The Critique of The School for Wives - Molière

Summary

'La Critique de l'École des femmes' (The Critique of The School for Wives) is a one-act comedy by Molière, written and performed in 1663 as a response to the controversy surrounding his earlier play, 'L'École des femmes'. Instead of a traditional plot, the play presents a drawing-room discussion among a group of Parisian society members who have just seen 'L'École des femmes'. The characters represent different critical viewpoints: some praise the play for its wit and realism, others condemn it for its alleged impropriety and lack of adherence to classical rules, while still others offer superficial or irrelevant critiques. Molière uses this meta-theatrical device to defend his work, satirize his critics, and explain his dramatic intentions, particularly his aim to please an audience rather than satisfy pedantic rules. The play ultimately champions common sense and naturalism over artificiality and dogmatism in theatre.

Book Sections

Section 1

The play opens in Uranie's living room. Uranie and her sister Élise are discussing 'L'École des femmes' with their friend Dorante, a reasonable and witty gentleman. Uranie and Élise both express their enjoyment of Molière's play, finding it amusing and well-observed. Dorante heartily agrees, defending its originality and cleverness against potential criticisms. They are establishing a baseline of appreciation for the play.

Character	Characteristics	Motivations
Uranie	The hostess, intelligent, reasonable, a voice of common sense and moderation.	To entertain her guests, to engage in intellectual discussion, and to defend Molière's play against unfair criticism.
Élise	Uranie's sister, shares similar sensible views, though perhaps less outspoken.	To support her sister and Dorante's views, and to enjoy a good discussion.
Dorante	A cultivated gentleman, articulate, witty, well-versed in theatre, Molière's direct mouthpiece in the play.	To defend Molière's dramatic principles and the specific merits of 'L'École des femmes', and to satirize the different types of critics.

Section 2

Climène arrives, interrupting the pleasant discussion with her indignant criticisms of 'L'École des femmes'. She is appalled by what she perceives as the play's indecency and impropriety, finding it scandalous that such things are shown on stage. She represents the prude, the highly sensitive and overly moralistic segment of society that finds humor in anything potentially suggestive to be vulgar.

Section 3

Soon after Climène, Lysidas enters. He is a pedantic poet and critic who immediately launches into an academic critique of 'L'École des femmes'. His criticisms are entirely focused on formal rules: he complains about the play's supposed lack of decorum, its failure to adhere to the classical unities of time and place, and its departure from established poetic conventions. Lysidas represents the overly scholarly and dogmatic critics who prioritize rigid rules over artistic effect and audience enjoyment.

Section 4

The conversation continues to heat up as Uranie, Élise, and Dorante try to defend Molière's work against Climène's moral outrage and Lysidas's academic strictures. A Marquise then arrives, adding another layer to the discussion. Her critique is superficial; she claims to have enjoyed the play primarily because it made her laugh, but she is unable to articulate why or appreciate its deeper meanings, mostly repeating fashionable catchphrases. She represents the shallow, unthinking segment of the audience who follows trends.

Section 5

The debate intensifies, with Dorante skillfully parrying the attacks of Climène and Lysidas. He argues that the primary goal of comedy is to entertain and correct vice through laughter, and that rigid rules should not stifle genuine comedic invention. He challenges Lysidas's pedantry by pointing out the absurdity of judging a play solely by abstract rules rather than its effect on the audience. Climène remains fixated on perceived impropriety. During this heated argument, Galopin, a servant, briefly interjects, offering a simple, unpretentious perspective that 'L'École des femmes' was simply very funny and he enjoyed it, contrasting with the complex and often nonsensical arguments of the "critics."

Section 6

Uranie, acting as the mediator, attempts to bring some order to the chaotic discussion. She concludes by stating that Molière's goal was to paint human nature truthfully and to provoke laughter, and in doing so, he succeeded. She emphasizes that the true test of a play is its reception by a general audience, not the approval of a few pedantic scholars or overly sensitive prudes. The play ends with the group unable to reach a full consensus, but with Dorante and Uranie having effectively argued for Molière's artistic philosophy.

---

Literary Genre: Farce, Comedy of manners, Metatheatre, Satire.

Author Facts:

• Jean-Baptiste Poquelin (Molière): Born in Paris in 1622, he was a French playwright, actor, and director.
• He is considered one of the greatest masters of comedy in Western literature.
• Molière's plays often satirized the hypocrisy, affectation, and follies of his contemporary French society, from the bourgeois to the nobility.
• He founded and led his own theatre troupe, the Illustre Théâtre, which later became the King's Players (Troupe du Roi).
• His most famous works include 'Tartuffe', 'The Misanthrope', 'The Bourgeois Gentleman', 'The Imaginary Invalid', and 'The School for Wives'.
• He often performed the leading roles in his own plays.

Moral and Curiosities:

Moral/Lesson:
The primary moral of 'La Critique de l'École des femmes' is a defense of artistic freedom and common sense in theatre. It argues that:

1. The purpose of comedy is to entertain and to correct human follies through laughter, not to strictly adhere to arbitrary rules.
2. The ultimate judge of a play's success is the general audience, not a select group of pedantic critics or overly sensitive moralists.
3. Naturalism and realism on stage, reflecting human nature, are more valuable than artificiality or adherence to outdated conventions.
4. Hypocrisy and affectation (both moral and intellectual) are ripe for satire.

Curiosities:

• Meta-theatricality: This play is a prime example of metatheatre, where a play comments on another play (or itself). It's Molière directly responding to the real-life controversy surrounding 'L'École des femmes'.
• Direct Defense: Molière wrote 'La Critique' as a direct polemic, a theatrical debate designed to justify his dramatic choices and lampoon his detractors. He put the very words of his real-life critics into the mouths of his characters, often verbatim.
• Literary Battle: The success of 'L'École des femmes' had sparked a "querelle" (quarrel) among Parisian intellectuals. Molière followed 'La Critique' with another short play, 'L'Impromptu de Versailles', which further engaged in this literary battle, essentially showing the actors of his company rehearsing a response to more critics.
• Molière's Voice: The character of Dorante is widely understood to be Molière's own voice and artistic philosophy, articulating his views on playwriting and theatrical purpose.
• Enduring Relevance: The play's central debate about artistic merit, critical reception, and the role of the audience versus academic rules remains relevant in discussions about art and criticism today.