blirner d’avoir fui I’infarnic,” Corneillc: Le Cid, ihid., p. 6791.

17. Corncille: The (’id, ibid., p. 36 [“Oui, oui, je m’en souviens, et j’epandrai mon sang / Plutbt que de rien faire indigne de mon rang.” Corneille: Lr Cid, ihid., p. 6531.

18. Corneille: Thc Cid, ihid., p. 59 [“Le comte i m’obkir ne peut perdre sa gloirc. / D’ailleurs l’affront me touche; il a perdu d’honneur / Celui que de mon fils j’ai fait le gouverneur, / Et par ce trait hardi, d’une insolence extreme, / I1 s’est pris h mon choix, il s’cst pris moi-mkme. / C’est moi qu’il satisfait en reparant ce tort.” Corneille: Le Cid, ihid.. p. 6691.

The Law ofthe Name 177

19. Corneille: The Cid, ibid., p. 85 [“Tu poursuis en sa mort la ruine publique. / Quoi? Pour venger un pere est-il jamais permis I De livrer sa patrie aux mains des enne- mis? / Contre nous ta poursuite est-elle Iegitime? / Et pour &tre punis avons-nous part au crime? I ... / Ote-lui ton amour, mais laisse-nous sa vie.” Corneille: Le Cid, ibid., p. 6871.

20. Corneille: The Cid, ibid., p. 85 [“Ah, madame, souffrez qu’avecque libertk I Je pousse jusqu’au bout ma generosite. I Quoique mon coeur pour lui contre moi s’interesse, I Quoiqu’un peuple l’adore et qu’un roi la caresse, I Qu’il soit environne des plus vaillants guerriers, I J’irai sous mes cypres accabler ses lauriers.” Corneil- le: Le Cid, ibid., p. 6871.

21. Corneille: The Cid, ibid., p. 106 [“Sire, un peu trop d’ardeur malgre moi I’a dkcue. / Je venais du combat lui raconter l’issue. / Ce gknereux guerrier dont son coeur est charmt, I ”Ne crains rien (m’a-t-il dit, quand il m’a dCsarmC); / je laisserais plut6t la victoire incertaine / Que de repandre un sang hasardk pour Chimbne. I Mais, puisque mon devoir m’appelle aupres du roi, / Va de notre combat I’entretenir pour moi, / Offrir a ses genoux ta vie et ton epee. ” I Sire, j’y suis venu; cet objet 1’9 trompee. / Elle m’a cru vainqueur me voyant de retour, / Et soudain sa colere a trahi son amour I Avec tant de transport et tant d’impatience, / Que je n’ai pu gagner un moment d’audience” Corneille: Le Cid, ibid., p. 7011.

22. Corneille: The Cid, ibid., p. 107 [“Ma fille, il ne faut point rougir d’un si beau feu / Ni chercher les moyens d’en faire un desaveu; / Une louable honte enfin t’en sollicite; / Ta gloire est dCgagCe et ton devoir est quitte, / Ton pere est satisfait, et c’etait le venger / Que mettre tant de fois ton Rodrigue en danger. / Tu vois comme le ciel autrement en dispose; / Ayant tant fait pour h i , fais pour toi quelque chose, / Et ne sois point rebelle a mon commandement / Qui te donne un Cpoux aime si chbrement.” Corneille: Le Cid, ibid., p. 7021.

Peter Bornedal. Ph.D. from The University of Chicago. He will in 1996 defend his doctoral thesis from the University of Copenhagen. Assistant Professor at Americun University of Beirut where he teaches in the Cultural Studies and Philosophy pro- grammes. Among his books are Skrift og Skribent (in Danish) 1985, Speech and Sys- tem 1996, The Interpretations of Art 1996 and Speaker Intention and Speech-act fnten- tiunafity (forthcoming).

the law of the name. the imaginary recipient in corneille's le cid

Documents