PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope R ICHARD E. G OODKIN U NIVERSITY OF W ISCONSIN -M ADISON In Act 1, scene 1 of Le Misanthrope, Alceste and his friend Philinte exchange words about whether or not it is always right to reveal one’s true feelings to other people: ALCESTE: Je veux que l’on soit homme, et qu’en toute rencontre Le fond de notre cœur dans nos discours se montre, Que ce soit lui qui parle, et que nos sentiments Ne se masquent jamais, sous de vains compliments. . . . PHILINTE: Serait-il à propos et de la bienséance De dire à mille gens tout ce que d’eux on pense? Et quand on a quelqu’un qu’on hait, ou qui déplaît, Lui doit-on déclarer la chose comme elle est? (Le Misanthrope, 1: 1: 69-80) 1 Two areas of ambiguity arise in this famous exchange about the etiquette and ethics of dissimulating and speaking the truth. First, Alceste is mainly concerned with honesty about hostile emotions—one should always reveal these, he claims, however expedient it might be to keep them veiled under a veneer of benevolence—but an equally pressing question in Molière’s most highly acclaimed play is honesty about love, an element that is more strongly associated with the comedy’s female protagonist, Célimène, than it is with Alceste and the other male characters. Conventional wisdom about the Classical period is that revealing love is a heavily gendered issue, with male characters, who risk less in the game of passionate conquest, 1 This and all quotations of Le Misanthrope and Le Tartuffe are taken from Molière, Œuvres complètes, ed. Georges Couton (Paris: Éditions Gallimard [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade], 1971, 2 vols). Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 306 freely speaking their affections and female characters more cautious about revealing theirs. 2 In this article, to complement the well worn opposition between female and male freedom to express love, I consider two additional dichotomies that I see as equally crucial. First, the question of gendered expressions of love will be supplemented by a discussion of gendered expressions of hostility. Second, I will raise a related question that I see as pertinent to an understanding of the originality of Molière’s comedy: the distinction between social truths such as those generally revealed by the comédie de mœurs elements of his work and psychological truths more closely associable with the comédie de caractère that distinguishes Molière’s greatest plays. I will demonstrate that Alceste as a proponent of free and complete expression of both love and hatred under all circumstances is largely limited to the comedy of manners, focused mainly on the male characters and on the social critique of hypocritical and sycophantic courtly values. By contrast, the theme of expressing love is especially pertinent to an understanding of the female protagonist, Célimène, whose initial association with the social type of the coquette is eventually eclipsed by a moving and complex psychological portrayal that is at the very heart of the comédie de caractère, and is, as such, one of Molière’s most insightful depictions of the female psyche. The fact that Alceste discounts the importance Célimène places on contingencies like time and place when women indulge in or shrink from expressing their deepest feelings signals that he has completely overlooked an important aspect of her character. In this light, if Alceste and Célimène end up as two ships passing in the night, it is because they belong to two distinct aspects of the play. I will conclude my discussion with a brief analysis of the character of Elmire in Le Tartuffe, whom I see as a sister under the skin of Célimène. If, in following the usual pattern in Classical theater, the play’s male characters openly express their love for women, how does Molière complicate this issue by exploring how they express their scorn or hatred for other men? In Alceste’s argument with Oronte about his sonnet, the two men freely voice their animosity in a way that blurs the boundaries between the conventions of comedy and the conventions of tragedy: 2 Perhaps the most famous example of a female character’s reticence about speaking her passion directly is Chimène in Le Cid. Despite her scandalous gushing to her confidante about her passion for Rodrigue shortly after he kills her father (“C’est peu de dire aimer, Elvire, je l’adore”), when face-to-face with her suitor her underwhelming declaration of love, “Je ne vous hais point,” has become a consecrated illustration of Classical litotes. Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 307 ORONTE: Croyez-vous donc avoir tant d’esprit en partage? ALCESTE: Si je louais vos vers, j’en aurais davantage. ORONTE: Je me passerai bien que vous les approuviez. ALCESTE: Il faut bien, s’il vous plaît, que vous vous en passiez. ORONTE: Je voudrais bien, pour voir, que, de votre manière, Vous en composassiez sur la même matière. ALCESTE: J’en pourrais, par malheur, faire d’aussi méchants; Mais je me garderais de les montrer aux gens. ORONTE: Vous me parlez bien ferme, et cette suffisance... ALCESTE: Autre part que chez moi cherchez qui vous encense. ORONTE: Mais, mon petit Monsieur, prenez-le un peu moins haut. ALCESTE: Ma foi, mon grand Monsieur, je le prends comme il faut. PHILINTE, se mettant entre deux. Eh! Messieurs, c’en est trop; laissez cela, de grâce. ORONTE: Ah! j’ai tort, je l’avoue, et je quitte la place. Je suis votre valet, Monsieur, de tout mon cœur. ALCESTE: Et moi, je suis, Monsieur, votre humble serviteur. (1: 2: 423-438) Although the use of stichomythia is not unusual in comedy, in this case the escalation of the verbal line-for-line exchange leads up not to a clownish dénouement, as is generally the case in comedy, but rather in the threat of a duel, a consecrated male topos. 3 That Philinte physically intercedes by separating the men suggests that if this were a tragedy, a duel would ensue 3 Again, a famous example comes from Corneille’s Le Cid: the stychomythia of the verbal duel between Don Diègue and the Comte, leading up to the consecrated gesture of the slap that sets the duel in motion (Le Cid, 1: 3, 215-226). Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 308 rather than, as is the case here, a law trial that is not even decided upon in this scene. It might at first appear that the freewheeling nature of this dispute exemplifies masculine empowerment, which strongly contrasts with, as we shall see, the more veiled female counterpart to this scene, Célimène’s battle of words with Arsinoé in Act 3, but male empowerment, part of the comédie de mœurs, brings along a limitation: because of the emphasis on form and symmetry in the exchange, the men’s argument more closely resembles the reenacting of a social protocol than the expression of individualized differences of personal inclination and values; this in spite of the fact that it is clearly a scene between a defender of flattery and a defender of bluntness. In fact, the original source of the two men’s discord, their opposite positions on tact and truthfulness—which potentially relates to the development of the comédie de caractère insofar as it underscores the contrasts between the men’s beliefs—eventually becomes subsumed by their strange alliance as overbearing males attempting to force the female object of their desires to openly reveal her feelings. The shift of the apparently distinct character portrayals of the two men to a shared model of empowerment over women signals a change in register from an emergent comédie de caractère to a triumphant comédie de mœurs, as the two men, pressuring Célimène to speak from the heart, themselves speak as one: ORONTE: Il me faut de votre âme une pleine assurance: Un amant là-dessus n’aime point qu’on balance. . . . Choisissez, s’il vous plaît, de garder l’un ou l’autre: Ma résolution n’attend rien que la vôtre. ALCESTE: Oui, Monsieur a raison: Madame, il faut choisir, Et sa demande ici s’accorde à mon désir. Pareille ardeur me presse, et même soin m’amène; Mon amour veut du vôtre une marque certaine. . . . ORONTE: Je ne veux point, Monsieur, d’une flamme importune Troubler aucunement votre bonne fortune. ALCESTE: Je ne veux point, Monsieur, jaloux ou non jaloux, Partager de son cœur rien du tout avec vous. ORONTE: Si vous amour au mien lui semble préférable . . . Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 309 ALCESTE: Si du moindre penchant elle est pour vous capable . . . ORONTE: Je jure de n’y rien prétendre désormais. ALCESTE: Je jure hautement de ne la voir jamais. ORONTE: Madame, c’est à vous de parler sans contrainte. ALCESTE: Madame, vous pouvez vous expliquer sans crainte. ORONTE: Vous n’avez qu’à nous dire où s’attachent vos vœux. ALCESTE: Vous n’avez qu’à trancher, et choisir de nous deux. ORONTE: Quoi? sur un pareil choix vous semblez être en peine! ALCESTE: Quoi? votre âme balance et paraît incertaine! CÉLIMÈNE: Mon Dieu! que cette instance est là hors de saison, Et que vous témoignez, tous deux, peu de raison! (5: 3: 1589-1624) The stychomythia in this scene, clearly echoing the men’s initial argument, carries the stylized nature of the earlier passage even further. The two rivals match each other’s words and rhymes in a verbal and kinetic pas de deux that begins with their addressing each other with typical male posing about the absolute need to impose exclusivity in love on the woman they both desire. Alceste in particular continues to speak in extreme terms as he refuses to “Partager de son cœur rien du tout avec vous” if “du moindre penchant elle est pour vous capable,” but ironically his insistence on absolute exclusivity is undermined by the similarity of the two men’s discourse. Alceste’s observations about Oronte, “Et sa demande ici s’accorde à mon désir” and “Pareille ardeur me presse,” use a vocabulary of desire and passion reflective not of an affection between two individualized characters but rather of a merged social portrait of two domineering and egotistical male rivals. 