![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
« Parce que vous êtes un grand Seigneur, vous vous croyez un grand génie !... Noblesse, fortune, un rang, des places : tout cela rend si fier ! Qu'avez-vous fait pour tant de biens ! Vous vous êtes donné la peine de naître, et rien de plus... »
The King's ban only added to the appeal of play for many, and Beaumarchais received several requests for private readings, and while he was willing to comply, he was also prudent enough to edit the text, transfer the setting to Spain, and submit it to the censor, though he was refused approval. Where did this text come from? The claim that he transferred the setting to Spain makes no sense, as obviously The Barber of Seville was already set in Spain. Given almost all the characters from Barber appear again, it's unlikely the setting was ever in another country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.93.72 ( talk) 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Well, I deleted the section anyway :/ I was reading the intro in my Penguin Classics edition and thought it all sounded familiar, then realized that 3-4 entire pages of the text from the book had been directly copied for the Wikipedia page by whoever put that there.-- Sobekneferu ( talk) 10:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what on Earth is meant by "Ulterior Stagings?" It seems to have been added by someone who doesn't speak very good English... I'll delete the section in a few days if no one can decipher it, since the only information it includes is evidently a Russian made-for-TV version.-- 76.18.93.72 ( talk) 11:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's what it looks like to me. I got my reading of "me fussé-je" from "Se suicider serait préférable à faire du théâtre « me fussé-je mis une pierre au cou »" [1]. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Was that you who redid the excerpts? They read a little awkwardly now, I think, even if they are perhaps done up more literally... Maybe since it's only excerpts we could pull it from perhaps Graham Anderson or David Coward's translations? Both were pretty good as I recall. -- Sobekneferu ( talk) 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that, according to the preface, the Mariage was written on request of
Louis François Joseph, Prince of Conti. Actually, the
preface to the play says "the late Prince de Conti" (feu M. le prince de Conti). As LFJ de Conti (1734-1818) was still alive in 1778, "the late Prince de Conti" must refer to the father,
Louis François, Prince of Conti, who died in 1776.
This is not unimportant, as it casts an interesting light on the source of inspiration of the play. Young Conti (styled Comte de la Marche during the life of his father) and old Conti did not get along. Old Conti was a political enemy of the king (Louis XV and XVI), whilst young Conti had sided with the king (L XV) during a conflict involving the Parliament. The old Conti said Je le savais bien mauvais fils, mauvais mari, mauvais ami; mais je ne le savais pas mauvais Français. and closed his door forever to his son.
The funny plot of the play (the adulterous Count making love to his own wife, disguised as the maid) is very likely derived from an anecdote about young Conti (and old Conti may have inspired Beaumarchais to include it in the play). In Paris galant au dix-huitième siècle; vie privée du prince de Conty, Louis-François de Bourbon (1717-1776) by Gaston Capon and Robert Yve-Plessis (1907, text
here) we read the anecdote:
La Marche avoit donné parole à une femme galante de se rendre chez elle dans la nuit. C'étoit l'épouse d'un de ses gentilshommes. On étoit convenu du fait, de l'heure. Tout étoit bien arrangé. La dame qui n'aimoit point La Marche usa d'un stratagème qui lui fut très avantageux et qui fit rire toute la Cour. Elle avoit reçu cinq cents louis pour arrhes. Elle en reçut autant de la Princesse qu'elle avertit de la proposition, de la convention même entre elle et le Prince. La Princesse, charmée d'une si belle occasion d'avoir les faveurs de son mari, ne manqua pas de la saisir. Elle alla se coucher dans le lit de la femme du gentilhomme, et y attendit complaisamment son mari qui ne manqua pas de venir sans lumières se mettre à côté de sa femme sans se douter de la ruse. La Princesse eut l'attention de ne point parler, de faire la dormeuse. Son mari, ainsi trompé, sacrifia aux plaisirs de l'amour et de l'hyménée.
Riyadi (
talk)
09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the article
Riyadi (
talk)
11:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Many articles just repeat earlier articles. So this article contains the inevitable It is considered an early indication of the French Revolution in its denouncement of the privileges of the nobility and play was at first banned [..] because of its satire of the aristocracy.
Is this true, and are there historians who have given thought to these statements? Even those who actually read the play can hardly find any true criticism that is specifically directed to aristocracy.
So this is a revolutionary play? There is almost no information in the Internet about the true/official reasons for the censorship. I read 'decency' somewhere, and Robert Darnton suggests it has to do with the sexual immorality of the play.
