Comments on: Neuilly Prat

by: Tim

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:13:31 +0000

Many thanks for that. Is French more precise than English? I honestly don’t know: if any reader has a point of view on that, I’d be interested. English, after all, has a much larger vocabulary, wouldn’t that suggest you can be more nuanced with it?

by: marie-france

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:27:36 +0000

Thank you for bothering to reply. I have always taught that Shakespeare is our contemporary. No great merit in that, everybody in my generation thought so. But I also contend that there would have been no French Revolution if Shakespeare had been French. It seems to me that educated British people cannot do without a world picture that is largely Shakespearean. In France, unless you belong to the rapidly vanishing tribes Denis Tillinac has met in la France Profonde (cf. Dictionnaire Amoureux de la France) you think all are equal, period. And when you have a dark and nasty soul, you cannot believe that some, your”betters” are different from you. Only hypocrisy saves the day. A monarch like Mitterrand (I can’t even spell the guy’s name properly, I believe) is a caricature of the French psyche. Now Shakespeare would have helped the French , I mean “la gauche” to see that the man was an unpalatable human being. There is something wrong with the imagination of the French. The language is too precise. When you have chosen to say one thing, there is no room for further qualifications. So there is some hope as long as you deal with NS in English. I certainly haven’t had time to read Jacobean drama. Anyway facts of the late 16th century were hotter than fiction. I recommend “Histoire et Dictionnaire des Guerres de Religion” (Bouquins). I want only to add one more thing. Why should aristocratic tragedies be the lot of our President? He comes from a “bon enfant” background with a hard-working mother. I bet he has chosen Guéant, Guaino and Martinon because they are nice chaps. I may be erring dramatically but I have some experience of when human beings go seriously wrong. So let us hope for the semi-best.

by: Tim

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:55:15 +0000

That’s a seriously interesting point. I am sure you are right that few French people know much about the late 16th Century (France) and even less about late 16th/early 17th century English drama. But I am after all writing a blog in English, and although I am deeply flattered that a few French people also read the blog (and I hope will continue to do so) I have to assume that my reader-ship is predominantly English, and that many of them (for the reasons I give below) would know exactly the plays I am referring to. I don’t mean that to sound snobbish (which it does) but (again for the reasons I give below) that is part of an educated English person’s culture (and again I make the assumption that only educated English people care enough about French politics to read this blog).
The seriously interesting point is your final statement that “the mores of the late 16th century are not relevant to account for what may be going on in France” (today). There I disagree. If you look at the enormous success over the past 40 years of a theatre company like the Royal Shakespeare Company, you see that it is due very largely to the ability of certain directors to take a late 16th/early 17th century text and make is highly relevant to people’s lives now - politically, socially and psychologically. It is one of the supreme greatnesses not only of Shakespeare but some of his contemporaries to write plays that really do make a sense of today’s world (as well as their own) and perhaps the supreme discovery of directors like Peter Hall in the 1960’s to realise that.

by: Tim

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:52:18 +0000

That’s a seriously interesting point. I am sure you are right that few French people know much about the late 16th Century (France) and even less about late 16th/early 17th century English drama. But I am after all writing a blog in English, and although I am deeply flattered that a few French people also read the blog (and I hope will continue to do so) I have to assume that my reader-ship is predominantly English, and that many of them (for the reasons I give below) would know exactly the plays I am referring to. I don’t mean that to sound snobbish (which it does) but (again for the reasons I give below) that is part of an educated English person’s culture (and again I make the assumption that only educated English people care enough about French politics to read this blog).
The seriously interesting point is your final statement that “the mores of the late 16th century are not relevant to account for what may be going on in France” (today). There I disagree. If you look at the enormous success over the past 40 years of a theatre company like the Royal Shakespeare Company, you see that it is due very largely to the ability of certain directors to take a late 16th/early 17th century text and make is highly relevant to the lives people are living now - politically, socially and psychologically. It is one of the supreme greatnesses not only of Shakespeare but some of his contemporaries to write plays that really do live now, and perhaps the supreme discovery of directors like Peter Hall in the 1960’s to realise that.

by: marie-france

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:59:27 +0000

I just happen to be a sixteenth-century scholar. I meant, and I am somewhat well-placed to say this, that “the French” know hardly anything about the late 16th century. I wonder if énarques even have a sufficient knowledge of the”Guerres de Religion”, such an important precedent for the French Revolution, which is the only reference that the French would begin to understand. Now the French Revolution is not a Jacobean drama. It is the people against the privileged classes. The mores of the aristocracy in late 16th century are not relevant to account for what may be going on in France. No Shakespeare and company.

by: Adrian Shaw

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:56:57 +0000

A great piece, the best yet. Keep them coming.

by: Tim

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:55:26 +0000

On your first comment I beg to differ: Jacobean drama is very much part of French culture (John Webster’s lost play “Guise” was about the French court and the Duc de Guise). The fact that you do not know this does not mean the thread is not there. As to hoping I am proved wrong - I wasn’t aware I was trying to prove anything, simply show (non-literal) parallels. The fact that I call it a tragedy means I hope sincerely that it will not happen - my deepest wish is that France does pull itself out of the downward spiral in which it finds itself (one cannot simply ignore the debt/public deficit/lack of competitivity in the labour market: they have to be addressed) and returns to a state of optimism based on real improvements. The longer people remain entangled with “grotesque” stories such as Neuilly, the Nouvel Obs SMS, SocGen et j’en passe, the longer this will take - and the longer it takes the deeper the mire.

by: marie-france

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:24:14 +0000

Jacobean drama is not part of our culture. Enarques are ,and they are far too civilized to have their blood shed; NS has ambitions for this country, the son does what his father suggests (he belongs to a clannish family which doesn’t work along lines which are familiar to us) Cecilia has very nearly broken this man. It is true that she is a huge threat. But all these people actually like each other, that’s my belief. That is why you will be proved wrong and if you are not i Will for ever keep my peace and be rather glad because all this forecasting of disasters I find utterly obnoxious