4 The men’s formulaic exchange is sealed with a double oath— 4 Cf. the paradox of the enemy brothers in Racine’s La Thébaïde, first staged two years before Le Misanthrope; in Racine’s play Polynice and Étéocle, whom Racine portrays as twins, are driven to violence by their unbearable similarity but, Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 310 “Je jure de n’y rien prétendre désormais”; “Je jure hautement de ne la voir jamais”—with Alceste once again emphasizing the conspicuousness and public nature (“hautement”) of his words, about which there is nothing veiled. The stichomythia then shifts addressee as the two men first implore Célimène to commit herself and then proceed to chide her about her unresponsiveness. Here again, Alceste remains so focused on the importance of speaking openly and publicly—“Madame, vous pouvez vous expliquer sans crainte”—that his discourse becomes a metadiscourse, a discourse commenting on the nature of discourse, a self-consciousness about the nature of speech that encapsulates his limited and limiting view that one should never fear speaking one’s mind and heart, whatever the circumstances. In a sense, his directive about the very precondition of speech sequesters Alceste in the comédie de mœurs, since one of the most important psychological tools one has in seeking to understand others is distinguishing between what they are willing to share and what they keep to themselves, and why. By contrast to this formulaic quarrel between two arrogant men, the corresponding quarrel between two women, Célimène and Arsinoé, suggests that the lesser social power of women, which Molière observes in a number of his plays, may be compensated for by a greater power of insight into the human psyche, a power that grants an affinity between certain of Molière’s female characters and the comédie de caractère. On the one hand, the fact that Célimène and Arsinoé express their displeasure in more indirect ways than Alceste and Oronte may well reflect the women’s tamped-down reflexes, likely resulting from a more repressive socialization. For example, faced with Alceste’s rants criticizing her insincerity and, eventually, presumed infidelity, Célimène resorts to irony, the refuge of the disempowered: paradoxically, ultimately rendered even more indistinguishable by their shared hatred. 5 The complexity of the power hierarchy in Molière’s plays relates not only to social matters like the bourgeoisie’s thirst for titles but also to his association of people of high principles with a kind of emotional cramping. One of the best examples of this association is Arnolphe in L’École des femmes, the play of Molière’s in which, as Janet Morgan argues, the comédie de caractère first eclipses the comédie de mœurs: “Modern literary history tends to use the term ‘comedy of character’ for the genre introduced by L’École des femmes” (Janet Morgan, “‘Le Misanthrope’ and Classical Conceptions of Character Portrayal,” Modern Language Review, Vol. 79, No. 2, April 1984, p. 293). Another manifestation of Molière’s somewhat topsyturvy social hierarchy is the power of speech, wisdom, and reconciliation accorded servants such as Dorine in Le Tartuffe or Toinette in Le Malade imaginaire. Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 311 “Il est vrai, votre ardeur est pour moi sans seconde” (2; 1: 521), she says wryly in response to his complaints, and when he opines that the heavens “N’ont jamais rien produit de plus méchant que vous” (4: 3: 1284), she replies, “Voilà certainement des douceurs que j’admire” (4: 3: 1285). 