Chantecler. Pièce en quatre actes, en vers (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Chantecler. Pièce en quatre actes, en vers Timothy Unwin Rostand, Edmond . Chantecler. Pièce en quatre actes, en vers. Edited by Sue Lloyd. Minehead (Somerset, UK): Genge Press, 2010. Pp. xvi + 292. ISBN 978-0-9549043-4-0 When the curtain went up on Edmond Rostand's Chantecler at the Théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin on 7 February 1910, expectations were high. Critics and theatergoers had known about Rostand's new project almost from its inception in 1902, but after such a long wait, the successes of Cyrano (1897) and L'Aiglon (1900) would prove difficult to match. Rostand himself, who suffered notoriously from writer's block, had in the interim been unjustly accused of trying to stoke up interest in his new play by delaying its arrival. Sue Lloyd, author of the first full biography of Rostand in English (see NCFS 33 [2003-04], 218-19), describes in the introduction to this new edition of Chantecler the complex circumstances that led up to the play's first performance. She stresses among other things the impact of the sudden death of Coquelin, the actor who had so successfully played Cyrano, and for whom the main role in the new play had been conceived. This was the first and perhaps the greatest of many misfortunes that would befall the play. From the first night, Chantecler was booed by its audiences, who appear to have found the animal costumes distracting and unsuitable (while the actors found them positively unwieldy). Nonetheless, the play ran to over three hundred performances and was a solid success in commercial terms. Lloyd notes that there have been various performances of the play in recent years, and she stresses that part of her purpose in re-editing it in the centenary year of its premiere is to try to stimulate renewed interest in the English-speaking world. With this in mind, her edition is resolutely [End Page 368] targeted at the student or general reader. (Anyone looking for a more scholarly account of the text should head straight for Philippe Bulinge's Garnier Flammarion edition of 2006.) Lloyd aims, quite simply, to "encourage new readers to appreciate and enjoy Rostand's masterpiece" (XIII). She eschews discussion of manuscript drafts, textual variants or sources, and concentrates on making a linguistically challenging text approachable. Her notes are generous and copious, and they are particularly successful when they explain the complexities of Rostand's verbal acrobatics. A speech such as Chantecler's near-Rabelaisian harangue in Act III"Oui, Coquards cocardés de coquilles,/ Coquardeaux, Coquebins, Coquelets, Cocodrilles . . . "is painstakingly "decoded" (no pun intended), at times almost word by word, and an extremely useful service is thereby rendered. Sometimes, almost inevitably perhaps, the thoroughgoing pedagogical intention of these notes leads to explanations that might be judged unnecessary, for example of words that the student will easily find in the dictionary ("candeur", "dandiner", "torticolis", "tournoi"), or of archaic usages (the spelling "encor"), or of well-known concepts (a dictionary-style definition of "ode", or an explanation of "les trois coups" in the French theater). Taken as a whole, though, the notes will be invaluable to any student who uses them carefully, for they allow a much better understanding of Rostand's highly inventive language and indeed give a broader sense of the delights of French wordplay. Together with an introduction that provides a balanced overview of the text and its genesis, they provide the essential tools for further study. Whether Chantecler is an ideal introduction to turn-of-the century French theater is, though, another matter. While Lloyd argues enthusiastically for the interest of this text beyond the frontiers of France, the truth is that Cyrano has traveled far more easily and has proven amenable to adaptations of all kinds. If Chantecler is to reach a broader English-speaking audience, then perhaps what is most needed now is a new translation that captures its verbal exuberance and energy. The task would not be an easy one, for the virtuosity of Rostand's language is in almost direct proportion to its untranslatability. Timothy Unwin University of Bristol Copyright © 2011 University of Nebraska Press