Riyadi (
talk)
22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
« Parce que vous êtes un grand Seigneur, vous vous croyez un grand génie !... Noblesse, fortune, un rang, des places : tout cela rend si fier ! Qu'avez-vous fait pour tant de biens ! Vous vous êtes donné la peine de naître, et rien de plus... »
The King's ban only added to the appeal of play for many, and Beaumarchais received several requests for private readings, and while he was willing to comply, he was also prudent enough to edit the text, transfer the setting to Spain, and submit it to the censor, though he was refused approval. Where did this text come from? The claim that he transferred the setting to Spain makes no sense, as obviously The Barber of Seville was already set in Spain. Given almost all the characters from Barber appear again, it's unlikely the setting was ever in another country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.93.72 ( talk) 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Well, I deleted the section anyway :/ I was reading the intro in my Penguin Classics edition and thought it all sounded familiar, then realized that 3-4 entire pages of the text from the book had been directly copied for the Wikipedia page by whoever put that there.-- Sobekneferu ( talk) 10:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know what on Earth is meant by "Ulterior Stagings?" It seems to have been added by someone who doesn't speak very good English... I'll delete the section in a few days if no one can decipher it, since the only information it includes is evidently a Russian made-for-TV version.-- 76.18.93.72 ( talk) 11:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's what it looks like to me. I got my reading of "me fussé-je" from "Se suicider serait préférable à faire du théâtre « me fussé-je mis une pierre au cou »" [1]. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Was that you who redid the excerpts? They read a little awkwardly now, I think, even if they are perhaps done up more literally... Maybe since it's only excerpts we could pull it from perhaps Graham Anderson or David Coward's translations? Both were pretty good as I recall. -- Sobekneferu ( talk) 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that, according to the preface, the Mariage was written on request of
Louis François Joseph, Prince of Conti. Actually, the
preface to the play says "the late Prince de Conti" (feu M. le prince de Conti). As LFJ de Conti (1734-1818) was still alive in 1778, "the late Prince de Conti" must refer to the father,
Louis François, Prince of Conti, who died in 1776.
This is not unimportant, as it casts an interesting light on the source of inspiration of the play. Young Conti (styled Comte de la Marche during the life of his father) and old Conti did not get along. Old Conti was a political enemy of the king (Louis XV and XVI), whilst young Conti had sided with the king (L XV) during a conflict involving the Parliament. The old Conti said Je le savais bien mauvais fils, mauvais mari, mauvais ami; mais je ne le savais pas mauvais Français. and closed his door forever to his son.
The funny plot of the play (the adulterous Count making love to his own wife, disguised as the maid) is very likely derived from an anecdote about young Conti (and old Conti may have inspired Beaumarchais to include it in the play). In Paris galant au dix-huitième siècle; vie privée du prince de Conty, Louis-François de Bourbon (1717-1776) by Gaston Capon and Robert Yve-Plessis (1907, text
here) we read the anecdote:
La Marche avoit donné parole à une femme galante de se rendre chez elle dans la nuit. C'étoit l'épouse d'un de ses gentilshommes. On étoit convenu du fait, de l'heure. Tout étoit bien arrangé. La dame qui n'aimoit point La Marche usa d'un stratagème qui lui fut très avantageux et qui fit rire toute la Cour. Elle avoit reçu cinq cents louis pour arrhes. Elle en reçut autant de la Princesse qu'elle avertit de la proposition, de la convention même entre elle et le Prince. La Princesse, charmée d'une si belle occasion d'avoir les faveurs de son mari, ne manqua pas de la saisir. Elle alla se coucher dans le lit de la femme du gentilhomme, et y attendit complaisamment son mari qui ne manqua pas de venir sans lumières se mettre à côté de sa femme sans se douter de la ruse. La Princesse eut l'attention de ne point parler, de faire la dormeuse. Son mari, ainsi trompé, sacrifia aux plaisirs de l'amour et de l'hyménée.
Riyadi (
talk)
09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the article
Riyadi (
talk)
11:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Many articles just repeat earlier articles. So this article contains the inevitable It is considered an early indication of the French Revolution in its denouncement of the privileges of the nobility and play was at first banned [..] because of its satire of the aristocracy.
Is this true, and are there historians who have given thought to these statements? Even those who actually read the play can hardly find any true criticism that is specifically directed to aristocracy.
So this is a revolutionary play? There is almost no information in the Internet about the true/official reasons for the censorship. I read 'decency' somewhere, and Robert Darnton suggests it has to do with the sexual immorality of the play.
Riyadi (
talk)
22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)