6 On the other hand, there is an advantage to women’s cautious speech: it allows the expression of more complex psychological truths than the men’s war of words. Although Alceste sees Célimène as the opposite of his ideal—as a woman who shies away from expressing both love and disapproval—she is far from being a simple foil to his uncompromising nature. Rather, she exemplifies an awareness of the relativity of morals and the effect of shifting circumstances and other contingencies on right thinking, well considered action, and ethical positions, a consciousness key to her fuller integration into the comédie de caractère than Alceste’s. Célimène’s attentiveness to contingencies is clear in the scene of her argument with Arsinoé over the two women’s reputations in society. After Arsinoé’s report on the unfavorable reviews Célimène is receiving from other courtiers when they are out of her earshot, Célimène’s counterattack, which begins as a toned-down version of the men’s tit-for-tat linguistic 6 Compare, in a tragic register, Andromaque’s use of irony in her first entrance in Racine’s play: ANDROMAQUE: Je passais jusqu’aux lieux où l’on garde mon fils. . . . J’allais, Seigneur, pleurer un moment avec lui: Je ne l’ai point encore embrassé d’aujourd’hui. PYRRHUS: Ah! Madame, les grecs, si j’en crois leurs alarmes, Vous donneront bientôt d’autres sujets de larmes. ANDROMAQUE: Et quelle est cette peur dont leur coeur est frappé, Seigneur? Quelque Troyen vous est-il échappé? PYRRHUS: Leur haine pour Hector n’est pas encore éteinte. Ils redoutent son fils. ANDROMAQUE: Digne objet de leur crainte! (Racine, Andromaque, 1: 4) This female slave, the archetypal figure of powerlessness, demonstrates the somewhat compensatory power of rhetoric by saying the opposite of what she feels and believes. Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 312 dueling, gradually shifts toward a more personalized and individualized ad feminam attack than Alceste’s and Oronte’s dispute: ARSINOÉ: L’amitié doit surtout éclater Aux choses qui le plus nous peuvent importer; Et comme il n’en est point de plus grande importance Que celles de l’honneur et de la bienséance, Je viens, par un avis qui touche votre honneur, Témoigner l’amitié que pour vous a mon cœur. Hier j’étais chez des gens de vertu singulière, Où sur vous du discours on tourna la matière; Et là, votre conduite, avec ses grands éclats, Madame, eut le malheur qu’on ne la loua pas. Cette foule de gens dont vous souffrez visite, Votre galanterie, et les bruits qu’elle excite Trouvèrent des censeurs plus qu’il n’aurait fallu, Et bien plus rigoureux que je n’eusse voulu. Vous pouvez bien penser quel parti je sus prendre: Je fis ce que je pus pour vous pouvoir défendre. . . . CÉLIMÈNE: Madame, j’ai beaucoup de grâces à vous rendre: Un tel avis m’oblige, et loin de le mal prendre, J’en prétends reconnaître, à l’instant, la faveur, Pour un avis aussi qui touche votre honneur; Et comme je vous vois vous montrer mon amie En m’apprenant les bruits que de moi l’on publie, Je veux suivre, à mon tour, un exemple si doux, En vous avertissant de ce qu’on dit de vous. (3: 4: 879-920) Like Alceste’s and Oronte’s two confrontation scenes, Célimène’s and Arsinoé’s scene also makes use of an echo effect whereby the words of one character seem to refer back to those of another, but the effect in this case is not the rigid protocol related to questions of honor but rather a looser form of irony and satirical mimicry. Arsinoé’s statement “Je viens, par un avis qui touche votre honneur,/ Témoigner l’amitié que pour vous a mon cœur” is echoed by Célimène’s reply, “J’en prétends reconnaître, à l’instant, la faveur,/ Pour un avis aussi qui touche votre honneur; / Et comme je vous vois vous montrer mon amie/ . . . Je veux suivre, à mon tour, un exemple si doux.” In this case the echo is purportedly about the women’s shared friendship and devotion to each other’s well-being, so that the clearly hostile exchange seems to be illustrating precisely the type of false language Alceste condemns, but if Célimene, rather than dressing down Arsinoé for her unwelcome report, praises it, it would not be quite accurate to say she is being hypocritical: her words are dripping with a sarcasm that can hardly Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 313 be missed, their animus clear to both conversants. While Oronte appears to be genuinely deceived by Alceste’s lengthy temporizing about his reaction to Oronte’s sonnet, asking his would-be friend a series of questions in an attempt to pin down his judgment 7 , Arsinoé can hardly miss the fact that Célimène is saying the opposite of what she thinks and feels. What even more clearly distinguishes this female-female confrontation from the male-male ones in the play is the strikingly personalized nature of Célimène’s remarks: CÉLIMÈNE: Là, votre pruderie et vos éclats de zèle Ne furent pas cités comme un fort bon modèle: Cette affectation d’un grave extérieur, Vos discours éternels de sagesse et d’honneur, Vos mines et vos cris aux ombres d’indécence Que d’un mot ambigu peut avoir l’innocence, Cette hauteur d’estime où vous êtes de vous, Et ces yeux de pitié que vous jetez sur tous, Vos fréquentes leçons, et vos aigres