Apologie de "La Raison d'Etat", chère à Richelieu, qui doit animer les serviteur de la Couronne
On appelle raison d’État le principe au nom duquel un État, càd ses serviteurs, s'autorise à violer le droit au nom d'un critère supérieur.

Pièce cornélienne s'il en fut, corneillissime, qui nous laisse pantois d'admiration. Quoi ? Non contents d'avoir accepté de sacrifier à Rome leur vie et leurs amis les plus chers, Horace et ses deux frères refusent la perche qu'on leur tend. Non ! Même avec l'approbation de tous ! ils ne reculeront pas devant leur devoir : qu'est-ce que la vie de trois amis et la leur propre au regard de l'honneur d'avoir été choisis pour sauver la patrie ? Mais pour être un héros, on n'en est pas moins vulnérable. C'est le talon d'Horace. Dans un soudain accès de faiblesse humaine, vexé par les propos de sa soeur Camille, Horace lui plante son épée dans le corps... Avec cette mort, la vie reprend largement ses droits.

I found a small collection of old French plays at a used bookstore in town, and have now read one play by each of the “big three” of 17th century French theater (Racine, Molière and Corneille) in the past few months. Horace is the story of two families, the Horace family of Rome and the Curiace family of Albe. The oldest sons of each family are married to the daughters of the other family, with Horace married to Curiace’s sister Sabine, and Curiace engaged to Horace’s sister Camille. The ties between the families are strained by Rome’s ongoing war with Albe, although Curiace is still somehow able to hang around the house of Horace during the first few acts of the play despite the fact that his city is at war with Rome. The proximity of the two sides makes an all-out battle undesirable, because many Albans are married to Romans or have relatives living in Rome, and vice versa. Therefore, they decide to nominate one family from each side to fight to the death and decide the war for everyone else. Because Horace and his brothers are strong and virtuous, they are chosen to represent Rome. Curiace and his brothers are also of exemplary Alban stock, so they are chosen to represent Albe. Before the battle, the different affected parties (Horace, Sabine, Curiace, Camille and Horace’s father, old Horace) ruminate at great length about civic obligation and love, whether or not the men should fight, and how excited they should be about the showdown between families linked by intermarriage. They fight, one side wins, and then the victorious brother comes home and commits a surprising murder in defense of his city. The fifth and final act consists of the king’s judgment of his acts. Some think he should be executed on the very day that he won the war for his city, while others think he should be pardoned and that his act of murder was, if not desirable, at least justifiable in defense of his city.

This, like the other French plays I’ve read this year, is an old, yellowed “Nouveaux Classiques Larousse” edition. My used bookstore has a little stash of them, and I will continue to buy them for two or three bucks apiece because I enjoy the plays and I enjoy the supplemental information that these editions provide. The introduction to Horace helped me understand why the play was so damn patriotic: after receiving certain criticisms by the ruling establishment of his previous play, Le Cid, Corneille wanted to win back the favor of the French leadership. He dedicated the play to Cardinal Richelieu, who was apparently a powerful figure in French politics in 1640, and crafted a classically-oriented play that respected the unity of time and of space, although less so of action, with strong civic themes that illustrate the importance of loving one’s country. The play was pretty well-received, so I guess his strategy worked. I didn’t particularly enjoy the subject matter focusing on loyalty to one’s homeland, but I think part of that is that I live in a very different time than Corneille: the world is more complex, and many people (myself included) see civic duty and loyalty to one’s nation as a more complex issue. He did illustrate a range of reactions to the impending battle royale, with some characters blindly embracing their civic duty, while others thought about and struggled with the horrible task of fighting one’s in-laws to the death. I especially enjoyed one character’s reaction to the outcome, heaping scorn on her hometown due to the death of her lover, and pointing out that the power of her homeland has been won through the deaths of so many people, and created many enemies. I also liked the murderous hero’s final speech, as he tried to balance his heroic triumph with the burden of the horrible criminal act that he committed in its aftermath.

I also enjoyed a critique of the play by the author himself that was included with this edition. He was candid and was quick to point out what he felt prevented the play from being truly great: iffy unity of action, a drawn-out progression of climactic moments, and a rather flat fifth act consisting of judgments on heroism and civic duty, among other things. I too thought the play was good but not great, although reading it with all of the extra information provided in my edition made it an interesting and worthwhile read. ( )

opera in lingua originale del XVII secolo