Doubt and the Cornelian Hero

Abstract

No greater proof of the vitality of Corneille’s theatre could be found than that provided by the variety of different interpretations to which his heroes have given rise in modern criticism. One does not need to list the imposing bibliography which has grown up around him to be convinced of this. Among the innumerable expressions of critical viewpoints, not all are of equal importance, and in the field of Cornelian criticism, as in every other, some establish themselves on account of their lucidity and coherence. The conclusions of such seminal works may be modified and nuanced ad infinitum and thus dominate, in one form or another, the critical tendencies of their age. At the beginning of this century, the commonly accepted view of the Cornelian hero was founded on the authority of Gustave Lanson. In an article which is justifiably famous, he established a parallel between the heroes of Corneille’s plays and the conception of the genereux as formulated in Descartes’ Traite des Passions.1 According to Lanson, Cornelian heroism was essentially a heroism of the will and the reason, detached from any movement of the passions and following with equanimity its resolute and unshakeable decision. This view of the hero remained intact for some fifty years, and it was not until the publication of the studies of Cornelian heroism of Paul Benichou and Octave Nadal that the critical framework which sustained it was seen to be seriously flawed and finally dismantled.2 These two scholars in particular have provided us with many invaluable insights into the nature of Corneille’s heroes.