censures Sur des choses qui sont innocentes et pures, . . . À quoi bon, disaient-ils, cette mine modeste, Et ce sage dehors que dément tout le reste? Elle est à bien prier exacte au dernier point; Mais elle bat ses gens, et ne les paye point. . . Elle fait des tableaux couvrir les nudités; Mais elle a de l’amour pour les réalités. (3: 4: 925-944) If Arsinoé’s sanctimonious condemnation of Célimène is limited to a single defining characteristic—“Votre galanterie, et les bruits qu’elle excite”— Célimène’s goes into greater and more humiliating detail. As is the case with the argument between Alceste and Oronte, hypocrisy remains the central issue here, but Célimène’s “roast” of Arsinoé extends far beyond that single fault to include arrogance, sanctimoniousness, avarice, violence, cruelty, and veiled licentiousness. Célimène’s portrait has an element of metadiscourse; Arsinoé’s very reason for being present onstage—“Vos discours éternels de sagesse et d’honneur”—comes into her crosshairs, as if her face-to-face scathing portrait were a foretaste of how she would report the present scene to someone else at a later time. 8 7 See I: 2: 339-376. 8 One might also argue that the speech appears to transcend the parameters of the stage insofar as it reads like one of the Caractères of La Bruyère, the narrative expansivity of which often exceeds the limits of the theatrical type. Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 314 Perhaps most importantly in terms of the implications of this scene for the matter to which we are about to turn our attention—the expression of love rather than of contempt—Célimène’s scene with Arsinoé ends with the elaboration of a truism that the young woman apparently sees as applicable to all expressions of feeling, of whatever nature they might be: Madame, on peut, je crois, louer, et blâmer tout, Et chacun a raison, suivant l’âge ou le goût Il est une saison pour la galanterie; Il en est une aussi propre à la pruderie. On peut, par politique, en prendre le parti, Quand de nos jeunes ans l’éclat est amorti: Cela sert à couvrir de fâcheuses disgrâces. Je ne dis pas, qu’un jour je ne suive vos traces. (3: 4: 975-984) The substance of Célimène’s comments is the importance, in deciding how to judge the characters and behaviors of others and one’s own, of considering not simply general truths but also contingent factors. She lays particular emphasis on the element that most obviously distinguishes her from Arsinoé, age, but also alludes to differences of taste and circumstances, implying that the humiliations of age, among other factors, may fairly be taken into consideration in such judgments. An awareness of relativity, she implies, should inform one’s discourse: while Alceste believes that the social settings of communication should have no impact on the expression of one’s innermost feelings—“qu’en toute rencontre/ Le fond de notre cœur dans nos discours se montre” (1: 1: 69-70) 9 —Célimène believes that there is a time and a place for revealing one’s heart just as there is a life stage for being a flirt and another for being a prude; that any behavior may be subject to blame or praise if the contingencies surrounding it are borne in mind. If Célimène’s and Alceste’s diverging opinion about the relevance of contingencies when one is expressing contempt or differences of opinions may fairly be taken to exemplify the gendered nature of such expressions in this play, our discussion of the expression of hostility allows us to view the gendered nature of the expression of love in a more nuanced light. Célimène epitomizes Classical theater’s attitude toward women who speak their love aloud: CÉLIMÈNE: Et puisque notre cœur fait un effort extrême Lorsqu’il peut se résoudre à confesser qu’il aime, Puisque l’honneur du sexe, ennemi de nos feux, S’oppose fortement à de pareils aveux, 9 See the introduction above for a more detailed discussion of this passage. Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 315 L’amant qui voit pour lui franchir un tel obstacle, Doit-il impunément douter de cet oracle? Et n’est-il pas coupable en ne s’assurant pas À ce qu’on ne dit point qu’après de grands combats? (4: 3: 1401-1408) What Célimène is delivering here is a lesson on female psychology: she is, essentially, telling Alceste how to read her actions and intepret them correctly in terms of the underlying feelings they embody. This imperative to interpret is diametrically opposed to Alceste’s assumption that the entire burden of effective communication lies with the speaker and that the listener should not have to factor in any aspects of communication that might be ambiguous. The most important contingency of which Célimène’s words suggest that Alceste is unaware is the taboo that creates an “obstacle” to women’s expression of love, a taboo that must be taken into consideration by a man if he wishes to understand the loving words his mistress is reticent to express. Célimène’s allusion to feminine honor is also crucial here: for a woman to express her love without subsequently receiving convincing evidence that her suitor properly reciprocates her feelings is one of the greatest potential sources of dishonor 10 , and one can parse Le Misanthrope from beginning to end without discovering a single line issuing from Alceste’s lips that sings Célimène’s praises or accounts for his apparently irresistible passion for her. In simpler terms, it is not simply Alceste’s harsh criticisms of Célimène that are in question here, but the utter absence of a discourse of gallantry or tenderness—words that might explain what it is about her that he so adores—that might compensate for them. Thus, when in Act 5, as we have seen, Célimène is faced with Oronte’s and Alceste’s ultimatum that she clearly state which man she has chosen and which she has rejected or risk incurring the wrath of both, she is reticent to respond in spite of claiming to know unequivocally which man she prefers. This is in fact a passage that relates the proper expression of love, which is so important to Célimène, to the proper expression of displeasure and disapproval, Alceste’s greatest preoccupation: CÉLIMÈNE: Je sais prendre parti sur cette préférence, Et ce n’est pas mon cœur maintenant qui balance: 10 Racine’s Bajazet and Phèdre are two examples, among many, of this phenomenon. One might also cite the passage in the opening pages of Lafayette’s La Princesse de Clèves in which we are informed that the Duc de Nemours is so irresistible to women that “Il n’y avait aucune dame dans la cour, dont la gloire n’eût été flattée de le voir attaché à elle ; peu de celles à qui il s’était attaché se pouvaient vanter de lui avoir résisté, et même plusieurs à qui il n’avait point témoigné de passion n’avaient pas laissé d’en avoir pour lui.” Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 316 Il n’est point suspendu, sans doute, entre vous deux, Et rien n’est si tôt fait que le choix de nos vœux. Mais je souffre, à vrai dire, une gêne trop forte À prononcer en face, un aveu de la sorte: Je trouve que ces mots, qui sont désobligeants, Ne se doivent point dire en présence des gens; Qu’un cœur de son penchant donne assez de lumière, Sans qu’on nous fasse aller jusqu’à rompre en visière; Et qu’il suffit enfin que de plus doux témoins Instruisent un amant du malheur de ses soins. (5: 2: 1625-1636) In terms of the expression of rejection, Célimène voices a preference for subtlety and meaningful gestures rather than blunt rebuffs; in this, she is consistent both with her previously voiced opinions and with Alceste’s disapproving assessment of her. But the issue that gradually in the course of the play takes precedence over the expression of negative emotions is the expression of desire and passion; that Célimène has deep-seated preferences about how love should be expressed seems to escape Alceste’s notice, and yet I would argue that how one communicates one’s love—and, of at least equal importance, how one interprets the communication (or non-communication) of the love of another person—is one of the most fundamental issues of this and a number of other plays of Molière, and is a very important component of his comédie de caractère. Alceste and Oronte view love as a binary: what they demand of Célimène is a simple yes or no. But as Célimène’s cousin Éliante points out, there are aspects of life that cannot always be viewed in binary terms: ÉLIANTE: C’est un point [if Célimène loves Alceste] qu’il n’est pas fort aisé de savoir. Comment pouvoir juger s’il est vrai qu’elle l’aime? Son cœur de ce qu’il sent n’est pas bien sûr lui-même; Il aime quelquefois sans qu’il le sache bien, Et croit aimer aussi parfois qu’il n’en est rien. (4: 1: 1180-1184) Éliante sees love not as a switch that turns from off to on once and for all but as a circuit where its presence or absence is not always localizable. If, as many critics have suggested, Célimène does love Alceste but is put off by his “amour grondeur,” the opposite of a conventional lover’s discourse of praise 11 , her resistance to giving a yes or a no on the spot to Alceste and As I have written in a previous publication, in my opinion the unsigned and unaddressed love letter in Célimène’s hand that Arsinoé uses as evidence of Célimène’s infidelity is actually a draft of a letter Célimène is trying to write to Alceste himself out of frustration over the lack of effective communication Gendered Social and Psychological Truthtelling in Le Misanthrope PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 317 Oronte expresses not a hesitation to choose but a resistance to the binary vision of love—an oversimplification consonant with the sort of recognizable typing upon which comédie de mœurs is based—that the two men embody. This, to me, is the most profound truth about human psychology that the “comédie de caractère” component of Le Misanthrope has to offer. To turn now, in conclusion, to Tartuffe, how might the lessons learned in Le Misanthrope about the ways men and women express love and rejection help us to understand the enigmatic character of Elmire? Both Célimène and Elmire seem stymied by the men in their lives and resort to indirect communication. In Tartuffe this is particularly evident in the play’s most famous scene, in which Elmire invites Tartuffe to renew his attempts at seducing her, but with Orgon hiding under the table to witness incontrovertible evidence of his idol’s intentions. Tartuffe, suspicious at Elmire’s about-face in her attitude toward him, elicits from her a speech directed as much to her husband as to her would-be seducer: TARTUFFE: Ce langage à comprendre est assez difficile, Madame, et vous parliez tantôt d’un autre style. ELMIRE: Ah! si d’un tel refus vous êtes en courroux, Que le cœur d’une femme est mal connu de vous! Et que vous savez peu ce qu’il veut faire entendre Lorsque si faiblement on le voit se défendre! Toujours notre pudeur combat, dans ces moments Ce qu’on peut nous donner de tendres sentiments. Quelque raison qu’on trouve à l’amour qui nous dompte, On trouve à l’avouer, toujours un peu de honte; On s’en défend d’abord; mais de l’air qu’on s’y prend, On fait connaître assez que notre cœur se rend; Qu’à nos vœux par honneur notre bouche s’oppose, Et que de tels refus promettent toute chose. C’est vous faire sans doute un assez libre aveu, Et sur notre pudeur me ménager bien peu; Mais puisque la parole enfin en est lâchée, À retenir Damis, me serais-je attachée, Aurais-je, je vous prie, avec tant de douceur Écouté tout au long l’offre de votre cœur, between them. See my “Between Genders, Between Genres: Célimène’s Letter to Alceste in Molière’s Le Misanthrope,” Romanic Review 85: 4 (November 1994): 553- 72. If we accept this reading, the unremitting pressure Alceste puts on Célimène to express her feelings for him more clearly becomes particularly ironic. Richard E. Goodkin PFSCL XLVIII, 95 (2021) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2021-0022 318 Aurais-je pris la chose ainsi qu’on m’a vu faire, Si l’offre de ce cœur n’eût eu de quoi me plaire? (Tartuffe, 4: 5: 1409-1430) Is this not Elmire’s poignant message to her eavesdropping husband— and not to Tartuffe—that that the circumstances in which she was first approached by Tartuffe—that is, her husband’s own infatuation with the man and complete neglect of her—might have prodded her to listen to Tartuffe’s expression of desire “avec tant de douceur,” that while she had no intention of accepting Tartuffe’s offer of his heart, that offer had “de quoi me plaire? ” More obviously than Célimène, Elmire is a character whose subtle and understated depiction cries out for even speculative interpretation. Would Orgon’s wife consider actually having an affair with Tartuffe? Doubtful. Could she enjoy listening to him trying to seduce her when her own husband is more smitten with him than with her? Perhaps. Might she resort to communicating with her clueless spouse by using Tartuffe as a proxy for the feelings she can’t manage to get across to her man? In my opinion, yes. The provocative complexity of this communication of feelings, a communication that incorporates into its semantic circuit the very rival who is trying to woo Elmire away from her husband, is one of the more delightfully ambiguous and non-binary speech acts to be found in Molière’s theater. In the end, both Le Misanthrope and Le Tartuffe suggest that speaking one’s love as well as reacting to declarations of love are affected not only by social considerations like one’s état civil—in Elmire’s case, that of a married woman—but also by less tangible but no less important factors that are not immediately perceptible to the naked eye. That compelling examples of Molière’s comédie de caractère like Célimène and Elmire are present en filigrane and need to be ferreted out underscores the importance of subtle and penetrating interpretation, precisely what is blocked or undermined by the kind of tone-deaf ear produced by obsession, whether with a seductive poseur, as in the case of Orgon, or with a high-minded but depersonalizing transparency in all things, as in the case of Alceste.